Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daredevil 2

Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Article had one citation in it which didn't support what it was purported to, but instead had a principal actor from the first film using big hypotheticals, over a year ago. All other news on project is similarly hypothetical and older than 2006; project has been explicitly denied by major company producers and other in-the-know folks. ThuranX 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Clearly a case of being high on WP:CRYSTAL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete crystal balling. Wryspy 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete What the other guys said. Harish101 08:41, 7 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 AfD closed by Anthony.bradbury, result entered by --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Duggan

Autobiographical vanity article. No third-party references. Only two relevant Google hits, both on pages of sites run by his employers. Not notable by any Wikipedian measure. Realkyhick 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETE No notability asserted. Not verifiable. Not one single solitary reliable source. All original research from the subject of the article. Blatant conflict of interest. Former General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Brad Patrick wrote a very apt article/announcement commonly called "shoot on sight" in September, 2006 which I totally agree with. Here's a copy: [1]. It said that "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive ~~vanity~~ non-notable personal profile articles that threaten WP's credibility. This is one such article. Let's be draconic here. OfficeGirl 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Believe me, I tried. Someone came along and declined the speedy because they said notability was asserted. Apparently "assertion" is defined pretty loosely these days to mean "because the author says so." So we have to drag a day-old article into AfD, and then we complain about how overloaded the AfD process is. I'd better get off my soapbox now. Realkyhick 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly saying that his work has attracted attention and that his photographs have been published in magazines in his field are assertions of notability. This isn't even slightly A7-eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: Doesn't the fact that it is the subject himself making these "assertions" have any bearing? Are you saying that I could create an article about myself, make all sorts of assertions about my notability that are outright lies, and it isn't speedy-worthy? Realkyhick 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Yes, absolutely. This is why articles on people that are clearly not notable, or even those that are pretty obviously hoaxes are not speedy deleted (as long as there is an assertion of notability) see here. The speedy criteria are actually very narrow in this regard, and this is why WP:PROD can be quite important as a mechanism to avoid lots of AFDs. Making sure that there is proper review of any potentially valuable article is considered more important than minimising discussions, so just because these articles lead to a lot of PRODs and/or AFDs doesn't mean that they will be speedied - as we get more contributors we just need more reviewers (or change the process, of course). Cheers TigerShark 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. And as much as this case probably warrants it, let's avoid mentioning ~~vanity~~ in AfD's. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO requirements and presumably self-written. Duggan may well be on his way to notability by Wikipedia standards, but he is not there yet. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Dhartung. Not quite yet notable, but may be there some day. Bearian 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Bearian, Corpx Accounting4Taste 22:00, 8 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSU Student Government Spring Election, 2007

A brief mention in the LSU article might be meaningful, but an article about student politics would not be. Consider the precedent. An article about every school's elections every year that they're held, since student elections were held? How many thousands of articles would that be? The LSU Student Government itself is barely notable enough for a mention in the school's article. Corvus cornix 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongest delete possible. I get chills thinking about the prospect that someone out there is actually contemplating articles for each year of LSU student government elections. Not notable by any means. I doubt that the campus newspaper went into this depth, and for good reason. Realkyhick 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I cast a vote of no confidence per WP:N. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Like the LSU Student Senate, you're not going to find any coverage of this election outside of LSU-affiliated sources, much less in reliable ones. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete universitycruft. --Fire Star 火星 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as lacking coverage from independent sources Corpx 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Strong delete. In addition to all of the problems cited by the nom and all the previous commenters, the article links various student government members, named and unnamed, with three different "-gate scandals", without sourcing, thus raising concerns under WP:BLP. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the article creator was apparently a campaign manager for one of the candidates in this election, thus making the article a conflict of interest as well. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, it appears that violation of WP:BLP is not by itself a criterion for speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Why should such article exist on Wikipedia? It is totally non-notable election! RS1900 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Definitely a non-notable election. Keb25 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. It is a NN local election. If there was real controversy, say indictments, then I would have an article on it. Bearian 17:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete No notability. The user who created the page should be told about Wikipedia guidelines. You've nominated both his articles for deletion, so you do the honors. - Cyborg Ninja 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks. :) Well, I did. I hope I was explanatory enough. Corvus cornix 19:04, 5 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 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tripoli (film)

Currently fails notability for future films, and according to Premiere magazine, is one of 20 Movies Not Coming to a Theater Near You. Girolamo Savonarola 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL. Even IMDb, which I do not suggest relying upon, identifies the film's status as "Unknown". No prejudice against recreation per WP:NF if this project ever reaches the actual production stage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources that the project is currently active, let alone anywhere near actual production. Thomjakobsen 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:CBALL. RS1900 10:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 11:02, 5 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 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turn (professional wrestling)

This page is mostly crufty lists and OR research. It already has a few sentences covering the meaning at the List of professional wrestling slang. Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that we delete every mention of the word from Wikipedia, I'm just saying that we could possible expand on its entry in the list, and that would be sufficient. Moreover, the word/concept of turn is not notable enough in itself to have an entry. After (if) it is deleted, I suggest adding a redirect to the list entry. Nikki311 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Nikki311 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It seems to list just about every time a "turn" has ever happened. Presumably the articles on the wrestlers involved will mention these incidents, so this is massively redundant, unsourced, OR. The list definition should be expanded and a couple of notable examples kept, but who would ever read through all of that, or need more than an example or two before they got the point? Would an article on the concept of a player transfer in the NFL give descriptions of hundreds of actual transfers? Thomjakobsen 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete It seems like some people are trying to list every turn (and type) ever in unnecessary detail. Deciding what goes and what stays is inherently a POV/OR kind of issue. Anyway, only a few turns are really notable (had large effect on the business). These could easily be listed with the definition and the page made into a redirect as per Nikki311. DrWarpMind 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per being original reseach + lack of notability Corpx 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:OR. RS1900 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete then redirect page to definition on the list of wrestling slang for a definition without the crufty additions. MPJ-DK 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Davnel03 14:21, 5 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 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSU Student Senate

The template being used is for the State Senate, not the LSU Student Senate, but the article looks as if it's potentially going to be a list of people, none of whom is notable enough to deserve an article, and therefore a list of non-notable people doesn't make them any more notable. Corvus cornix 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The page was created by LSU's Solicitor General for the Student Government. Though for all we know, the page might soon be edited to be about the history of the LSU Student Government. - Cyborg Ninja 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No matter who creates it, a list of the members of the LUS Student Senate is by default nothing but cruft. Corvus cornix 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Um, I was supporting your argument with the evidence that it was created by a biased individual. However, like I said, there's no telling what the main purpose of the article is supposed to be. You're assuming it's just going to be a list of the people who currently serve, when in fact for all we know it could be about the history of the organization. - Cyborg Ninja 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google up "LSU Student Senate" (and filtering out the sites for the university paper and the university itself) and you find only trivial mentions of this student body, none in reliable sources; not enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Hold That Tiger indeed. Not notable. I doubt that the entire student government is even notable enough for its own article. (What the heck does a solicitor general do in student gov, anyway? Argue cases before the Board of Regents or something?) Realkyhick 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete *boggles* How does this even approach WP:N? --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RS1900 10:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. I could see an article being written about the student government of LSU being notable, but this does not assert it. Precedents per WP:ORG have included the student governments at New York University and St. Andrews in Scotland. Bearian 17:34, 5 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 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gia Lashay

Non-notable. Epbr123 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Carlosguitar 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per above. Nothing whatsoever to make her any more notable than other nude models. Thomjakobsen 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Crap article! RS1900 10:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:48, 8 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 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Cold Case (film)

Currently fails notability for future films, and according to Premiere magazine, is one of 20 Movies Not Coming to a Theater Near You. Girolamo Savonarola 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources that the project is still active, let alone that it's started shooting, so it shouldn't have its own article. Thomjakobsen 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL. The claim of a release date is false, because IMDb always estimates a release year for an announced film. Additionally, films who have pages on IMDb are not guaranteed to be produced -- the film industry has a long history of films halting before production, hence the guideline to create film articles when there is actual production taking place. No prejudice against recreation if the film is ever actively produced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails notability for films. The history seems to be notable. [2] Carlosguitar 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a stub article at A Cold Case. Might need some more template tagging, though. Anyone? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Carlosguitar 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So tagged! SkierRMH 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Additionally, filmographies (IMDB & AMG) of Hanks and Romanek do not list this film either. SkierRMH 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! RS1900 10:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Since Premiere made mention of this project, I went ahead and created a "Film adaptation" section briefly mentioning the attempt. I still support the deletion of the article, though -- typing "A Cold Case (film)" is not the norm, and I've already fixed the sole couple of needless page links to A Cold Case (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:06, 6 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. --Core desat 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of GUI testing tools

Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, this is just a collection of external links Hu12 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This page was orignially connected to the GUI software testing page, but was isolated to its own page. The contents of the page are still useful, since they give a basic description of different tools used for GUI software testing. Perhaps it needs to be re-attached to the original? I'd hate to lose this list of tools. --Jruuska 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP is not a repository of links for you to use. If you need to do this, do a google search or something. Not encyclopedic. i ^said 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per not a directory of software that serves a purpose Corpx 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Crap list! This list should be deleted. RS1900 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the above statements, ironically I arrived at this page from a Google search. When I saw the results were from Wikipedia I was really interested and came to the page and learned about what was available. If there was more content and history behind each of the links, then this page might be better suited for Wikipedia, but I would not label this page as spam or a crap list. I think Jruuska's comment above about re-attaching it is the most constructive. — 156.80.172.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:46, 5 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 assertion of notability. Grand master ka 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onivox

notability Gfzh 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete It's still in Portugese! I, being American certainly have never heard of it, and can't even determine what it says! --Yamakiri 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It appears to be an article about a Brazilian band which performs Christian rock music and doesn't make any obvious claim to satisfying WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, seems that they'd fail WP:MUSIC even if translated into English. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:42, 5 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. --Core desat 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Jay

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sara Jay

Articles for deletion/Sara Jay (2nd nomination)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Does meet WP:PORNBIO. Your explanations for why it doesn't pass need to be more explicit if you're going to keep proposing these mass deletions. Xihr 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nah. Epbr123 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Passed WP:PORNBIO per first AfD. Nominator gives no assertion as to why subject wouldn't pass it now. And, per above response, doesn't want to. Smashville 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Finally a comment I can argue against. If you had read WP:PORNBIO, you would have noticed that criteria 7 no longer exists. Epbr123 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - In that case, Delete. Smashville 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of any notabiity, completely unsourced oringinal research. If sourced, a new version can easily be created, but this version should be deleted. I don't know how this garbage ever survived an afd before.--Sefringle^Talk 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not even claim notability by any WP:PORNBIO criteria and it cites no sources. Can't find mention from a reliable third party. • Gene93k 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. RS1900 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable bio. Keb25 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. The Rypcord. 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grand master ka 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voodoo Zombies

notability Gfzh 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The top half looks like a direct translation of this (or vice versa) http://www.wreckingpit.com/psycho/bands/voodoozombie.php3 Kappa 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn't appear to be notable, but there are some parts that look like assertions of notability, so I wouldn't really want to speedy it. Would a direct translation of the webpage count as a copyvio? Since no attribution is given, I imagine it would. --Miskwito 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes direct translations are derivative works but I can't be sure which way it was translated. Kappa 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is this a joke? It's a Spanish article, and it appears poorly writen, with very little content. --Yamakiri 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not a single album. No notability. Should have been speedied. -Yupik 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. RS1900 10:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Chilean Psychobilly band who've recorded 4 tracks (doesn't say they've released them). I don't think they meet notability. --Folantin 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Violates so many rules -- it's a Spanish article in en. wikipedia, they are NN, there are no RS, I could go on. ¡Basta ya! Bearian 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete from every direction. Wryspy 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hardly any notability, not worth translating. Also bad Hallowe'en costumes.--Hús ö nd 02:55, 7 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. --Core desat 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfs Blood

Disputed prod. Organization is a 'secret society' at UCSB. As such, WP:V is a problem (to say nothing of the org being non-notable). Apparently, the references listed don't discuss the society (as mentioned on the article's talk page). Bfigura ^(talk) 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nothing notable about frat boys acting goofy. MarkBul 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no Google hits for this "secret" society. Corvus cornix 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can't find anything about it either. If the society exists, then it is evidently so successful at being secretive that it is completely non-notable. Jakew 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wolf's blood? More like horse poop. Bollocks. Realkyhick 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I go to UCSB and the group does exist - I rejected their tapp in 2004. They also take out an ad in the school paper and publish their members name in the school paper at graduation. I don't know how notable the group is or if the article is worthy for Wikipedia but they do have members at ucsb. 23:23 4 September 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
Delete Even if the org exist, it is non-notable. This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete The organization is no less notable then the Order of Gimghoulor or the Order of the Golden Bear. The group is the first collegiate secret society in California and is part of the culture of 22,000 UCSB students. I believe the group is notable. 8:32, 5 September 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
- If you believe in its notability, why did you say delete? However, it's not the notability that's in question, it's the existence. verifiability is one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia, and if we can't find that this supposed secret society exists, we can't have an article on it. Corvus cornix 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree verifiability is difficult and perhaps it should be deleted for that reason yet the organization is notable and does exist, otherwise who is publishing the roster every year in the daily nexus. 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
Delete there does not appear to be enough info available from which to write an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Does the organization exist - yes. Is it notable - yes (at least to a portion of the population, including 100,000 UC students). Is information concerning the group verifiable - a large portion is NOT verifiable. Perhaps it would be more judicious rather then deleting the article in totality to explicitly describe within the article the inherent conspiratorial nature of all secret collegiate organizations. Conspiratorial or clandestine related articles are not normally deleted but are recategorized or bare some explicit notation within Wikipedia 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
- Please provide evidence that "[c]onspiratorial or clandestine related articles are not normally deleted but are recategorized or bare some explicit notation within Wikipedia". Point to one example. And then explain how that jibes with the verifiability policy. Corvus cornix 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The most obvious and relevant example can be found on the article Order of the Golden Bear. The Golden Bear article and Wolfs Blood article conforms to the verifiability policy: “Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability; (the context of secret collegiate organizations has to be established)
   * it is not contentious; (the Orders existence is not contentious, at least not to 20,000 UCSB students)
   * it is not unduly self-serving; (It is a secret society with no members names published on Wikipedia, or on any other online sources – implying that members are not seeking notoriety or any self-serving goal.)
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (All claims are directly related to the subject within the article)
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

The Wolfs Blood article is no less contentious, verifiable, or notable then the Order of the Golden Bear article – as such I suggest that it should not be deleted in totality but bare some notation within the article explaining the inherent secret nature of collegiate secret societies. Subsequently, it may be prudent to establish specific guidelines for fraternal organizations and secret societies, as there are hundreds of articles concerning such topics within Wikipedia. --68.6.103.87 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Tye Reed

I put the request for sources on the Order of the Golden Bear article, and will wait for a period of time before nominating it for deletion if the sources are not given. That's a civil way of doing things, as was done with the Wolfs Blood article. There are no reliable sources, it gets deleted. Pure and simple. Find some sources and quit trying to lawyer here on the AfD, and things will be fine. If you can't find reliable sources, the article will get deleted. There is no choice in the matter. Corvus cornix 20:16, 5 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 per WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. --Boricu æ ddie 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Tang

Barley any google hits, doesn't appear to be notable. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Per nom. Tiptoety 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have tagged page for CSD. Tiptoety 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Article has been deleted per CSD. Tiptoety 23:04, 4 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. Picaroon (t) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marc mehlman

Hoax. No sources and I can't find any reliable links for this supposed rich person. Corvus cornix 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete this hoax per nom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Might be a hoax, but definitely appears to be unverifiable. Jakew 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonexistent or at least false info.--JForget 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS. OfficeGirl 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Yamakiri 23:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --No context-relevant Ghits for a Marc Mehlman. But if it isn't a hoax, well at least deleting the article will help him not to "attract the unwanted attention he has so carefully managed to avoid". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR, WP:HOAX and WP:V. Carlosguitar 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. That secrecy thing he has going? It's working a bit too well. WP:BOLLOCKS. Realkyhick 00:48, 5 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. --Core desat 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At the Throne of Judgment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/At the Throne of Judgment

Articles for deletion/At the Throne of Judgment (2nd nomination)

This has been previously put up for afd and deleted. This one still seems to lack criteria needed by WP:Notability (music). -WarthogDemon 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable and even a few neutrality problems. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also: They don't have a real website, just a MySpace. That tells me that they're even less notable. Most notable bands do have a MySpace, but also a real website. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, re-posting of an article that was deleted via a previous AfD. If the author wanted to resuscitate this article, it should have been taken to deletion review. Them's the rules. But let's ignore the first AfD for a moment and address the article as it stands now: Non-notable band, no valid references (see WP:YMINAR). Realkyhick 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Per Realkyhick. On its own merits, a google search does show this is at least a slightly notable band, but not enough coverage for WP notability. i ^said 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep although they were at first a non notable band, they have recently signed to a new label and have released a full-length album. It should be noted that the label is not known for deathcore bands, so either they are taking a long shot, or are ready to invest in a new genre, and will increase their awareness (this is speculative). Jlricherson 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: a single album is insufficient to meet the notability guideline at WP:BAND. Their new label (and album) may eventually lead to notability, but does not provide it. With no references, no reliable sources, there's nothing here to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which is non-negotiable. But even if it were verifiable, it would still fall short of our notability guidelines. Also should have gone to deletion review before being recreated, but that wouldn't be a major problem if they were notable and the article demonstrated it. But they're not and it doesn't. Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW and CSD A7 and salt, as this article has already been created and deleted twice. Daniel Case 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myles Dyer

Non-notable "Youtube celebrity". No references to substantiate the claim of notability. Zero hits at news.google.com, only 169 total hits for this supposed "celebrity". Apparently he's encouraging "fans" to write about him on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. He might not get that many hits at news.google.com or the sites you mentioned, but he's well known in the YouTube community. Ask anyone. He's especially known in the British youtube comunnity... he's on top when it comes to british vloggers especially. He also got featured recently. He met a lot of youtubers, including the YouTube living legend Geriatrics1927 (don't know the year for sure), charlieissocoollike and renetto. He went to the US this summer, and stayed with YouTubers mostly, for example Ian Crossland. He's a big time YouTuber. Anyhow, anyone who's involved in the community has at least heard of him, and many know at least a couple of his video's.

As for his latest video encouraging people to write on the wikipedia article, isn't wikipedia a encyclopedia where everyone can help write? I think he wanted to make his viewers aware of the wikipedia article, and encourage people to get involved with wikipedia! Isn't that a good thing?

Apart from YouTube, he's a stickam entertainer (the webite stickam.com). He does live shows, and his room is always full. He has been on the front page of Stickam.com on more than one occasion (closer to 10 actually).

He is a real internet celebrity and I am surprised people doubt if he's wikipedia-worthy.

(PS, My english might not be perfect, I'm from abroad.)

Please read WP:BIO and point to the sections of the guideline which he meets. Corvus cornix 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete under CSD A7. There are a number of worthwhile "Youtube celebrities", and this is not one of them. Burntsauce 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce, are you a YouTube User, and if you are, are you following the YouTube (british) community? And what about Stickam? He also has a radio show, although that's not internet, he is known.

I'm sorry if I offend you in any way, I'm not trying to. English is a bit hard for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousUser90 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleteThere used to be a very apt article called "shoot on sight" which I can't find now, but I totally agree with. It was by former General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Brad Patrick. It said that "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive ~~vanity~~ non-notable personal profile articles that threaten WP's credibility. This is one such article. Let's be draconic here. OfficeGirl 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Found another copy here: [3]. OfficeGirl 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Yes, let's be draconian. Not notable. Realkyhick 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Unfortunately, "big time YouTuber" is not one of the WP:BIO criteria. As for the YouTube video urging folks to come here, that's a clear violation of WP:MEAT and WP:COI. Caknuck 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete And watch the List of YouTube Celebrities page like hawks. i ^said 01:23, 5 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. --Core desat 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Karabec

Totally unsourced article about a smalltown politician with no apparent assertion of notability except his local politics, and being a local mayor and councilman are insufficient for notability Nyttend 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We don't even know what state Twinsburg is in! Sources? Where would one get reliable sources for this? Not notable. Sheesh. Realkyhick 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I don't know if there are any other Twinsburgs in the USA — this is Ohio, a city of nearly twenty thousand people. I suppose we could check the city website, but that's all I can imagine, unless he's been quoted in the Akron paper. Nyttend 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment According to Google news, he has been covered, to a fair degree, in the Akron Beacon Journal. Not sure if any of the articles would denote notability, or if it's enough. My gut says delete.Sethacus 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per extreme narrow scope of notability Corpx 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. RS1900 10:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as 12-year mayor of Twinsburg, Ohio, a small but notable city. Bearian 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My father was once a member of the village council of Belle Center, Ohio, a small but notable village. Does that mean that he, too, is deserving of an article? Nyttend 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Twinsburg, population 17,000. This isn't enough for a mayor to be notable--its a small suburb. The article asserts nothing specifically notable at all--nothing of even local municipal interest. And there are no references. I can't find a single thing in Google News using the search [4]. Google itself has 26 ghits total. If even the local m[paper can find only a trivial number of quotes over 12 years, he's not notable. (But fwiw, Belle Center is only 5% that size, and council member is less notable than mayor).DGG (talk) 02:04, 7 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 close as delete - this is an obvious delete, probably justifiable under A7 if not G1, though the speedy deletion criteria are iffy for this. I'd also like to point out the snowball clause - if anyone comes to me concerned that the article should not have, ultimately, been deleted, I'll undelete and relist. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacon shmellows

Definitely not notable. Slightly advertising as well. Captain panda 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. shoy 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense, even before you get to non-notable! Bencherlite ^Talk 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's not patent nonsense - I can make sense of it (it even seems quite tasty), but it is WP:MADEUP (even if not in school). — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete but not speedy, as WP:MADEUP is a (small) step up from WP:NONSENSE. Iain99 22:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G1 - so tagged it in consequence.--JForget 23:23, 4 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 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Eagle Hill

Notability not asserted. Prod (by another editor) removed by IP during course of heavy vandalism without comment. Once the vandalism and unencyclopaedic information was removed [5], there was nothing left. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, perhaps we see a little assertion of notability in competing with Camp Scatico, a place that has supposedly hosted MTV and various famous people, but it definitely isn't enough. Nyttend 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. i ^said 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. RS1900 10:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
LEAVE ALONE, rjg7872 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjg7872 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 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 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rakoth (band)

non notable band, has been tagged requesting expansion to provide notability since January 2007, and that's not been provided — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete We don't need an article about every band that barely anyone's heard of. --Yamakiri 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)This account was created 4 September 2007. note by administrator Hu12 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability. MarkBul 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, no sources. Realkyhick 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. RS1900 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 11:01, 5 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 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PH10

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PH10

Articles for deletion/PH10 (2nd nomination)

Non notable band, no references — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The previous AfD resulted in Delete, but I didn't speedy for recreation of deleted material because (a) it's been around in the current incarnation since Jan 2007, and (b) it was {{prod}}ed and had the prod removed, so I thought it best to bring it here. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete There's a claim of an international tour, but no supporting evidence. MarkBul 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete One article in the Denver Post. Nothing to suggest this passes WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable band. RS1900 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 11:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Orlando Yaccarino

Non-notable author. The first paragraph is a paraphrase from the author's own blurb at his website at http://www.marchesacasati.com/authorsbios.html. The supposedly best-selling book is number 1,394,648 in Books on amazon.com. Corvus cornix 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: the article makes no attempt, even, to establish any notability for the author. —Ian Spackman 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Are any of these claims verifiable? Corpx 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this vanity spam, created by an editor with a username matching the organization started by the subject, per WP:N and WP:SPAM. -- But|seriously|folks 08:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable author. This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ^♫ 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Miles & Running

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/100 Miles & Running

Non-notable mixtape. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources (only source is a file sharing site) and can never expand beyond a track list. Spellcast 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Don't even bother merging this. If he releases an actual album, then do it. i ^said 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Spellcast. Accounting4Taste 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. - Dean Wormer 04:18, 9 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. --Core desat 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Randall

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mike Randall

Articles for deletion/Mike Randall (2nd nomination)

No improvement since last nomination, no sources, but some potential to merge with the university he is the president of. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No doubt he's a nice, pious and helpful guy but no apparent notability to speak of. --WebHamster 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
edit-conflict Delete - I can find minimal indications of notability; a search for his name and the school he presides over turned up very little. The article has been sitting without references for quite some time, as mentioned, and it doesn't really make a good case for notability. If someone turns up sources to change my mind, I'll be glad to change my opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep President of a university is notable. His school is the Baptist Bible College (Springfield, Missouri), a fully accredited school which boasts Jerry Falwell as alumnus. He edits two denominational magazines. I think that this justifies an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Comment Some of us might not feel that's anything to boast about. ;) - Nascentatheist 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, despite previous unsigned comment, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says nothing about the president of a university being notable. I could easily write up an article on my college's president, but that wouldn't be any different. The article provides no sources of anything and no claims that he fulfills any of the academic notability provisions. Nyttend 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability. If the position of president at a university is important enough, it is safe to say that reliable sources would've provided coverage Corpx 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), though I was a bit torn on this one. There seem to be some fairly loose interpretations of "notable" at Wikipedia and at an encyclopedia at which every major league baseball player is notable presumably by membership in that fraternity, regardless of apparent contribution, and every university is notable whether it is a real university or not (and even whether it actually exists or not), it seems to me that a president of a university, even a small university (that happens to also hold regional accreditation) should be notable by the holding of that position. I'm sure there are fewer presidents of accredited universities than there are major league baseball players, but I've never done the math. ;) However, the standard does include several reasonable bullets and Randall doesn't seem to meet them. No notability established by those standards, no academic publication record of any merit, let alone that expected of academics, and no independent, verifiable sources to support notability - Nascentatheist 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 13:03, 7 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. CitiCat ^♫ 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Ness

Simply enough, this was my reason for putting a prod tag on the article: "Having one WSOP money finish and a couple of Game Show Network appearances does not make one notable; there are no articles from reliable sources asserting Ness's importance". User: 2005 removed it, noting in his edit summary: "rv nonsense tag; there are literally hundreds". Of course, aside from being rude, 2005 did not add any reliable sources to the article. Discuss. Kicking222 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If there are hundreds (of what isn't too clear) then they don't seem to have made an appearance in the article. On the face of it the article doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO. So may I make a suggestion to the author? Ante up or leave the game. Thank you, I'm here all this week, please try the veal. --WebHamster 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. If we ever develop a notability guideline for professional or amateur poker players - and this may yet happen given the sport's popularity - I am sure she would fall below it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep There are definitely references out there. I dug up a couple and added them to the article. She's appears to be marginally notable for being an attractive, marketable woman in a predominatly male dominated game. I'd say she's a borderline case. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Viewing her poker accomplishments alone she clearly doesn't meet the notability guideline, yet due to the significant media coverage she received at the 2004 World Series of Poker, lead her to be featured in the multi platform video game World Championship Poker 2 as well as being invited on the nationally aired television program Poker Royale: Battle of the Ages & Poker Royale: Young Bloods. she is also the Photo Editor at Maxim [6] the magazine also list her 35th in their 100 Greatest Moments ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple television appearances, part of the Maxim 100, vast amounts of mentions on notable websites, and not even the slightest justification for nomination aside from an uniformed POV. Seriously, making frivilous nominations like this is a rude waste of every one's time. Do some reasearch before nominating articles that you have no knowledge about. At the very least type the name in a search engine for pete's sake. Since she plainly meets criteria of WP:N and WP:BIO a withdrawal of the nom and speedy close are in order. 2005 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - perhaps if you'd done more than just remove the prod and left a cryptic comment then this may not have been necessary. Just a thought. --WebHamster 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- There was nothing cryptic about it, unlike your comment above. In the future, before commenting on AFDs you should also do at least 15 seconds of research. A simple google search reveals by any measure a huge number of non trivial mentions of her on a wide variety of websites. The rest of us have a right to expect you and the nominator to at least have done a search before creating work for other editors. 2005 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I haven't made any edits or nominations I haven't made any work for any editors other than for myself taking to time to comment here. Now as I said, if you'd done something useful and used your knowledge to add information to the article instead of just removing the prod with virtually no explanation. Now that has created work for others. Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net. You DID know something and chose not to do anything about it. looks like we have a case of pot, kettle, black. YMMV.--WebHamster 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net." If true, then please stop making comments now. The idea that all stub articles should be deleted simply because no one has fleshed them out is terrible. Please in the future make comments on the notability and bio criteria of the subjects, not the text that may only briefly cover the subject now. 2005 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And you're giving me these instructions under what authority? It strikes me that you are doing your level best to distract from your omission to do anything that could have prevented the "rude waste of time" allegation you levelled at the nominator and myself. The fact remains you had info to hand and did nothing with it. I didn't have the info to hand and didn't go looking for it. I avert that your 'crime' is the more serious of the two. --WebHamster 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill out. Discuss the article, not each other. -Chunky Rice 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above exchange highlights one problem I'm seeing repeatedly on AfD discussions: as soon as an article is nominated for deletion, editors start to come out of the woodwork with "Keep" !votes and sources supporting notability that, arguably, should have been in the article. Leaving aside the question of who should be criticised for what, I do think there are still important issues to be addressed here. Why is this information not in the article? To put it another way, if editors cannot be found who are willing to provide verification in the article of the subject's notability, isn't deletion the best thing for that article? Or is the process acceptable in its current form? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take up the deletion of all stub articles in the appropriate place, which most certainly is not here. 2005 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Sirex. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Sirex and 2005. It seems like this nomination was retaliatory because the nominator didn't like an edit note someone else made. Not a good reason to delete an article. Rray 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's quite a mean thing to say. I originally prodded the article, meaning I thought it warranted deletion. Another user removed the prod tag. By WP guidelines, the next step is to send the article to AfD. In repeating what I put in the prod tag and what the tag's remover wrote, I was only highlighting my issues with the article without having to type it all out again. I followed the process to the letter, so I'm not sure that you can claim my reason for wanting to delete the article is payback, as opposed to, say, WP:BIO and WP:RS. -- Kicking222 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry. I wasn't being mean, and I didn't say that this was *definitely* your motivation. (Notice the use of the word "seems" in my original comment.) Since you felt the need to point out someone else's perceived rudeness in your nomination, it makes it seem like it was retaliatory. Had you left that point out, it wouldn't have seemed that way. At any rate, sorry you thought I was being mean. I wasn't. Rray 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Accepted. I'll admit that I should've kept the nomination to the facts instead of throwing some of that... I can't think of the right word, so I'll use "emotion"... into it. But I do want to make it known that, in nomming the article, it was purely because I felt that the article required deletion, but another user disagree, so I had to bring it here. -- Kicking222 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment someone above mentioned developing a threshold for inclusion of poker players. IMHO we have a number of articles on flash-in-the-pan players who don't really merit wiki articles. A guideline similar to WP:PORNBIO would be ideal. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. Notability is not subjective, and this person is not notable. Not verifiable due to lack of sources, and there isn't enough content to warrent keeping.--Sefringle^Talk 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you come up with that? This is in no way original research. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources are from the poker website she plays for. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth you talking about about? Obviously original research is no part of this. My goodness. 2005 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep but begin establishing notability guidelines, possibly discuss on WP:POKER ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Establishing notability guidelines for poker players is a good idea. Rray 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we need anything than what's already present in WP:N and WP:BIO. I think that poker players would fall either under entertainers or sports or some combination thereof in the WP:BIO criteria. -Chunky Rice 22:01, 5 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lodging

This at best is a dicdef, at medium is a list of wikilinks, and at worst a spam magnet. SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki - It's an expression of note in the UK, especially amongst the many anecdotes of variety performers over the years. It has a place, just maybe not in the encyclopaedia section. It's close though as the article could be filled out I suppose. --WebHamster 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This is the central place for general info about lodging. It is clearly not a dicdef, as that would only explain what the word means. It is also a useful source and target of links for convenient navigation between lodging-related pages. The page was split off from sleep at some people's request. Alternatively we could create Category:Lodging.--Patrick 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete original research.--Sefringle^Talk 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for disambiguation purposes per Patrick. Crypticfirefly 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:DICDEF and OR. The only thing that can be sourced here is the definition of lodging...and for that go back to the beginning. i ^said 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This page has enough mainspace incoming links. Can be expanded too to get away from the current dictdef-ness. If not, this can still be turned into a disambiguation page. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable term and as a disambiguation page per Patrick et al. Bearian 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced and therefore just essay-like original research. This should be a category (populated by articles such as Hotel, Motel, Hostel, Dormitory, etc.), not an article. --MCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCB (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete dicdef, definition can be thrown on the top of the category page. Nuke it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Some participants noted the need to improve, and possibly move (rename) the article. --MCB 06:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LAPCAT

Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real, no refs other than the company. IMHO, fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

- Given that it's an EU project, and the ESA/EU links meet WP:RS, I'm withdrawing the nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some outside refs, but a lot of the 397 Google hits I got for LAPCAT supersonic are reprints of what appears to be a press release, like this[7] Gizmo Watch article, which is making it really hard to find good sources (and that's made even harder by the fact that everyone and their dog... er, cat has picked up the word 'lapcat' and posted it in their blogs referring to their cute little Fluffy). However, the European Union[8] and ESA[9] are backing it, so that might confer some notability in the grand scheme of things. I suspect there's more reliable sources out there, so weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Have you read those refs in detail? They use the same acronym, but neither reference Reaction Engines. I strongly suspect that these are two different things...a real feasability study by ESA, and a pie-in-the-sky proposal using the same name. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really pie in the sky, the basic physics is sound, the engineering is anyone's guess, but the economics is the real problem- would the vehicle get ROI?WolfKeeper 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look down the right hand side here there's the list of the organisations involved, including the Reaction Engines Limited. Basically they're throwing a bit of money at them to keep them alive, from what I've seen the system might well be economic- on paper it actually has very good range (much further than conventional jets) and can do so even at very high speeds, but it depends on the market, and the precooler tech is very new and honestly really nobody knows whether it would work in real-world flight conditions, it's only been tried in the lab at very small scale.WolfKeeper 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Crystal ballery at work here. Either it needs more info on the theoretical and technical aspects along with more references to published papers etc or it needs binning as "pie in the sky" --WebHamster 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's precooled jet engines, they were proposed back in the 50s; and they're covered in jet engine.WolfKeeper 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete.~~ Changed to Keep, but fix after checking a bit further. ~~WebHamster has it right~~ . EU and ESA might be backing research into the possibility of such a vehicle but the article is presenting it almost as a fait accompli. Moriori 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'd vote strong keep if it were longer, it might not be that well known, but it's only problem is it's size.--Yamakiri 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)This account was created 4 September 2007. note by administrator Hu12 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been speaking to my ex-wife have you? ;) --WebHamster 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

HOLD ON A SEC. We are voting on an article that will not survive in its present state regardless of the outcome of this AfD, because it needs serious editing. For a start, the name of the aircraft is A2, not Lapcat, so that is what should be stated in the intro, and that should be the title. I have given this article a badly needed onceover to remove pov/speculation. I suggest I delete the article we are voting on and create a new article called A2 with the following info (with a stub tag):

A2 is a hypothetical supersonic transport aircraft being researched by Reaction Engines Limited.^[1] under its Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologies (LAPCAT) program. It is speculated it could fly from Brussels (Belgium) to Sydney (Australia) in 4.6 hours, ^[2] significantly reducing journey times across the globe. For A2 to attain and maintain such high speeds, Reaction Engines Limited would need to develop its newly designed concept engine called the Scimitar, to exploit the thermodynamic properties of liquid hydrogen. ^[3] The engine is theoretically capable of sustaining Mach 5 throughout flight with an effective exhaust velocity of 40,900 m/s. ^[4]

If anyone still feels so inclined, they can ad an Afd tag to it.. What say you? Moriori 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The title/name is not an issue, as it can easily be moved/changed. The other problems still exist, however. - BillCJ 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nononono. The article is currently incomplete in that LAPCAT is the EU research project to examine several different ways to build a supersonic transport. The A2 is just one proposal of one company involved in the project. There have already been published comparison as part of LAPCAT between the A2/Scimitar and a turborocket approach for example, the A2 seemed to do very well there.WolfKeeper 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. If the project actually progresses to the point that there are multiple secondary sources, then it can be recreated. - BillCJ 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill, initial stubs very often do have probs with refs, but can evolve into useful articles. They can't of course, if they have been deleted, especially if the person who created the article becomes disillusioned and moves on elsewhere. What do you think we should do with the linked article Reaction Engines Limited? And thousands more like it in Wiki as a browse through Random article will reveal?

What I have suggested would end up with a factual, informative, properly titled article, with no pov/speculation and sporting a stub tag. It would invite a refs tag, but hardly an Afd tag. The suggestion would short circuit the whole process we are going through here which is inevitably going to end up with creation of a completely different article, like the stub I suggest above, even if we arrive at that different article through rewrite.

Notice that the person who listed this Afd said "Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real" (as well as concerns about refs). It's not a future project at all. The research is happening right now. Part of what is being researched is a hypothetical A2. Whether or not such a vehicle can/will ever be built is not the point. LAPCAT is researching such a vehicle (among other things) and that is knowledge suitable for inclusion in Wiki.. Moriori 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even given what you state above, you haven't fixed WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, without which the article is just WP:OR or corporate spam, neither of which is permitted. I'll let AKRadecki address your points concerning the nomination. Trust me, he's not one to frivolously nominate for AFDs, and I have seen him fight for articles he felt were worth saving. - BillCJ 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A, stubs, even those failing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N now, can realise their potential provided they are not nuked. Why delete if they demonstrate potential to be developed? B, trust me I fully accept that AKRadecki does not edit frivolously, but even he can get things wrong like the rest of us. This most definitely is not a "Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real" as I have pointed out already. LAPCAT is demonstrably a current significant research project, and a hypothetical A2 aircraft is part of that research (as my suggested stub says). No-one is saying a super aircraft is being/will be built. Hey, look at me, I'm fighting for an article I voted to delete! Changing that vote. Moriori 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There verifiably is such a project, I've seen the press releases, and I expect we can find the funding lines. It's notable because there's millions of EUs involved in the project, and multiple companies, and because they've published papers and presumably will continue to do so. It's simply not corporate spam either.WolfKeeper 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article is about an EU funded research project and hence is notable anyway, and the precooler technology is interesting in and of itself, and that technology is already mentioned in jet engine, supersonic transport, SABRE and Skylon so it's sensible to have an article here; and I suspect there will be more papers to reference when the research is finished so it's likely to grow. I don't think the technology is quite as speculative as people seem to assume- it's just a variation on Skylon, and we already have an article on that as well.WolfKeeper 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Looks like there IS something to this. -Fnlayson 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep given that the only delete vote is per nom, and that the nom has withdrawn his nomination. User:Krator (t c) 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Keep per the above arguments, seems to be notable enough already, and this aircraft system will only grow in scale/fame due to it's EU funding and status. • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 7 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. --Core desat 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giles Kristian

Writer whose first and only book get basically no Google hits except his own home page. No independent sources to establish notability either. High on a tree 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless in-depth secondary coverage is provided. Spellcast 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Until he finishes the trilogy when he should be able to meet WP:BIO. --WebHamster 21:03, 4 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 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sporting comebacks

Quite trivial information, and after all, a team who trails 1-0 and wins is also a comeback. Ksy92003(talk) 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#INFO. IP198 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and IP198. This is a seemingly infinite list. If one team trails at any point in the game and wins, it would be a "comeback"...which means that virtually every basketball game ever played would be on this list... Smashville 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LIST. Lists need to have a clear-cut inclusion guideline. "Sporting Comeback" is subject to POV, and hence not a suitable criterion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep In the world of sport, there are some "comebacks" that are notable enough that they are remembered ever after as examples of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. This is a concise compilation of those comebacks which were notable, and demonstrates that it's a universal concept in the world of sport. Mandsford 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – Again, if the Angels trailed a game 1-0 after the top of the 1st inning, and scored twice in the bottom of the 1st and won the game 2-1, that's a comeback, as well. Ksy92003(talk) 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Response But it wouldn't be notable. Sports fans know the difference between your hypothetical example and a true comeback. Mandsford 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    - "Knowing the difference" doesn't make this any less of an indiscriminate list. Smashville 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      - What if the Angels trailed a World Series game 1-0 after the 1st and scored twice to win 2-1. There, now the game is notable. Is the comeback? Ksy92003(talk) 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        The game is notable... but the so-called comeback is nothing any sportwriter would bore his readers with. Now, if the Angels were trailing 8-0 going into the bottom of the 9th (that means the last inning, after the other team has already batted) and they came back to win 9-8, that would be a notable comeback... whether it was a World Series game or not. Being down 1-0 is like running five minutes late for work. Mandsford 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - But that means you're giving your own meaning for the word "comeback." That's original research to say what is a comeback and what isn't. Ksy92003(talk) 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    - - Ultimately, you gotta be a sports fan to know what's so appealing about a comeback victory. The sad thing for this article is that, although it does make a rare attempt to incorporate all sports, from American football to Australian football to what the rest of the world calls football and we call soccer... it doesn't cite any sources. And trust me, there are zillions of books about such "inspirational" sports stories, so it's not as if it couldn't have been done if the author had tried. I think this is headed for deletion, but, if done right, an article of this sort could someday make a comeba... well, you know what I mean. :) Mandsford 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless we want to list every comeback that ever occured, "seeming inevitable defeat" is original research Corpx 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Considering almost the entirety of the page is OR and POV. And polic wise WP:IINFO. i ^said 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. and others, unless a clear-cut criteria can be established as to what constitutes a "notable" comeback.--JayJasper 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. ** ko2007 ** 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - technically, any game where a team that comes back from being down would qualify based on the title. This may be more appropriate as a category used for individual game articles. JmFangio| ►Chat 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shyamal Chowdhury

Self-promotional article by/about an Indian guitarist. No outside sources, only the faintest assertion of notability, and he has reverted two attempts to delete the spam content therein. --Finngall ^talk 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - As per nom. I've left a few more maintenance tags for him to delete too. --WebHamster 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - This article qualifies for speedy delete. This bureaucratic process for this WP:NONSENSE is waste of time. Gnanapiti 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no google hits that seem related this person or to his album. Blatantly POV, unsourced, probably unsourcable. --Beloved Freak 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as violating WP:N, WP:OR and WP:AUTO. Bearian 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ^♫ 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brownies (Fablehaven)

Non-notable race from a series of fantasy novels. No independent coverage. Sopoforic 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notability isn't inherited, and it doesn't look as though there's independent coverage to establish the notability of brownies in this particular book. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: The guidelines on notability (fiction) point towards these characters not deserving their own article due to a lack of real-world coverage. Moreover, what there is to be said about them can fit quite adequately in the current articles on the Fablehaven books --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC).
Merge and Redirect to Fablehaven. i ^said 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Fablehaven (series), where it already appears in list. Not notable enough for a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:20, 5 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. --Core desat 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheka (artist)

Does not reference any sources or make a claim rising to the level of a WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Savidan 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Ordinarily I would have said that he just scrapes into meeting WP:MUSIC with the 2 album releases, but on closer inspection that first one isn't his. I'm not sure whether it's a compilation and he has a track or two on there or that he's just telling porkies, but either way it can be discounted from the equation. Not notable, off to MySpace with him.--WebHamster 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sign of notability. MarkBul 20:49, 4 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 (or no consensus, take your pick). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of extrasolar planets

This page is very speculative and gives undue weight to one particular theoretical model of extrasolar planets. The model described is largely untested on account of the lack of direct detections of gaseous planets intermediate between the hot Jupiters and Jupiter itself. Furthermore, it does not perform particularly well where it can be tested: it predicts too high an albedo for Jupiter, and too much water absorption on hot Jupiters - furthermore, hot Jupiters seem to be surprisingly dark (e.g. HD 149026 b). This article gives the impression that the theoretical models are more robust than they actually are. Chaos syndrome 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment disclosure: I originally created this article. Chaos syndrome 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article leads to speculation and confusion. But perhaps a rename to Sudarsky Scale might help. After all this hypothesis is well know and there should be some reference of it on Wikipedia.Ricnun 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rename as Ricnun said, seems to be a valid/noteable (and well sourced) hypothesis. Fosnez 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename or merge with extrasolar planets, ensuring that the above concerns are met according to guidelines. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename for Sudarsky scale, if indeed Sudarsky is a notable astronomer Mandsford 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would strongly oppose renaming to "Sudarsky scale" as this would be coining a neologism. The term "Sudarsky scale" is not used anywhere, by anyone (do a Google search). In the event that the result is not to delete, I would support the proposed merger to extrasolar planets. Chaos syndrome 07:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Merge with extrasolar planets. Sudarsky uses the term "composition classes" in the referenced papers. I'm not sure that "Sudarsky Scale" would be appropriate unless it comes into widespread usage. — RJH (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The future space probes such as New Worlds Mission, which will launch in 2013, will analyze the gas giant planets to find the actual composition of clouds and actual temperature range; albedo, color, and appearance. BlueEarth 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't even know if such space missions are going to fly or fall foul of budget cuts. Chaos syndrome 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with the Extrasolar planets article. Andrew (My talk) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it's what most people are going to think about when they read about exoplanets. Battle Ape 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense... surely if it's what most people are going to think about exoplanets, it should go into the exoplanets article? Chaos syndrome 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve; poss. rename; do not merge into extrasolar planets, as that article is already too long. Gandalf61 14:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. Chaser - T 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vector TD

Non-notable computer game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:47, 4 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 merged and redirected to Unweaving the Rainbow. --MCB 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PETWHAC

Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but as I've found it to fail that criteria, I do find it to be ripe for deletion, as a non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless usage outside the limited context can be shown Corpx 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete solely primary-sourced acronym - no proof in article of any use outside of this citation. SkierRMH 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Unweaving the Rainbow. 100+ ghits, but all seem to be in connection to a discussion of the book. --Fabrictramp 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Unweaving the Rainbow. As far as I know, no one uses the acronym unless they're referring to this book. As such, it would be best to embed it within that book's article. 65.48.53.2 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect agreed with Fabrictramp. Carlosguitar 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Fabrictramp -- Magioladitis 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as obscure neogolism per SkierRMH. --Gavin Collins 22:17, 9 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 aside from that it needs to be cleaned up. This will eventually get deleted unless the mess of trivia is fixed; one can only claim a good article "could" appear so many times before it's apparent that it's not going to. --Haemo 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hell in entertainment and other popular culture

More popular entertainment cruft. Nothing is sourced. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Chaos syndrome 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This still going on? Yes, in its current state this article is not very good. It is equally obvious that the depiction of Hell in popular entertainment is a rich subject with a long history, that won't go away just because someone quoted a string of acronyms at it. This page compiles mostly self-referencing data. In the worst possible scenario, it should be preserved on a subpage of the talk page and linked on Talk:Hell for the reference of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unsourced, original research material does not get kept in subpages. Corvus cornix 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

keep and rewrite - most likely with a rename to Hell in popular culture too. Artw 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite as above. Fosnez 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
keep and section - In its current state it gives the appearance of being a bit indiscriminate, although there's no question it's a notable and worthwhile topic. I'd recommend that the article be segmented by type, for example Eastern view(s) of Hell, Judeo-Christian tradition, Germanic, and then the purely fictional constructs of comic book universes, etc. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rework It's around okay. It needs work, but I'd let it stay.--Yamakiri 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)This account was created 4 September 2007. note by administrator Hu12 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rework how? There are no sources to a single entry here. Corvus cornix 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. To vote delete is to risk fire and brimstone, because who knows-- they may be right. Mandsford 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR #1. I know that indiscriminate has become a nasty word in certain quarters, but this list and similar ones are truly indiscriminate by design, in that there is nothing in the context provided that would allow one to retain notable and relevant entries while rejecting nonnotable and irrelevant ones—all that's required is that the reference be to "something in popular culture" and that hell be alluded to, however obscurely. In this article, moreover, the unsourceable subjectivity begins in the first entry ("the most imaginative and famous depiction of hell") and recurs throughout. Everyone's always saying that these topics can be turned into acceptable articles; but I've seldom seen that happen, and I see no reason for unacceptable ones to be preserved while we wait. If there's an encyclopedic topic here, let someone create an article on it afresh. Deor 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. In general "x in popular culture" articles are unencyclopediac trash and should be deleted.--Sefringle^Talk 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per trivial content + loosely associated. Is the article really trying to document every time a work of fiction mentioned/showed hell? Corpx 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Because, if done properly, it would be once of the largest X in Popular Culture lists in existance. Because of that, it would be an indiscriminate list of loosely connected items. Hell is such a common plot element that there should probably be an article on that by itself, but not a list about times it's used. i ^said 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've pretty much nailed the direction the article needs to be going in. Artw 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I concur. The article should become "Hell as a plot element" or the equivalent, but almost certainly with a better title. After all, the way a film or other cultural work depicts Hell or the Afterlife in general is very emblematic of its ethos. --Agamemnon2 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because articles definitely concerns a notable item in entertainment and vairous forms of popular culture. The article has potential and some references and other textual improvements will help in that regard. Also, I think the suggestion above about renaming the article to something like "Hell as a plot element" does sound appealing as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment No matter how it comes out, this is one hell of a discussion. Mandsford 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Trivia cruft, listcruft and so on. A dumping ground of every little mention (many not even sourced, and many that could fall under original research) isn't an acceptable article. RobJ1981 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Hell. Please keep the information in the article history to allow for possible expansion to "Hell as a plot element" per Agamemnon2. User:Krator (t c) 08:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment through discusing the use of Hell in fictional works is undoubtably the direction the article should go in, and I'd enthusiasticly endorse it, "Hell as a plot element" is a sucky title. I'd keep it as Hell in popular culture. ANd TBH if this article is to be used as a starting point then the best course of action is to do just that, rather than deleting it and messing around with user pages and wahtnot. Artw 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Keeep Somehow, I think all the people who use this motif do think its important, even though the nom and some people here dont personally think so. Fortunately, notability is based not of what people on WP think is notable, but on what the world thinks is notable. (Forftunatey, because if it we based on our own private notions, we'd never agree--not that my view of what is important in the world is better than anyone else's, just that we go by what the world thinks. For example, people in general think professional wrestlers can be notable--but I can't imagine that any one of them ever would be the least notable to me.) I have yet to notice an article on a major plot element or theme that the advocates of deleting this article think is notable, so I wonder if they think that the entire general concept of plot and theme is unimportant? I hope I'm wrong, so I urge them to give some examples of articles of this sort which they think are encyclopedic--I'll be glad to acknowledge the error of my doubts, and the examples should offer some guide by which we can try to reach some sort of common ground--this is an attempt to find some. DGG (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete; unsourced list of people's favorite Hell trivia. Pretty much a poster child for unverifiability and original resource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of folklore. --MCB 06:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Hell#Hell in literature, which is a hell of a lot better encyclopedic treatment of this topic than this "article" is. I have no doubt that a well written article on the topic of Hell in the art could be written with reliable sourcing. But this dreck is just another pile of trivia masquerading as an "X in popular culture" article. The only sourced sentence in the article is the first. GRBerry 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Useful for cross referencing. Ryan4314 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. And, per discussion and in view of WP:SNOW it is done. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joey webb

Has been speedied twice by different editors under WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), but the tag keeps being removed (by someone who is apparently not the creator) without comment. It's about a non-notable individual, and although it's been added to slightly it *still* doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't been deleted is the speedy tag is never there for long enough. kateshortforbob 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is fine in my book - Joe Webb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Monjey (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — Sweet Monjey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It also adds some comic relief to wikipedia. Who doesnt love a good laugh every one and then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Monjey (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, of course. Corvus cornix 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This is as non-notable as they come. Ariah 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense, so (re)tagged. Make sure to warn user too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Now if it is deleted and it was put as a user profile instead, would that be deleted too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Monjey (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if it could be a user profile and not be bothered, feel free to delete this without a fight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Monjey (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 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. --Core desat 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Think About It

Song recorded for an upcoming film - not sure how or why this is notable or if it is a planned single; the article really doesn't explain anything. External links don't provide any info either, one is just a link to the film and the other is a link to Apple's iTunes Store. Suggest delete or redirect to the artist page. eo 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment my initial nomination pertained to a version of the article that had about 2 sentences. Obviously it has been expanded quite a bit since the AfD tag was removed. - eo 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Emily Osment, song does not meet notability standards at present, although it might once the movie comes out (apparently on DVD, according to site and article). I believe {{R with possibilities}} would apply here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - On August 30, an IP editor removed the AFD notice on the article. Nobody caught it until I did today. I've replaced the AFD notice and am relisting the article. KrakatoaKatie 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A straight-to-DVD release confirms that the movie is not notable, much less the song. Perhaps a redirect to the movie would also be appropriate. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as Spam. MarkBul 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. WAVY 10 20:56, 4 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. --Core desat 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Arshad Hussain

The CV of a run-of-the-mill researcher who has published a lot of in-field work. Corvus cornix 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Every academic publishes. Non-notable. MarkBul 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:PROF. OfficeGirl 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No indication he's made any notable contributions to his field, reads too much like a CV. Thomjakobsen 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it looks like a resume and potentially (although not official) a possibly copyvio.--JForget 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very Weak keep Every academic publishes, some enough to be notable--and of course notable work is in-field--I do not quite understand the reason for deletion. .To determine the importance of the work we do not rely of our own view here of what is a run-of-the-mill researcher , but see what the people in the special field thing, as best measured by citations--unfortunately WoS shows a maximum of 5.

Now comes the hard part--this is probably not enough for notability of a scientist in a major country; but is it notability in terms of his own country and its scientific and academic structure? He';s from apparently a particular poor region of India--India is general is not a backwards country, and he would not be notable by the standard of Indian physics--whether the claim for regional distinction is valid is hard to evaluate. DGG (talk) 05:03, 7 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 redirected to Bernády György; non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernady

Seems to be a totally pointless disambiguation page with only one entry. Dixonsej 16:54 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect - to that one entry: Bernády György. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect. It's obvious. -- Magioladitis 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: this article was improperly nominated. I created this nom page and moved the above comments to it, removing them from the subsection of another afd nom page in this edit. -- Vary | Talk 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ^♫ 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment configuration document

A software engineering term. Neologism / non-notable - scarcely any ghits. Unacceptable in its present state without references. At best deserves to be a redirect. -- RHaworth 10:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete So non-notable that it appears to be unverifiable. Jakew 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I cant find anything on this around the web, no mentions anywhere notable --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:25, 4 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 create redirect to Inuit). CitiCat ^♫ 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esquimaux

Vanity page of a nonnotable band with releases from equally nonnotable garage label `'Míkka 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Don't seem to meet WP:BAND in spite of the pregnant breathy vocals. Two EPs and an online album do not an article make (regardless of FTP transfer rates). --WebHamster 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, but perhaps someday. The only press I see is an LA Times article with a picture of the band, but the article appears to be about the club and not the band at all (thus making it a trivial mention). Speedy redirect to Inuit as this is a historically relevant term. bikeable (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No chance of meeting WP:MUSIC right now. Bikeable's redirect to Inuit is an excellent idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Inuit as that's what I thought it would be when I first clicked the link. -- Roleplayer 08:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you guys haven't heard of us, but that doesn't mean we should be replaced by a redirect. We have the top search result in Google for the term 'Esquimaux' We've collaborated with Gary Jules and Brian Gibson from Lightning Bolt (both have entries on Wikipedia) and we're recording a new record with Steve Albini (engineered Nirvana, Pixies, Breeders, etc, and he also has a Wikipedia entry) and the drummer of Stroke 9. I'm not trying to gloat, I know we're a little indie band, but I wouldn't say we're trivial. We've also been played on nationally syndicated radio shows like Nic Harcourt's "Becomes Eclectic" show (also has a Wikipedia page).`'user:Esquimaux 16:47, 7 September 2007

Esquimaux, sorry you feel attacked in this, but please don't. We're simply trying to uphold wp standards for bands, which are clearly spelled out in WP:BAND. The number of non-existent or completely trivial bands (i.e., they played once in their garage) who write articles about themselves here is incredible, so we have a rigorous set of standards to make sure that only bands that are "encyclopedic" are listed -- not up-and-coming, and not "maybe". Take a look at the standards, and if any apply, add the documentation to the page. It looks to me that, with no press to speak of, and no widely-released albums, you're not there yet -- although I wish you luck getting there soon. Albini records a lot of stuff, but an album with him on a prominent indie label would probably satisfy WP:BAND. When that's out, someone can come back and add the article (ideally not you; see WP:COI). Meanwhile, don't take deletion too hard, it's not personal; and best of luck. bikeable (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

-sigh- Understood. I'll let it go. Just keep in mind that many bands/singer-songwriters aren't being released on "record labels" anymore... like our friend Gary Jules for example, they are releasing under their own fictitious label and getting distribution through CDBaby, iTunes, Napster, etc. It's a DIY culture right now, and bands are following suit. Hollywood Records is even trying to market some of their new artists on YouTube with fake Internet camera POV music videos to look like what other indie bands are doing. There was just an article in SPIN magazine about the DIY Baltimore music scene, mentioning that many bands in this and the Providence, RI areas are recording songs directly on laptops and are evolving within art scenes rather than music scenes. I understand the WP:BAND standards, but I also think that they are not entirely accurate in measuring the success of a band in this day and age. I concede that we're not there yet, and I take no offense to the issue (I figured I was walking into a hornets nest by posting our own band history - which is lame in and of itself). But, we did get charted on college radio charts and debuted in the top 20 in Arizona (for what that's worth). Cheers, all. Delete it. Hopefully we'll be more credible this time next year. ;-) `'user:Esquimaux 22:35, 7 September 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Kingdom of Albion

Non-notable micronation. Zero ghits, external links given do not mention this "kingdom". Possibly a hoax, certainly nn, most likely unverifiable Lurker (said · done) 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, giving it a closer look, I'm certain it is a hoax: Capital punishment is the punishment for murder and many 'blasphemous' publications, for example The Da Vinci Code by author Dan Brown and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Lurker (said · done) 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It is not a hoax, it is a fantasy country. The topic lacks enough reliable source material to meet WP:N, so it should be deleted. Lurker, if you have the time, consider going through Special:Whatlinkshere/Micronation looking for Wikipedia articles on fantasy countries that do not have enough reliable source material to meet WP:N, and nominate them for deletion. And if you are really into it, check the article creator's user page and subpages via Special:Prefixindex and nominate those hosting fantasy countries for deletion at WP:MfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It does not have enough reliable source material to demonstrate notability and merit its own article.--Danaman5 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete When cited sources and/or links do not even mention the subject, that's a clue that the subject isn't notable. Jakew 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fake "micronation" ruled by a teenager. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A teenager is making fun of another teenager's religious beliefs. The comment at the bottom of this page looks like the target, or perhaps it's another example of his friends winding him up. Either way, no 16 year old has started a micronation in London recently, so it should go quickly. Thomjakobsen 22:45, 4 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. Mango juice^talk 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declan Nerney

Article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Author deleted notability maintenance tag. There are no real assertions to notability neither are there any references or sources that demonstrate that the article's subject is anything but an average local musician. certainly nothing that would be served by an encyclopaedia article, with the exception of publicity. WebHamster 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable in the extreme. MarkBul 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep He meets WP:MUSIC, although the article currently doesn't assert this. He has 8 top-selling albums and has played in Croke Park during the All-Ireland Final [10]. Here's an article from The Irish Times where he is just talking about his lifestyle, but it shows he is notable because why else would he be interviewed. He is on TV and radio frequently in Ireland [11] and tours throughout Ireland and the UK. Country and Irish music definitely isn't my cup of tea, but he is very popular and I don't think he needs to use Wikipedia for publicity. Bláthnaid 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per User:Blathnaid. He's not necessarily my cup of tea either, musically. But he is well-known in his field, he has being going for ~~yonks~~ a few decades and appears in the media on a regular basis (video link from first page)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep as per the above. The talk page seems to give links that clearly establish his notability, and one of the editors there states his intent to add them. It's a new page, so assume good faith in the meantime. The Notability tag definitely needs to stay though, so I've added it back in and left a note on the talk page explaining why. Its removal probably wasn't malicious, just inexperience or not understanding its purpose. Bear in mind his audience seems to be among the older generation, so there's no need to scare them off with over-hasty deletions. Thomjakobsen 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable original research.--Sefringle^Talk 03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here are more articles about Nerney from the UK paper The Mirror. Bláthnaid 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep but somebody needs to add WP:RS quickly. Bearian 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 0

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/January 0

I've been watching this on and off for months and nobody seems to be able to provide any more information on how/when/where this concept is used. I've searched the web and can't find any solid reference to it and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion it is not a widely enough accepted idea to merit a Wikipedia entry. It has been tagged (by someone else) as needing references or sources for over six months and nobody has added anything to give the article any more credibility. Tilefish 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge with December 31 – this is an odd and valid date in the computing—and hopefully computing history (particularly for Excel and Lotus 1-2-3). +mt 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Epoch (reference date). And perhaps merge Epoch (astronomy) into Epoch (reference date). There also is Ephemeris time, which may include overlapping information. I think Ephemeris should be the main article and these topics spun off. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep important page for clarification and relation to Epoch and Julian day. - Fosnez 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, and add to other related pages cross-references to this page (if the cross-references don't already exist). Has relevance to more than one field; merginging it into each relevant page creates duplication which, in an environment which provides hyper-links, is unnecessary. Pdfpdf 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (P.S. If the only objection is "no sources", then surely having the article up for deletion will motivate the proverbial "someone" to find some? Pdfpdf 12:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) )

Delete no sources. this article is just garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep per Fosnez, but also ("weak") per TenPoundHammer. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, concept is significant in understanding calenders. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 6 September 2007 (GMT).

Keep. It occurred in the definition of the second from 1960 to 1967. See Second#Historical origin, whose reference is one obvious reference. It cannot be merged with December 31 because the epoch for the second was originally the beginning of January 1, when the astronomical day began at noon before 1925. This is the same epoch used in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, which was used until 1983 to calculate all national ephemerides. In this sense it is the epoch of the Dublin Julian day (see Julian day#Alternatives). I can probably find a reference from calendars easily enough (possibly O. L. Harvey or Robert Schram). Others will have to add references from the field of computing. — Joe Kress 01:14, 7 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. At this time, the concerns about the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources outweigh the arguments for keeping this article. — TKD::Talk 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route 66 on the Air!

Wikipedia:Notability is about the availablity of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame. Route 66 on the Air! has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Route 66 on the Air! to develop an attributable article on the topic. Those in charge of this annual amateur radio event posted a canvassing notice in a blog: "Also, if anybody cares to head over to Wikipedia and state that you feel that this is at least as notable as every minor character in Yu-Gi-Oh, be my guest."[12] However, personal opinions about the importance or fame of Route 66 on the Air! cannot create an attributable article on the topic. If there is reliable source material for the article, post it in the article and/or in this discussion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - lack of reliable sources. Google returns a number of hits that are amateur "I was there" types of websites, but little in the way of media coverage that would indicate that this is really notable in an encyclopedic sense. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Is the event notable? Yes; there's a strong claim for that made in the article. Is that claim verifiable? No. I don't see a single reliable source in the article~~--and yes, I would consider ARRL newsletters to be sufficiently independent for this purpose~~. Without sources, though, one of the two cornerstones of the article is not met. Provide me sources, and I'll reconsider my position, but in its current state, the article fails verifiability. Disclosure: This user is a licensed amateur radio operator. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: A full length article (4+ column-inches) written by an independent author for an ARRL newsletter would, IMHO, qualify as a reliable, independent source. Neither a blurb nor an article written by a participant would qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - C.Fred has spoken to reliability, as to verifiability, see for instance [13] and [14]. --WhiteDragon 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Neither source really meets the criteria of WP:RS. Was this event covered in the major media? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I read the criteria for reliable sources and ARRL seems like a reliable enough source, since they are an independent organization (not the organization putting on the event), which listed news such as that the event occurred, without giving any opinion about it. --WhiteDragon 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. My concern with the two sources mentioned above is that the blurbs are so short that they fall into the realm of trivial coverage. That may be the slippery slope with ARRL coverage: anything longer may not be independently authored. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete as I have my doubts whether the above links give significant coverage & whether they're reliable sources Corpx 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as probably notable raido program and event. Needs more reliable sources. Bearian 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as NN and spam. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG. Vegaswikian 06:50, 7 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 WALL-E#Marketing. Arguments to delete are correct in that no one has presented evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, so this should not exist as a separate article currently. However, it is probably a legitimate search term, so a redirect is worthwhile. If the marketing effort and/or fictional company becomes notable in and of themselves later, then this article could be re-created, but it's evidently too soon to be spinning off articles related to this individual component of a future film. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buy n Large

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buy n Large

I would like to know if this article should be deleted Hektor 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails primary notability criteria. There are no non trivial independent sources discussing this imaginary company. Perhaps once the film comes out, this may become notable (I won't hold my breath), but anyway today it is not. Obina 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- No non trivial ? what about MTV "Introducing the world’s largest, most extensive viral site ever". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs) 09:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

This is a mention in a blog. I think this not a WP:RS and basically a trivial mention as it is only a few words.Obina 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One sentence and a link is about as trivial as it gets, and it's not independent of the film's marketing. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an exact lift from the site's press release. Thomjakobsen 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with WALL-E; maybe if it becomes notable on its own it can get an article. —tregoweth (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is just as important as any other fictional company. A•N•N•A hi! 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure why we think it is as important as others, but that isn't the point anyway. See WP:WAX. The question is this a notable fictional company? So far the only sources are a few words in an MTV blog, and the web site itself.Obina 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How many fictional companies are notable? Sure, many of them have articles, but most of them probably shouldn't. —tregoweth (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 16:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete It seems to be here simply as spam. So far I dont' find any coverage. Even if coverage shows up, is this page for the fictional company or the marketing effort? MarkBul 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The film will undoubtably be notable, but it hasn't been released. Any references to the company are entirely dependent on press releases, so there cannot be any independent, reliable secondary sources. I see the article as spam, part of the marketing campaign, and so should be deleted. If it turns out to be notable, then an article can be created after the expensive PR drive has died down and when its notability can be established in a more independent fashion. Thomjakobsen 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Let me restate my position. I think that the article is interesting in the Pixar and WALL-E context. But what makes it really notable is not a matter of Pixar fancruft. It is that:

a) it is a textbook case of viral marketing
b) it is the most comprehensive, most encompassing viral marketing web site ever put on line
c) it is not viral marketing by an obscure group of filmmakers à la Blair Witch Project, it is made by the mighty Walt Disney Company.
Let me add that I don't welcome the statement by Thomjakobsen, which is close to a personal attack, being the creator of the article ("I see the article as spam, part of the marketing campaign"). I am a French engineering student in Toulouse, France, and am in no way affiliated with the Walt Disney Company or Pixar. Please assume good faith. Hektor 08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's not a personal attack. I've no doubt you're unconnected to those companies. What I meant by that sentence: the article is completely dependent on the film's marketing material. In effect, it's like when magazines simply repeat the content of press releases. If the only source for an article is the pre-release marketing campaign of a film we have no reliable, independent sources for, it's essentially equivalent to part of that marketing campaign. It's passing on their material uncritically, and we have no opportunity for independent evaluation of that material. Thomjakobsen 13:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability guidelines. --Strothra 16:22, 9 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: attack page (joke attack). `'Míkka 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Talk Like Adam Masia Day

Non notable holiday. No sources provided. Contested prod. Not for things made up in school one day. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT. --Evb-wiki 17:36, 4 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 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of libertarian socialism

Appears to be completely original research or some essay with basically no sourcing. Was made by just one person and left fallow afterwards. Appears to be just randomly made up criticisms/original research. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a split-off and poorly written/original research criticism section of Libertarian socialism in hindsight. Delete, any worthwhile content can always be integrated back into the parent article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless the many "citation needed" tags can be replaced by proper footnotes (then I'd change my vote). The only things actually footnoted are already in the criticisms section of Libertarian socialism. Noroton 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment various editors had made unreferenced, drive-by additions to the criticisms section in libertarian socialism. People couldn't figure out what all the edits meant, let alone whether they were OR, so the section got copied to the criticisms page and the unreferenced material got purged from the libertarian socialism page. Jacob Haller 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete drive-by POV smearing from the Randian playbook with no effort to balance, "write for the enemy", or even attribute its own claims. "It might also be worth noting that Libertarianism is a strictly anti-coercion philosophy, whereas any form of Collectivism relies on the use of force to ensure that people do not accumulate anymore wealth than dictated by the society" is a typical example of how bad this piece is. Eleland 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as POV fork. If any good material has come to light, or is wanted by editors, by the end of the discussion, then make it available for merging into libertarian socialism. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All the sourced information from this forked Criticisms article is already in the main article. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes the case much simpler, in my opinion. I still think we ought to leave the door open for any late contributions to be retained, if they are judged to be of value. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per original research Corpx 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. BobFromBrockley 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per above- and I also think that inclusions of criticisms of libertarian socialism should be making explicit references to known libertarian socialist texts, rather than just being composited libertarian capitalist criticisms of non-market and non-capitalist economic and ethical systems - otherwise we will invariably end up with a stew of uninformed straw-man assertions that contribute nothing valuable to an understanding of libertarian socialism.BernardL 08:48, 6 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. Also probable copyvio. --MCB 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never (Past Tense)

The article does nothing to state why this album is notable. The entire text appears to be a copyvio from a review at [15] PeR 06:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - A bog-standard CD single release that is worded more like a review or the musings of a fan in orgasm. The artist maybe notable but the single isn't. I note the absence of anything to with the charts and its progress up them. --WebHamster 17:18, 4 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 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vir Singh

This was PRODed as "fails WP:PROF". Given his list of publications, I'm not sure of that, so here it is. Deletion is on the table. Xoloz 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Reading the article he seams prominent. I personally would like to see some more sources.Callelinea 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep This is too specialized for me to really tell. He revised three prominent works, but that is not necessarily the same as writing them, depending on the reviews. As for the others, as a minimum we'd need publication details. I think this needs a specialist opinion. DGG (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep The article claims the guy has updated three prominent works as DGG notes (at least one of which appears in the collections of many U.S. acedemic libraries per WorldCat), but I don't know enough about the topic to judge. This seems verifiable and I see no obvious harm in leaving it in. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. --Crusio 07:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Dr Vir Singh has done wonderful work in the field of history. He is a notable person looking to his contributions. We can find at least about four of books edited by him on URL - Books by Dr Vir SinghAll the books are with ISBN numbers. I have gone through at least 3 books by him. I found these books very useful. I would like to expand this article in future. I feel strongly to keep. --burdak 11:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per burdak's argument that he passes WP:PROF. He needs to improve the article ASAP, not in the future. Bearian 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:PROF, I do not see how editing and writing a few books, however valuable that may be, in and of itself suffices to establish notability. Where are the independent sources? Note also that according to the link given by burdak, there are four books: one is a compiled symposium report, one a book in Hindi (without it being clear what Vir Singh's contribution is), one a biography in Hindi to which Singh contributed a chapter (and perhaps edited this, but that is not really clear), and the fourth one is a biography for the same person, this time in English and as mentioned on the cover edited by Singh. As far as I can see, none of these books was "updated" by Singh, at most he edited them. In short, notability is not established. --Crusio 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- STRONG KEEP

Dr Vir Singh is a prominent member of Jat Community, some100 million strong.

The Jats, also known as Jats, Jutts, Juts, among many other variations, are found in Northern, Central India, Pakistan, Baluchistan, and Afghanistan. In Central Asia their identity has been merged into various other communities.

Dr Vir singh is Director, of Maharaja Surajmal Centre For Research & Publication Surajmal Memorial Education Society C- 4, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110 058

Jat history studies had been languishing .To be clearer and more specific, it was ignored in Indian History texts, and the history of this society was assigned to other groups. Indian history text books contained next to no references to them it was made to be that the Jats had no history. Indian society has like any other society special interest groups, and this is the major cause for the situation.

It was only fairly recently, some 80 years ago, starting with two authors Thakur Desraj and Professor K R Quanango. The discovery of Jat History records which had been lost for 150 years, and gave much information of their history detailed following the failure of the first war of Independence in 1857, (also known at the Indian Mutiny), in the early 1950’s Jat history studies valuable material long lost.

New authors, R S Joon, Dilip Singh Ahlawat , Dr. Balbir Singh, Hukam Singh Pauria, Dr Nathan Singh etc wrote a number of books and papers. Dr Balbir Singh, a noted Historian, was one of the founders of the Surajmal Educational Trust, named after Mmaharaja Surajmal, the great Jat King of Medieval times. See article on [Bharatpur],

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatpur%2C_India

and main article [Jat] too.

The Surajmal Memorial Education Society, New Delhi, set up a research department for research into Jat history.

A number of publications and books were brought out, some reprints in various languages

Dr Vir Singh took over as The Head of Research, for the Society, in 2000 CE and under his leadership, one or more singular achievements has been to organize annual seminars on Jat History where prominent historians from Academia , various universities, etc are invited to participate, The annual seminars are now a great success.

Dr Singh has also been the general editor of a number of books, which have based been based on the Research papers that have been presented at these annual seminars

Under Dr Singh’s leadership Jat history studies have now achieved a firm footing..

He has also been instrumental in selfless editing of Out of Print works on Jat History, and have they reprinted under the auspices of the Surajmal Education Society. When we talk editing, we are really saying that he has after much research corrected errors, added notes, practically give these books a new and more in depth perspective for the serious academic or general lay reader.

He has over 14 research papers to his personal credit.

Some are of his papers are referred to and extracts are the yahoo Jathistory group site. See for example:

Re: Article by Dr Vir Singh on Jat resistance to the Mughal- Rajput alliance.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/3338

In the ongoing discussion of what should be included and not included in the Indian history texts books as taught in the official schools, and universities he has been instrumental, in discussing and implementing with the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training- the official Indian government body responsible for curriculum and textbooks, ), as revisions of the material so that factual material about the Jats and their History is presented.

His work will live on long after him.

When the history of how and what History is taught in India, and the world, his name will stand out, as the one person, though of a very humble, self depreciating, nature, change the face of how the History of the jats would be included in the Indian History curriculums.

In conclusion, the Jats are one of the more important and populous communities in India and Pakistan

For various reasons, their History was not given its proper space in the Indian History curriculums, This is changing but there is resistance from some special Interest groups, as anyone who reviews some of the discussions on the Jat related web pages, including wikipedia will find out in short order.

Why and how this occurred is another story, and those interested may visit the [Jat} page on Wiki, and wish to acquire a more in depth knowledge are welcome to visit and join the Jathistory discussion group, coordinates below..

Jathistory

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

or Jatland

http://www.jatland.com/

One suggests, Dr Vir Singh, a prominent Historian of this community, is not a nonentity, and deserves a place in an Encyclopedia.

Strong - Do Not Delete

Ravi Chaudhary 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Dr Vir Singh is a prominent Jat historian. I strongly favour to keep as per Ravi Chaudhary.59.94.108.114 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:VERIFY--AmerHisBuff 09:36, 9 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. Note that I am also speedy deleting his two books. If non-trivial independent reliable sources can be presented than this can of course be recreated at that time. JoshuaZ 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Addington Saint-David

This was PRODed as "self-promotional". It is certainly over-wrought and "puffy", but there are independent sources, and some real claims of notability. Still, Delete, as he fails WP:BIO, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Brazenly self promotional but little to back up the assertions, I'm pretty sure that pretty pictures of coats of arms aren't mentioned in WP:BIO, I'm sure I would have remembered. --WebHamster 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:VERIFY--AmerHisBuff 09:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per AmerHisBuff. --Crusio 10:17, 9 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 --Haemo 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falcon Punch

Contested {{prod}}, brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence is provided for subject's notability, and Wikipedia is not a gaming how-to guide. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The move certainly is too trivial for its own article, and anything more than a mention in the main articles is probably too much.--Danaman5 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the Falcon Punch is an iconic symbol of the gaming community and is expanding out from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.38.1 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but merge - While the move is not notable as its own article, it should at least be part of the main Captain Falcon article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.153.35 (talk) 04:37, 9 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 in the absence of independent and reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Given the low turnout here, this is barely stronger than a PROD deletion.GRBerry 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Shakespeare Company

Article consists of a list of productions, actors, and crew. If you drop the lists, there's not much left. They have received local awards in recent years, but there isn't sufficient assertion of notability here, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong... SarekOfVulcan 15:08, 4 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. --Core desat 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devilz Candy

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article does infact follow the guidelines of the Wiki porn-bio.

This performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. Devilz Candy has been featured in Juggs magazine(which is pretty major, everyone knows Juggs), and other BBW interest magazines.

Performer has made unique contributions to a pornographic film genre. Yes, with her unique work in her genre. She also is a pioneer in actresses relationships with fans, doing alot of stuff that other actresses never have

Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography? Yes she is a legendary BBW actress.

Did the performer star in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature? She is an icon in the BBW world, and her style is considered groundbreaking, in BBW and mainstream porn.

Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche. Yes BBW

Performer has been the participant in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media. Since its opening the Red Rooster(where she is an employee) has been a very controversial place, and has been featured in Vegas news.

Performer meets other notability grounds not connected to being involved in porn. Yes her conventions, and fuctions, along with her work at the Red Rooster.

This article clearly meets wiki criteria, and should not be deleted.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Appearing in Juggs magazine isn't an award. There's no evidence that she's a "legendary" BBW actress or that her her style is considered "groundbreaking". There are many BBW models who are more prolific than her. Epbr123 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- Unless, of course, we want to use the word "groundbreaking" in a horribly lame and unkind weight-related pun. --Agamemnon2 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny Agamemnon2, but seriously her interaction with fans is also what makes her so unique. She will use objects that fans send in which is something she brings to the table. Virtually no other porn star do that. She also hangs out with them at the Red Rooster in Las Vegas, and socializes, signs autographs, and takes pictures. She does have a huge fan base, and that is another reason this article should stay.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If Devilz Candy's contributions are exceptional as stated above, surely they must have earned some verifiable recognition within the BBW niche or there must be some published reliable source that has noted them. Otherwise, Devilz Candy is not notable per WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It would just be a shame if this noteable actress' article was deleted. I have clearly explained valid reasons on why the article should remain on Wikipedia, so now its out of my hands. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The case for notability is neither compelling nor supported by reliable sources. I cannot accept a mention in Juggs magazine (whether or not "everyone knows Juggs") as a notable commendation. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:15, 7 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 sourced claims for notability, WP:PORNBIO per otherwise. The naked assertion that she is "well-known" or "really famous" is not enough. Eluchil404 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kianna Dior

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree; she meets WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. How? Epbr123 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You didn't say how she fails it. She's well-known in her niche (big-boobed Asians), has made plenty of movies, etc. Xihr 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Being "well-known" and making plenty of movies isn't in the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Tabercil 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. She is really a famous porn star. UnknownMan 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fame doesn't equal notability. Epbr123 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: Vote and above reply recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, physical features such as creeks are always notable, but this one seems to have a bit more going for it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley Brook

Reason the page should be deleted 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only a small stream and isn't a very interesting subject to write about as there are many, many small streams and brooks in the world that don't have articles about them, why should Bentley Brook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 666ph666 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Bentley Brook has an article because someone bothered to write one. Whether you find it interesting or not isn't really the point. It's classed as a main river by the Environment Agency and geographical features are usually deemed notable on Wikipedia. Because of its location and the fact that it's narrow and fast flowing it now has the remains of six water mills, the most concentrated example of early water power in Britain. Is that significant? Well, water powered mills were the basis of the early industrial revolution, powering corn grinding, saw mills, paint making, fertiliser production, lead smelting and so forth at this very site and it's the industrial revolution which created the modern world. Nick mallory 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec'd) Keep For the reasons presented by Nick. There are no issues with the notability or encyclopedic value here. Pedro | Chat 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The historical element makes this a "keep". MarkBul 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per MarkBul and WP:OUTCOMES regarding geographical places. Wl219 16:14, 4 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. --Core desat 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Flowers

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Does she bring May showers? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not very notable. --Onceonthisisland 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability. Tabercil 22:37, 7 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. --Core desat 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanya Foxx

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. No reliable sources on the web. Tanya was prolific in 3 genres. Luke Ford quotes a few Hustler articles praising her as a ground breaker,[16] but I can't verify them. She may get credible recognition someday. • Gene93k 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability. Tabercil 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: a decade of acting and ~150 movies when it was not that easy to produce them en masse sounds quite notable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:16, 9 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. Bduke 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gina Ryder

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I found this forum link, which lists the 2002 AVN award noms and it says she was nominated for best actress. I realize that this is a forum, but I dont see any reason for the poster to misrepresent the nominees. Corpx 03:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Nominated by AVN for best actress, over 300 movies, clearly meets WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:PORNBIO. Having over 300 movies is not one of the criteria. Epbr123 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep AVN Award Nominee 2002. Thats as big as being an Oscar Nominee in the porn biz. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete no reliable sources for meeting WP:PORNBIO. I looked and couldn't find anything about the AVN nomination in reliable sources. Eluchil404 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

- I think I'd better be honest and direct you to [17]. Epbr123 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the honesty. It should certainly be added to the article then. As it currently stands there isn't any mention of the nomination at all. On the other hand, given the lack of mention of nominees by IMDb, AFDB, et al., the inclusion of nominees in WP:PORNBIO might be inappropriate. In any event, no clear opinion from me. Eluchil404 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As WP:PORNBIO guidelines stand right now, nominations are a valid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, particularly from a valid source such as AVN. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above, meets WP:PORNBIO guidelines as they currently stand, and would be notable either way due to award nominations and film history. Burntsauce 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Energy Club

Advertising, cruft, no assertion of notability. Madcoverboy 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect into Massachusetts Institute of Technology - there's no reason for a seperate article on this club. If it's that notable within MIT then the main articles the best place for it. Pedro | Chat 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Traditions and student activities at MIT would be the more appropriate target, like the other merges I completed today. However, even as an MIT undergrad and research assistant, I have never heard of this club, so it does not even meet local notability requirements.Madcoverboy 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yes, that would seem a more likely target, thanks. However, WP:NOR to one side if you've identified that there are local notability / verifiability issues then delete. Either way I can't see this club needs an article per WP:ENC. Pedro | Chat 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to MIT. i ^said 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no merge. I looked for reliable sources, and found only coverage in MIT publications: The Tech and Technology Review. Very new club, founded in either '04 or '05 depending on what page you look at. A merge would just insert material where it isn't wanted. I recommend against a redirect, too, since the information will ultimately not stay where it is put. Just delete it. Mango juice^talk 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Technology Insider

Orphaned, stagnant, no assertion of notability. Madcoverboy 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Effectively a non-noteable university newspaper. Delete or merge onto a relevant university related article if possible and if any of that information is actually worth keeping elsewhere (personally I don't think it is). WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ORG. Google did not help. Carlosguitar 21:31, 6 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 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hasefroch

Obvious neologism with no apparent takeup. Chris Cunningham 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as there's nothing from reliable sources to get it past WP:NEO Corpx 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Leibniz 21:10, 9 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. --Core desat 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Enterprise Forum

Advertising, Non-notable organization within MIT alumni association, itself a non-notable organization outside of MIT Madcoverboy 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Failure to assert noteability, unintentional advertising in my opinion.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be established Corpx 03:01, 5 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. --Core desat 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Matthews

Local news person with no assertion of notability. Contested prod moved to AfD. Cmprince 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of coverage for him. If his position is notable, then significant coverage should follow Corpx 03:00, 5 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. --Core desat 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny Plotnik

Local news person with no assertion of notability. Contested prod moved to AfD. Cmprince 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. While the station may have won some awards, that doesn't make him notable. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is marginal, doesn't deserve own article. Michaelbusch 23:37, 4 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. --Core desat 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apostolos Sourlos

Suspected hoax. He is supposed to be most famous for his role in Lampsi, but the IMDB cast page for that series does not have this or a similar name among its ca. 100 cast members Andre Engels 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment When reading the original creator's talkpage history, it's easy to find a revision in which it is obvious that he has received numerous warnings and has even been blocked. So I agree that it is probably a hoax. The article has, it appears, both been up for speedy deletion and been tagged for sources previously, so... Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Lilac Soul. I could find no evidence anywhere to suggest that the info in this article is legit. If this person exists, he is certainly not notable. --Evb-wiki 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
'Delete per nom. No evidence whatsoever. Känsterle 19:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nothing on Greek Wikipedia. Also, there are zero google hits for "Аπόοστολος" + "Σούρλος". There are only 10 for "Σούρλος", none with a similar name. Not conclusive, but absent any evidence to the contrary, it seems a hoax. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I can find no evidence whatsoever that he ever lived. And if he did, he must have been not notable. This looks indeed like a hoax. JoJan 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This article is compromising the reputation of Wikipedia (also the Dutch wikipedia), so I ask you, please wake-up and don't let this anonymous contributors-editors edit again in this article (or other articles). Some anonymous alleges Apostolos died now (5september) for the third time, please let him rest in peace. He even doesn't exist. -Pediariki 02:30, 6 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. --Core desat 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin de Kock

This is my first "Article for deletion" so please let me know if I've got it wrong!

I found this article via the "Random article" thing on the left. It appears to be about a teacher-slash-spiritual-preacher. I googled for his name and turned up nothing. None of his published works have Wikipedia articles. There's nothing in his article to say why he is significant in his area of expertise. It reads almost like he wrote it himself - it's full of stuff about his personal opinions and beliefs that aren't really relevant or of interest to a reader. I think that if you cut all the garbage you'd be left with about 2 lines of text, heh. This article just makes me ask "Why should we care?" because he doesn't appear to have got any recognition for his works excepting being made an honorary member of the World Esperanto Association (which, as an organisation about speaking the language "Esperanto", isn't really related to his work). Thanks for your time! Backsigns 12:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any decent sources on him. Article doesn't really assert his notability, it mostly concerns itself with explaining his religious and personal beliefs, making it read like a vanity article. I can't find his books online, either. Even if everything in the article is true, I don't think he passes notability guidelines. faithless (^speak) 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete His book apparently exists ([18]) but that doesn't make him automatically notable. If he is notable, then the article should assert this; as it is, however, the article would need so much rewriting even if he turns out to be notable, that it will be better with a clean start. Thus: Delete. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, I saw that one and one other on Amazon too. But since neither of them can be purchased, I said I couldn't find them. Maybe I should have been more specific. Just clarifying. :) faithless (^speak) 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Editorship of journals can sometimes be an important element of academic notability, but I haven't the least idea of the importance of the journals concerned. His career is so much in an unfamiliar niche that I can not really judge. DGG (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of coverage for him + his works Corpx 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Firing up ProQuest (pay service) I find one article mentioning this guy. It is "Esperanto: Universal language: 'Neutral language' easier than English" by Joann Deluna, published in Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, January 27, 2006, which describes him as an Esperanto poet and retired language professor. So the guy is verifiable at least. Agree that this thing reads like a vanity article, and note that most of the content was added by a contributor with no other edits other than those associated with this article. Crypticfirefly 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep He is in the Esperanto Wikipedia as a member of the Academy of Esperanto. I can verify that he did write those books, but they probably won't show up in Amazon. They were all written 1992 or before, and probably published by small presses just for Esperantists. Here is an authorship listing page in Esperanto about him. I agree that this article does need cleaning. If you wouldn't mind, would you please give me a chance to clean it up? -- Yekrats 19:21, 7 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 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of left handed people

Expired prod but this should not have been proded since I'm sure this is not uncontroversial. Rationale for prod was "unreferenced, unmaintainable". Roughly 10% of people are left-handed so clearly, it's not realistic to expect this list to ever be exhaustive. What may be doable is to have very specific sublists such as List of left-handed Presidents of the United States, though I have doubts about the encyclopedic value of that. Pascal.Tesson 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pure listcruft, and utterly unmaintainable. If kept accurate and updated, list would contain quite literally hundreds of millions of names. Per the talk page, the list began life on left-handed. It could perhaps be pruned and moved back. faithless (^speak) 13:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and grind into tiny pieces afterwards. Utterly un-manageable list cruft. Could not serve as an aid to navigation, WP:BLP issues, original research problems etc etc etc. Pedro | Chat 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is potentially an interesting article. I agree that it won't be exhaustive, but that is just a matter of noting this. However, the list is currently almost entirely OR, so I'd recommend an effort to provide sources for everyone currently on the list, and then deleting those who remain unsourced after a preset period of time. First step towards sourcing would, of course, be to look at individual articles to see if they contain sources about lefthandedness. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete using left hand. Unless we're going to create a list of right handed people too. And include all 6 billion people in the world across both lists. Pursey 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Listcruft. It's hard to imagine people goign to Wikipedia in order to find out how many famous people are/were lefthanded Lurker (said · done) 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as the one who prod'ed it originally. Unmaintainable OR listcruft of the worst kind. --Finngall ^talk 13:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing inherently notable about having a trait common to hundreds of millions of people. Enok^talk 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, same as was done before. —Raven42 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I suppose we could speedy delete this as recreated content then. Pascal.Tesson 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete While we could keep aspects of this list to be honest whether someone is left or right handed seems to be of no relevance to anything else. We may as well have a 'list of US presidents with blue eyes'. Absolutely no encylopedic value what-so-ever. If its especially noteable or relevant (say for example a famous left handed pianist) then it could be added to a bios trivia section if it has one. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete unmaintainable lists, unable to be verified and non-notable. Btw, I am left-handed but still I don't find it special. Magioladitis 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep or~~ Merge selected parts (see "Second comment" below) Before voting, editors should take a look at the "Left handedness and intelligence" and "Possible effects on humans on thinking" sections of Left handed article to which this list connects. Also look at the detailed Sports section in that article. Ignore all the statements without footnotes and you still have some compelling reasons why we might want to know who some famous left-handed people are. I think on anyone's top 10 list of scientific geniuses would be Albert Einstein and Newton, and maybe Tesla and perhaps Aristotle -- and they're on the list. In sports, isn't left-handedness sometimes important? Wouldn't it be good to know who's left-handed in particular sports to see whether there might be an advantage to left-handedness in certain team positions?

And take a look at this, from the Left handed article: Handedness researchers Coren and Clare Porac have shown that left-handed university students are more likely to major in visually-based, as opposed to language-based subjects. Another sample of 103 art students found an astounding 47 percent were left- or mixed-handed. So one would expect to find a lot of left-handed artistic types on the list, and there they are. The people you think of when you think of famous artists? Well, Leonardo is on the list, Michelangelo is ambidexterous, Picasso is on the list. These three would be on the list that most people would come up with if asked to name the top five artists of all time. Even though it proves nothing, it provokes interest and makes the reader think. And it just may prove something about how brains work for people at the heights of creative achievement. Seems useful to know.

This list is unimpressive on various levels: It needs citations; its usefulness should be tied directly to sections of the Left handed article where parts of it would help illustrate that article; the organization is difficult. That may mean it should be merged, but the information here seems important. You don't really prove much with any list of famous people, but you may well indicate and provoke thought. I think these work great as the equivalents of anecdotal evidence that has some value in an encyclopedia. For that reason, a merge may be the most appropriate thing, because the lists don't really need to continue to grow.

It may also be appropriate to have a Left handed category rather than a list. Left handedness may not be a trivial fact about a person, if it's an indication of creativity and the way certain people's minds may work. If that research is in fact true, then it may be helpful for readers to know. Noroton 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I created this page, after extracting it from the Left handed article. I did this as a step towards improving the page as it was starting to dominate the article. The contents are largely uncited and mostly constitutes trivia of staggeringly little significance. I understand that for a few people left-handedness constitutes a part of their notability, but for most it is totally unremarkable. For the few that it is notable, then perhaps they should be mentioned as examples in the left handed article, (e.g. as examples on the advantages of left handed tennis players), rather than being clumped into a list with people they have nothing in common with other than an accident of birth.

The above reference to Einstein is an excellent example of the unreliability of this sort of list. His left-handedness is a popular 'fact', but a simple google of images of him tells a different story.

As it stands the list is simply a cruft magnet, gathering irrelevant entries daily. This is why I also strongly vote against any merging it back into the article it came from.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Second comment Escape Orbit makes good points, and he's convinced me this should be deleted, although I think parts need to be merged back (perhaps it's a discussion for the Left handed talk page). I just found a 1988 article from the New York Times that could be used to cite maybe 20 of the most famous names on the list, although I wouldn't claim that makes it absolutely true (it mentions Einstein, for instance -- the article simply reported that these people have been said to be left-handed and it was a light feature, so it's unlikely the reporter checked it out). There are something like 245,000 Google hits for "Einstein" and "left-handed" (some of those refer to a concept in physics called "left-handed" though). I did google the images, and I think that proves Escape Orbit's point about Einstein. One [apparently posed image (the most famous of the bunch) could have been posed, but not this many: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Since the Einstein urban legend is so widely publicized, I think it's worth mentioning this conflicting information in the Left handed article and linking to the convincing pictures. It's also worth mentioning that many lists may be similarly dodgy (and that might prevent lists from growing and growing in the "Left handed" article).

Everything should be footnoted or tagged "citation-needed", but the mere fact that notable left-handers are referred to so much in discussions of left-handedness means the subject won't stop coming up, even without this page. My points about using portions of the list to illustrate particular points in the "Left-handed" remain. I'll bring it to the talk page there. Noroton 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and do not merge, just left-handed people isn't enough; as per above, it's a "cruft magnet". Heck, I'm left-handed. However, the list of left-handed musicians is just fine, since (usually) one's handedness can affect how one plays an instrument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. IP198 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Too wide criteria, Listcruft, and above. -Flubeca^Talk 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete another stupid list --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless everyone on the list is notable because of their left-handedness (checks....nope), this is pure cruft. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivia + loosely associated people Corpx 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm left handed too, but this isn't really noteworthy, hard to verify, perhaps even trivial. Knippschild 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I thought I'd seen it all, but this takes the prize for the most indiscriminate list ever. Do we have List of people with brown eyes floating around somewhere? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I know we don't do precedent in a very rigid way but I did discover Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left-handed people (2nd nomination) which resulted in a delete vote for something which was almost exactly the same. It could be argued this is a speedy delete as recreated material. Sam Blacketer 00:20, 9 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. Tim Vickers 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chloride shift

This is borderline unintelligible. It's been deleted once by me as such, but a new single purpose account reposted it. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now A Google search leads me to believe that this is indeed worthy of an article, though it certainly needs a ton of work. What is your rationale for deletion? faithless (^speak) 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'll go and try and make it somewhat intelligible right now. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The article may be a stub, but this is genuine science. Runch 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not a biologist or a doctor, but I think I've bridged the coherence gap with a slight tweek. --Evb-wiki 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep unclear writing is not a reason for deletion. The topic is notable. --Itub 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cmt - How would one know if the topic is notable, if the article is not readable? --Evb-wiki 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - By a trivial web search for "chloride shift", or even better a book search or a Google Scholar search. --Itub 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a medical term in common usage [25] [26] [27] [28]as a moment's research would have shown. Nick mallory 15:02, 4 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. --Core desat 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism and Jainism

What looks like a well-written piece of original research. Has been deleted a few times after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Hinduism but this is, I think, different content. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR in lack of citations from reliable sources Corpx 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research. Nothing from reliable sources. Per Corpx. i ^said 04:34, 5 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. Singu larity 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo Jamaican

Unreferenced since creation, speedied once and reposted verbatim by the same user, reads as original research. May be salvageable but needs extensive referencing if it is to be kept. We also have articles on Indo-Trinidadian, Indo-Guyanese and Wikipedia seems to be the top reference for all these terms. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep It may read as original research but as the source I give shows, it certainly isn't. It needs to be rewritten rather than nominated for deletion as the 'Indian' community in the West Indies, especially in Trinidad and Guyana but in Jamaica too, is an important part of the population and history. Nine seconds with google shows that this piece is heavily based on this article from the Jamaican Gleaner [29]. It's certainly in need of more rewriting but the nominator's original reasoning isn't valid. The original sources for the article are: Mansingh, L. and A. "The Indian tradition lives on" in A tapestry of Jamaica The best of Skywritings, Air Jamaica's in-flight magazine. Kingston: Creative Communications Ltd. and Oxford: Macmillan Publishers. p. 364-366, Mansingh, L. and A. Indian heritage in Jamaica in The Jamaica Journal, 10, (2,3,4), 10-19, Parboosingh, I.S. An Indo-Jamaica beginning in The Jamaica Journal, 18, (3), 2-10, 12, Sherlock, P. and Bennett, H. (1998). The story of the Jamaican people. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, Shepherd, V. Transients to citizens The development of a settled East Indian Community in The Jamaica Journal, 18, (3), 17-26. Nick mallory 12:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Nick. Wl219 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Nick Mallory. --Michig 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Would suggest a rename too to incorporate all Indian communities in the Caribbean. -- Roleplayer 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's already a more global Indo-Caribbean article. Wl219 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Jamaicans of East Indian descent are the second largest group in Jamaica after African-Jamaicans, and there already is an article for Chinese Jamaicans. Blackjays1 07:22, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Peter's Woodlands Grammar

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St Peter's Woodlands Grammar

This primary school fails WP:ORG. No independent sources are cited, in fact notability is not even asserted. PROD was contested in last September, with comment "deprod, remove bad-faith prod2" (but without further supporting arguments). Tagged with notability concerns since last December. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability + not a directory Corpx 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Glenelg, South Australia. While the article as it currently exists lacks sources backing a claim of notability, redirect will allow recration as a standalone article once material is available. As usual, we are hearing a patent misinterpretation of what the term "directory" means per WP:NOT#DIR. Alansohn 19:40, 6 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. --MCB 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGAT

Fails WP:CORP, can not find any non-trivial sources to establish notability in either English or Russian languages. Russavia 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The one reference is legitimate, but it fails to demonstrate notability. Shalom ^Hello 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Question Anybody checked the Russian Wikipedia for more information on this company? FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It does not seem to have an article in Russian Wikipedia Alex Bakharev 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep. I originally intended to vote for the deletion as the company does not deserve notability by its importance for the Russian economy. On the other hand it seems to be one of a major producers of Russian scaled die-cast models of cars. I have looked on Category:Model manufacturers and most of the articles there are about companies of a similar size. Maybe the molde collectors enthusiasts are interested in covering all the scaled car model manufacturers? In that case the article should be kept Alex Bakharev 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:N. Jakew 19:09, 4 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 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John 'Tonkan' Macdonald

Scottish artist with assertions of popularity and notability but no references at all to back it up. There isn't even a basic discography listed. The only link on the page goes to a website where his music can be purchased. It's a choice between WP:MUSIC and WP:SPAM WebHamster 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Noteability isn't asserted and unreferenced, theres a popular scottish folk circuit? highly likely the artist is local if even noteable. Textbook candidate for deletion.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I presumed for the purposes of not slapping a speedy on it that "releasing several internationally renowned" and "is a popular Gaelic Country singer" were assertions of notability.--WebHamster 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. faithless (^speak) 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:36, 4 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 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fast and the furious 4

Rumour, conjecture, Internet leakage, crystal ballery for a film that isn't to be released (if ever) until 2009. A lot can happen in Hollywood in 2 years. Not the makings of an encyclopaedia article. Prod removed by author. WebHamster 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I see an article removed in the near future. It's all in my WP:CRYSTAL 1redrun ^Talk 11:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fast and Furiously. Well, just normally will do. As per above. Pursey 11:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Recreate if/when film is confirmed and filming is underway unless there is an exceptional reason to create it earlier (such as controversy/scandal involving the film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianProlific (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Until there are reliable sources, this is just crystal gazing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No indication that this film will be produced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This film has progressed to a point where it has been confirmed that Vin Diesel will return. Light will shed on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azn-shuffler (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree; nothing has been confirmed. The reason why this article has been created is because of this report from Edmunds.com, which cites "sources close to the production of the three films". The article puts forth other rumors as well. By their very nature, rumors are not verifiable. Nothing has been confirmed yet, hence the recommendation to delete. If such a project is confirmed and enters production, the article can be re-created per notability guidelines for films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 8 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 WP:PORNBIO. --MCB 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabrina Deep

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Hard to assert noteability though the article is reasonably well written and referenced, reads a little like an advert though. To be honest I don't really want to go trawling the internet to discover if a porn star is noteable, but as far as I can see from the content on wikipedia the article does not pass or assert WP:PORNBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianProlific (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not even close. She is merely a websex peddler. Cannot even laughingly call her an actress, not even a "porn actress." --Evb-wiki 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- How? Epbr123 22:48, 8 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 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern sydney power

Seems to fail WP:N. Altogether the article doesn't state which league (if any) they play in. 1redrun ^Talk 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fancruft. Autobiography of club most probably by former/current player. Twenty Years 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete If considered an organisation, this alleged team would need to be of national or international significance and have multiple non-trivial mentions in third-party sources. Neither of these are met. There is also an active proposal (not yet policy) for notability of sports teams which broadly sets a standard of playing at first grade or equivalent for several years. Alas, Southern sydney power falls at even this low hurdle. Euryalus 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non notable football club, does not meet WP:ORG. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I can find no reliable sources for this AFL side. The article implies that they play in the Sydney AFL but there is no evidence for this. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is this about an under-18 side here. If so, I would still support deletion as a non-professional, junior team. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This team is the under 18s team of the Southern Sharks (and seems to have adopted the name Power very recently). Not only does this team play only in the lower division of the U18 competition, the senior team itself only plays in the First Division (below Premier Division) of the Sydney AFL. JPD (talk) 14:10, 7 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 JoshuaZ 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Mitchell

Not really notable, fails WP:COATRACK. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The BBC [30], the Daily Telegraph [31], the Scotsman [32] and the Guardian [33] certainly think he's notable enough for articles on him. He was interviewed on 'Hardtalk' on the BBC [34] as well as this BBC press release shows. He also wrote a book about his experiences [35] This is an article from the New Statesman [36]. This [37] article is from the Washington Post. These articles concentrate on Sandy Mitchell's story or interview him personally. This is not WP:COATRACK. He clearly is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. This one is from CBS [38] and there are many others. Nick mallory 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep although this article could avoid COATRACKiness by being about two things -- the Rodway case itself, and the prosecution/persecution of Mitchell and several others, who are barely mentioned in his article. It isn't clear why he's the one who gets an article when they don't, and I don't think that they each deserve an article, unless he's acknowledged as a leader or spokesman or something. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 5 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 JoshuaZ 20:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Salomonsen

I regret to say that mr Salomonsen has no certain fame nor significance in Norway. The lectures that are listed on his institutes webpage gives few informations about when og where these lectures are gives, thus making it difficult to evaluate their notability. His biography on no:wp are also the subject of a deletion debate, as he has claimed notability because he is no 7 on a party list for the forthcoming muncipality council election; and no 5 on the same partys list for the county council election. These positions (neither as candidate nor elected) are not enough to gain notability on no:wp, according to our guidelines. His biography on no: are written by a single article contributor using a nickname equal to the name of his institute: Pimes; likewise, this article was also initiated by a single article contributor: Special:Contributions/Sonjahines. Orland 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
delete I see no assertion of notability, no evidence of passing WP:PROF, and no evidence of notability as a politician (he's scheduled to be a candidate in a future election? article -stub more like- unclear). Pete.Hurd 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above - no sources to verify anything Corpx 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:VERIFY,WP:BIO--AmerHisBuff 09:34, 9 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 List of GURPS books. Singu larity 05:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Bestiary

2nd nomination for this article which does not provide evidence of notability either as a book of instructions or a game. First listed as part of of a WP:FANCRUFT group under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set. --Gavin Collins 09:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to List of GURPS books, a thousand times redirect. (sigh) --Craw-daddy | T | 10:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect ditto. -- JHunterJ 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per CD, JH, and all the rest from before. Percy Snoodle 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per usual... haven't we been here before? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per yaddayaddayadda... --Agamemnon2 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Craw-daddy, but merge a brief summary. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, as almost always (already merged one line of information in List of GURPS books). --Goochelaar 20:29, 5 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. Tyrenius 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Smith (artist)

This article fails to provide independent evidence of notability of this artist per WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited from association with role playing games; notability to come.--Gavin Collins 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There is no "role-playing game" exception in the notability guidelines. -- JHunterJ 10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - There are plenty of assertions of notability but no 3rd party references or sources. Should that change then my vote would most likely change. It isn't in my sphere of interests so I'm not the one to do it. At the moment the article doesn't meet WP:BIO--WebHamster 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Dan Smith (with two other fellows) won an Origins Award in 1997. I have added this (and appropriate reference) to the article. As Origins Awards are the "Oscars" for the gaming industry (or, at the very least, one of the most notable awards given to people in the gaming industry), this should be sufficient to establish his notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If anyone wants to conduct research about roleplaying games, pages such as this one are essential. Dan Smith was one of the most important artists for RPGs in the 1990s. His work contributed to the 'look' of GURPS books for a decade. In the near future, his page will be expanded. It should not be deleted.SMaykrantz 18:36, 8 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. --Core desat 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Balm

Part implausible biography (a.k.a. hoax), part spam for upcoming internet video. Maybe a little bit of legitimate biography of a person of questionable notability (who is also apparently the article's creator). --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 08:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE spam or hoax. OfficeGirl 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Probable hoax - even if not Google shows nothing other than generics, Article barely asserts Notability, is unverifiable and original research Pedro | Chat 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Personally I'd have speedied it regardless of any assertions. It's patent nonsense which a large dash of WP:BOLLOCKS thrown in for flavour.--WebHamster 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NOT SPAM It is the background information of the main character of a new short movie currently in production. Many people are looking for information on the character so the producers of the movie made a Wikipedia page about him. It was not Seán Balmy himself who wrote the page, it was the writers of the movie collectively under the name of SeanBalmy. He is a real person who claims this is his story. It has every right to be a Wikipedia page as it has given many people information on the character.

--RickPope 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NOT SPAM and CREDIBLE This article was very useful when I wanted to find out background knowledge on Sean Balmy. He is a real character who has a bit of a legendary status in the area of Cork, Ireland. This page tells his life story (which he claims to be true) which many people in my area seek to know. There is a movie now in production based on him.

If people still don't believe this I'm sure the writers would be willing to email the script to them.--Littlewood10 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In that case it makes it a little easier. It now seems to be a speedy under WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, WP:MOVIE. --WebHamster 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Entertainer - "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Sean Balmy has a significant cult following in Cork, Ireland as stated on the page. It is not spam for a movie as it is not a movie page. It simply states that a main character is based on him. If there is a movie being based on him then that gives him a cult following. --Littlewood10 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This page is not written as spam for our movie. It is simply there to give fans of 'Sean Balmy' information on his background, which many have already found useful.

--Seanbalmy 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be an awful lot of WP:SPA going on in here :( --WebHamster 00:17, 6 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 03:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off to the Races (Charlie's Angels)

Obsessive huge article about just one segment of a not-particularly famous film, with more references than article text. Although the film is notable and deserves an article, I don't believe that this scene is independently notable, and this whole topic could be dealt with in one paragraph in the main article for the film. Delete, if this cannot reasonably be merged into the main article. Karada 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft, non-notable film scene. Keb25 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete in lacking significant coverage for this scene. I'm not sure what the citations in the article are supposed to be Corpx 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as it appears to exist for the purpose of a synthetic association between this scene and the TV pilot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 5 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 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Road Waffles

This article is a plot summary of a non-notable web comic. Only one, quite brief, independent reference is cited, and reliability of this source (Comixpedia) might be debated. PROD contested by an anon IP user without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete in failing WP:N (lacking coverage) Corpx 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no decent sources in article, and I can't find any either. --Dragonfiend 10:24, 9 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 03:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mailer_diablo#Facts_of_Mike_LePond_of_Symphony_X_and_Business_partner_.2F_drummer.2C_Rick_Ferrusi_of_Dead_On_Arrival —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.15.85 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead on Arrival (band)

This band fails WP:MUSIC. Judging by the article, they published only one album on an indy label, which is not sufficient per the criteria. I am also nominating the article about a band member, Rick Ferrusi, since it fails WP:BIO. Both articles have been on PROD, which was contested by User:Rick Ferrusi without comment. Note: The album article Alive and Kickin' is currently up for speedy deletion.

As said, I also nominate the following related article:

Rick Ferrusi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete both - Although they don't meet WP:MUSIC they appear to be trying to by referring to the member of another notable band being "featured" on the album and in the group rather than as an actual member. My ability to "assume good faith" is being stretched here. --WebHamster 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete both I was originally afraid that this was for a different band of the same name. While that DOA is notable, this one is not. One album an a non-notable indie label more than a decade ago does not a notable band make. faithless (^speak) 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete both - same as the vote above, I thought this was the legendary Vancouver punk band for a moment. This particular band doesn't appear to have any way of meeting WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 4 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. --Core desat 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costa Rica Skies airlines

A new, unknown airline, with few sources, and even less notability. Says itself on the article that there are no destinations, and no scheduled flights. Jmlk 1 7 08:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up only one hit for this subject. Fails notability criteria as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:V. Jakew 10:44, 4 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 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible Experience

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Bible Experience

Articles for deletion/The Bible Experience (2nd nomination)

Previously deleted article deemed as a non-notable audio production and an advertisement. Recreated months later without references. Though famous actors are used in the recordings, notability is not inherited. Violates WP:ADVERT. Article written even before release of recordings for sale. Violates WP:CRYSTAL OfficeGirl 08:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pure advertising Lurker (said · done) 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Spamalicious. --Evb-wiki 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, although Samuel L. Jackson as the Voice of God? Priceless! ...and I shall strike thee down with great vengeance and furious anger... --Agamemnon2 11:37, 5 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. W.marsh 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Burials at Brookside Cemetery, Englewood

Contested prod. My reasoning is the same as for the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston: many cemeteries have nothing but a few notable dead as info: the persons are notable, but the cemetery isn't (it's only mentioned in general as the place these persons are buried, not as a topic of interest in itself, unlike e.g. Arlington National Cemetery. I'll nominate them separately, as every cemetery may have different arguments to be kept anyway, but basically in their current state they are all very similar to one another and to the precedent AfD listed above. I'm sorry that we will have to go through all these AfD's, but when people oppose a ProD, there is no choice left. Fram 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete all three These three cemeteries have nothing to make them notable. There are cemeteries that have historical significance, but these do not fit the bill. MarkBul 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Englewood, New Jersey (as has already been done, before the nominator created this AfD). The article provides a complete set of reliable and verifiable sources for all of the notables listed, making it the largest such cemetery in a county of almost 900,000 residents. The nominator's insistence that only cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery is ludicrous on its face. The nominator acknowledges that the material is encylopedic, and seems to be trying to make a disruptive and destructive WP:POINT here (as described on his talk page) by pushing to delete this and other articles, while refusing to consider the suggestion made to merge. Alansohn 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep All high schools are inherintly notable, and all malls over a certain number of square feet are notable. The discussion should be held at the portal level to determine if all cemeteries should be geographically notable if they contain three or more people with Wikipedia biographies or have burials over 100 years old. Most on the list have full historical entries in Sarapin's "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing except geographic locations (towns, mountains, lakes) are deemed inherently notable on Wikipedia, although most high schools have enough independent sources about them to be notable. A portal has no rights to determine for the whole community if something is inherently notable or not, that is what the notability guidelines and things like AfD are for. The previous AfD, mentioned in the nomination, has established that neither of your conditions (age or number of notables) are deemed sufficient to automatically keep a cemetery. Consensus may be different this time around, we'll see. And as far as I can see, Brookside Cemetery does not have an entry in "Old burial grounds of New Jersey"[39], although Bayview apparently has. That's the reason why I listed these separately, as it was well possible that some of them might have keep (or delete) arguments the others don't have. Fram 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per NOT a directory of who is buried where. This is extremely trivial information and unless you're buried at one of the national veteran cemeteries, I see no significance to the place where one is buried Corpx 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Your argument contradicts itself: "NOT a directory of who is buried where ... unless you're buried at one of the national veteran cemeteries." Whats the difference? National versus local? Veteran vs. civilian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep it seems there is a guideline-- and that it meets it. personally, I think that 3 notable burials is a very low bar, and I'd support changing the guideline. But by our current standards, it is notable. The title should be changed to the name of the cemetery. DGG (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no guideline, Wikipedia:Cemeteries is a one and a half year old style guide which is not discussed, not used (see "what links here"), ... So this is not a reason to keep the article. Fram 07:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

the style guide is the closest thing to a policy document in this case--it may never have been used before, but now is the time. It was written for the purpose of being used when needed. DGG (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope the closing admin will seriously consider if such an argument is valid and has any value. I'll not start another discussion here, let it just be clear that I disagree with this reasoning. Fram 09:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete; unless the cemetery has notability of its own (as would likely happen with, say, an historically significant burial site) and has non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (and I would not count mention of the cemetary as the burial site of a person that is the subject of the coverage, only coverage of the cemetary itself as non-trivial), then it falls short of the general notability guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Did you read the article or did you just read the comments here? It seems your voting on policy and not voting on the article, which makes me suspect you haven't read the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article; and the only source cited that talks about the cemetary is a whole paragraph long. I see nothing that makes that particular cemetery stand out as notable amongst the (hundreds?) of thousand others in the world. As an aside, I would request you keep that tone to yourself in the future. Of course I !vote by basing myself on policy and guidelines— so should everyone. — Coren ^(talk) 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Question Whats your definition of "multiple, independent, reliable sources"? Are you saying there aren't enough number wise, or that they aren't reliable? Please be specific. Notable doesn't mean the biggest or the best it just means, "multiple, independent, reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It also means significant coverage; from the guideline:
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
  
  Only the first reference addresses the graveyard directly in detail. The others either discuss the history of the church, county, region or are biographical documents mentioning where their subject is buried.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
  
  There goes the first reference— which is published by the cemetery administration itself.
The guideline also goes into further detail about what is reliable and, indeed, what is a source. I don't think either is relevant here. — Coren ^(talk) 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That leaves 4 more, multiple, means more than one. Two would be multiple. How many do you expect? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any source not excluded above. Which do you mean, exactly? — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What detail are you saying is original research, and not supported by that references? Your are also confusing notability with verifiability. Two are needed for notability, the rest for verifiability. There are 5 references from books. All facts are supported by the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not significant coverage. Mention on the cemetery is incidental to the book topic. We're running in circles, here, and I see no point if further arguing this. My point has been made clearly, and so has yours. — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There was never a requirement that an entire book would be devoted to the subject. If it were, encyclopedias could not be used as sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep passes the existing guidelines. If you dont like that... get the guidelines changed. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. While I see that some of this article has been merged elsewhere, this seems to be notable and is sourced. Bduke 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belvidere Cemetery

Contested prod. My reasoning is the same as for the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston: many cemeteries have nothing but a few notable dead as info: the persons are notable, but the cemetery isn't (it's only mentioned in general as the place these persons are buried, not as a topic of interest in itself, unlike e.g. Arlington National Cemetery. I'll nominate them separately, as every cemetery may have different arguments to be kept anyway, but basically in their current state they are all very similar to one another and to the precedent AfD listed above. I'm sorry that we will have to go through all these AfD's, but when people oppose a ProD, there is no choice left. Fram 07:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep All high schools are inherintly notable, and all malls over a certain number of square feet are notable. The discussion should be held at the portal level to determine if all cemeteries should be geographically notable if they contain three or more people with Wikipedia biographies or have burials over 100 years old. Most on the list have fully sourced entries in Sarapin's "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey". Every National Cemetery has an uncontested Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated on one of the other delete debates; portals have no special authority, your conditions have been rejected at the previous AfD (linked above), and Belvidere has no entry in "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey"[40]. Fram 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Cemeteries, especially those that contain the deceased of several notable people, are notable. --Oakshade 02:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Notability is NOT inherited by being buried at a place. It should be attained by coverage from significant sources. We're not a directory of who is buried where. Corpx 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Delete Eusebeus 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Belvidere, New Jersey (as has already been done). In addition to satisfying the Wikipedia:Cemeteries guidelines, the article provides a complete set of reliable and verifiable sources for all of the notables listed, making it the largest such cemetery in a county of several hundred residents. The nominator's insistence that only cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery is ludicrous on its face. The nominator acknowledges that the material is encylopedic, and seems to be trying to make a disruptive and destructive WP:POINT here (as described on his talk page) by pushing to delete this and other articles, while refusing to consider the suggestion made to merge. Alansohn 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your other points in one of the other delete debates here, but let me just clarify that contrary to what you claim, no merge/redirect to Belvidere has been done, and there is no guideline for cemeteries, only a styleguide which I hadn't seen before you brought it up here: it's a styleguide wrutten by one person and without any discussion in the year and a half since its creation, and which is linked to by not one discussion or other relevant page before this one. Fram 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As repeatedly suggested, and repeatedly ignored, the information could be merged to a logical parent article. The merge has already been done, and your repeated insistence that it has not been done only further undermines your credibility in this matter. If you have an issue with the styleguide, I encourage you to seek consensus to change it. Until then, all we have is a stubborn refusal to cooperate on your part. Alansohn 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps finally stop all the personal remarks and discuss the article at hand? I don't care that you don't know the difference between a merge and a duplication of info without a redirect, and I don't really care that you don't know the difference between a guideline and an unused style guide, but I will not tolerate any more baseless accusations from you. Fram 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is encyclopedic, and includes more than adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. It was developed as part of a good faith effort to expand and build Wikipedia. You have decided that you don't like it and have repeatedly refused to consider the possibility of a merge despite repeated suggestions, here, on other AfDs and on your talk page, as I have repeatedly documented. It's a sad state of affairs that an admin still seems to lack the most basic understanding of building consensus, or the knowledge that there are options other than delete for articles that you just don't like. Alansohn 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it seems there is a guideline--which I did not know before -- and that it meets it. personally, I think hat 3 notable burials is a very low bar, and I'd support changing the guideline. But by our current standards, it is notable. DGG (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no guideline, only a styleguide. Please don't continue the mistakes of other people... Fram 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Arlington National Cemetery is notable because of who's buried there. In this case this appears to be an ANTI-US bias because we have articles on puny cemeteries in other countries with a few famous people who because they've been around for 300 years are notable enough. Quit the deletions until an actual guideline is proposed and accepted, so then we can nuke all of the cemeteries worldwide that dont fit the official guidelines. To do this any other way is inherently biased. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm supposed to remain civil here, but you are making it very hard. First, I have no anti-US bias, and I see no reason for you to think so. I have never created, edited, nominated, deleted or kept articles out of any bias, and I would prefer that you don't make such baseless accusations anymore. Secondly, there is a guideline, it's called WP:NOTE. And finally, have you actually looked at the "puny cemeteries" you have linked? It looks to me that you have a pro-US bias if you call another nation's national monument, a musem or a holy tomb (a pilgrim's site and architectural marvel) "puny". Anyway, we shouldn't be discussing the merits of other articles, but solely of this one. I have not recognised one argument in your "keep" which is about this cemetery, so why should anyone take it into account? Fram 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Belvidere, New Jersey as has already been done. Burntsauce 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. This list has already been moved to Bayview - New York Bay Cemetery, Jersey City which contains just a list of notable people and it is well referenced. Bduke 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of burials at Bayview Cemetery, Jersey City

Contested prod. My reasoning is the same as for the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston: many cemeteries have nothing but a few notable dead as info: the persons are notable, but the cemetery isn't (it's only mentioned in general as the place these persons are buried, not as a topic of interest in itself, unlike e.g. Arlington National Cemetery. I'll nominate them separately, as every cemetery may have different arguments to be kept anyway, but basically in their current state they are all very similar to one another and to the precedent AfD listed above. I'm sorry that we will have to go through all these AfD's, but when people oppose a ProD, there is no choice left. Fram 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep All high schools are inherently notable, and all malls over a certain number of square feet are notable. The discussion should be held at the portal level to determine if all cemeteries should be geographically notable if they contain three or more people with Wikipedia biographies or have burials over 100 years old. Most on the list have full historical entries in Sarapin's "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey". Every National Cemetery in each state has an uncontested Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As has been said at the other deletion entries, portals have no special authority and your conditions have been rejected at the previous AfD debate. However, it looks like this cemetery does have an entry in "Old Burial Grounds..."[41], so this may make this one notable, contrary to the other two. I'll let some more editors give their opinion, but this at least is a good argument for keeping, not just ILikeIt or some arbitrary new guideline. Fram 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per NOT a directory of who is buried where. This is extremely trivial information and unless you're buried at one of the national veteran cemeteries, I see no significance to the place where one is buried Corpx 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment What makes a national cemetery inherently notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Jersey City, New Jersey (as had already been done). The article provides a complete set of reliable and verifiable sources for all of the notables listed, making it the largest such cemetery in a county of several hundred residents. The nominator's insistence that only cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery is ludicrous on its face. The nominator acknowledges that the material is encylopedic, and seems to be trying to make a disruptive and destructive WP:POINT here (as described on his talk page) by pushing to delete this and other articles, while refusing to consider the suggestion made to merge. Alansohn 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT? I can see you "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper", but I would like you to point out exactly how I am making a point, or else to stop this repeated accusation (this is at least the third place where you have put this now). As for the rest of your post, I'ld like some clarification on a few points. First, if you merged the info, then why didn't you redirect the article at the same time? Simply duplicating the info is not the way. WP:MERGE clearly states that after the merge, you should replace the original page with a redirect. If you would have created a redirect, I would (obviously) not have brought this to AfD, although I could still start a discussion at the target page about the relevancy of the cemetery section (but that is another discussion altogether). I can't remember seeing any suggestion being made to merge this page, let alone me refusing to even consider it. Fram 07:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your persistent refusal, after being directly requested, to consider even the possibility of a merge is a staggering display of bad faith, and this AfD and the other AfDs you created in response to the request you ignored are clearly disruptive. I refer you to this comment on your talk page "why pursue the destructive and disruptive option of deletion and not propose a merge? What purpose are you trying to accomplish? How is Wikipedia being improved through your actions, when, at worst, a merge would rid Wikipedia of an article that seems to offend you so greatly?" As a suggestion to merge, that you have repeatedly refused to consider. It's a sad state of affairs that someone entrusted with admin powers has such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Alansohn 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If I (and other editors with me) don't believe that the info is of encyclopedic value, and that the cemetery is not really noteworthy, then it doesn't really make a difference if it has its own article or a section in another article. And I don't see how a difference in opinion (you want to merge, I want to delete) is in any way "disruptive". You want a merge, I don't: that is not "refusal to cooperate", "stubbornness", or any other friendly word you want to call it, it is a difference in opinion. Perhaps I would have been more willing to have an open discussion about it if your post(linked above) wasn't so overtly hostile. Sadly, it only went downhill from there. But I do appreciate the irony of someone ignoring the fact that a merge results in a redirect from the original article, not knowing the difference between a guideline and a styleguide, and randomly accusing other people of making a WP:POINT, claiming that I have such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Fram 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Genuine consensus is built among parties that have a broadly equal stake in the subject being addressed. That the AfD process is overrun by those who make little or no investment in adding to Wikipedia content, have little understanding of what is involved in creating and expanding articles, and have appointed themselves as judge, jury and executioner of articles that don't interest them is a sad statement of what the process far too often turns into. The article is encyclopedic, and includes more than adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. It was developed as part of a good faith effort to expand and build Wikipedia. You have decided that you don't like it and have repeatedly refused to consider the possibility of a merge despite repeated suggestions, here, on other AfDs and on your talk page, as I have repeatedly documented. It's a sad state of affairs that an admin still seems to lack the most basic understanding of what it means to build consensus, or the knowledge that there are options other than delete for articles that you just don't like. As you have acknowledged in your reply above, you justify your refusal to cooperate because of issues of tone; Refusing to consider the proposed alternative and starting out on an AfD spree seems clearly intended to destroy and disrupt, the definition of WP:POINT. Alansohn 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anyone in particular in mind when you describe that " the AfD process is overrun by those who..."? If it is directed at me, then it is a patently false personal attack. If it is directed at someone else in this AfD, then I would appreciate it if you could give a name or names. If it is not about anyone in this AfD, then please strike it out as completely irrelevant. Fram 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Far too many to list... Still awaiting your response to each and every one of the merge proposals. Alansohn 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Far too many to list"? There are three participants in this discussion apart from you, and I can't imagine that you want to include Richard Arthur Norton in your attack, so that leaves Corpx and me. And for "each and everyone of your merge proposals", there are two separate issues; I am not interested in a merge of these articles, since I don't think the info is noteworthy, no matter if it is in its own article or as part of a larger article. And I'm absolutely not interested to find consensus with an editor whose main method of finding such consensus seems to be to attack other editors. An AfD discussion is a way to find consensus, and you could easily have proposed a merge here, after which we could have seen what the consensus of the Wikipedia community was. But you decided to falsily claim that a merge/redirect had already been done (which is obviously untrue), and then started attacking me, just like you did on my talk page. Oh well, it looks like this is standard procedure for you ([[42]]), so at least I know I shouldn't take it personally. Still, I would very much prefer it if you named at least some of those "far too many to list...". Fram 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Falsily^[sic] claim"? When you prod'ed the article I suggested a merge. You refused to consider it or acknowledge. When I participated here, my !vote was to "Keep or Merge/Redirect to Jersey City, New Jersey". You refused to acknowledge that this was a suggestion to merge/redirect the content, or respond to it. As to the merge having already been done, please see this link. Every single one of your claims has been disproven. And now this is the McCarthy hearings? No, I have never been a member of the Communist party. Alansohn 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "falsily claim that a merge/redirect had already been done". No redirect was done, and a merge isn't done without a redirect. You have only duplicated the info. Goodbye, Alansohn, I'm done with you. Fram 14:08, 6 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P. C. Chandawat

This article was deleted as an expired prod in late August. Since then, it has been recreated at least twice, as an article under this name and another under P.C . Chandawat (note the spacing before and after the initials). He does not seem to meet WP:PROF because there are no independent sources other than papers and class materials produced by every other professor and historian. However, I'm not from India, and other voices should be heard. KrakatoaKatie 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It reads as a CV rather than as an encyclopaedic article. It's either self-penned of possibly a family member given the info in the article. Lots of assertions but nothing that meets WP:BIO. --WebHamster 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Yes every professor writes papers, including the notable ones: and the question of notability is the importance of those papers. In this case, they are not articles in peer-reviewed journals, but just conference papers, and they alone don;'t make for notability. Sufficiently important published work does make for notability. DGG (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I wonder if they call him "Mac" for short? --WebHamster 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability for him or his works Corpx 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have read one of his books on the History of Bharatpur State "Maharaja Surajmal Aur Unka Yuga (1745-1763 A.D.)" and found very informative and useful. He is author of repute. His works on compilation on the history of Rajasthan, about which very little work has been done, are worth noting. He is a notable person. I recommend to keep. --burdak 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find us any reviews or other references to them? --they might well demonstrate the importance objectively. DGG (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Please see the Wiki page of "Suraj Mal of Bharatpur" for his contribution. I recommend to keep. --shrimali 7 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrimali (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Agreed with WebHamster. Shyamsunder 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:VERIFY--AmerHisBuff 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WebHamster. --Crusio 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jungle off

Tagged as speedy for nonsense, but has enough context to establish it as clear WP:NFT material, which isn't speediable, so we need to get the snow going Daniel Case 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MADEUP via WP:SNOW. (Disclaimer: I'm the original speedy nominator. However, I think the AfD nom is correct, so thanks for making the point). --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The writers of WP:MADEUP and WP:SNOW had this article in mind, for sure. OfficeGirl 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:MADEUP, particulary hilarious in some parts particulary the confimation of a "2007 JOF world cup" and the constant mention of somebody named "El Carlos" who happens to use performance-enhancing drugs, this would certainly make a great Uncyclopedia article but it has no particular encyclopedic value here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Funny (in a way) but an obvious hoax... 1redrun ^Talk 08:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious hoax. It's really too bad we don't have a faster deletion process for this sort of garbage because I fear some people consider the 5 days they get via AfD to be a little victory. Oh well. Erechtheus 11:46, 4 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 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observation lounge (Star Trek)

Even less notable that the subject of this AFD. Unsourced, no assertion of notability, merely plot summary. --EEMeltonIV 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nomination says everything that needed to be said. OfficeGirl 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I love Star Trek, but this is too trivial for even my taste.--Danaman5 06:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Perhaps someday we an have a article about the Argos' starboard. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As it is not notable and the prose is original research. Pedro | Chat 07:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Like Danaman5, I too am a trekkie, but this doesn't belong here. I could provide references for the layout of the room with respect to the rest of the ship - I've got some blueprints of the ships at home - but that doesn't change the fact that this is essentially fancruft. And the blueprints wouldn't be independent anyway. There's not even need to transwiki it to Memory Alpha, as they already have a much better article. Delete as fancruft and non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, 5 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. --Core desat 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word attachments

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Originally created by a user at the same IP address as the one that created a deleted article called "Word Rage". In fact, the orginal incarnation of this article was simply a re-direct to the Word Rage article [43]. After the Word Rage article was proposed for deletion, its text was copied to this article on Word attachments, see [44]

It was noted in the deletion discussion that the Word Rage article was copied almost word for word from this web page: [45], which is part of a private list of web links by an individual identified as Father Martin Sylvester.

There are apparently only two sources for this article. Much of the article is a copyvio of the catholic site mentioned above. The other source which may have been relied upon is a POV rant promoting a petition against Microsoft, and could well be considered linkspam.

If there is anything in this article which constitutes encyclopedic content based upon verifiable, reliable sources, then it is probably already covered in Microsoft Word. Wikipedia is not a soap box. OfficeGirl 04:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: In the past three years very little has happened with this article other than vandalism and spam which has been subsequently removed. In May, 2007 one editor added a few sentences in an attempt to balance out the POV, but those sentences were not supported by references to any sources, reliable or otherwise, and those additions, in my opinion, drew even more attention to the fact that the article is tremendously outdated in addition to being unsalvageably POV. OfficeGirl 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have worked quite a lot in order to make something good out of this article. I believe it is really possible to make an encyclopedic article about a social issue: the epidermic reaction some people have when they receive MS word files, why they react so, why most people still use MS Word. Maybe some historical comments could be added (how were things before MS Word conquered the market, did those reactions changed things, how Microsoft itself reacted). However, as OfficeGirl pointed out, there is an issue about whether it deserve a separate article from Microsoft Word.Elimerl 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Elimerl, I applaud your energy and enthusiasm and willingness to work on this article. While you have succeeded in toning down the paranoid conspiracy rant that we were first dealing with, it is still a lot like an original research magazine article and nothing like an encyclopedia article. And the sources you have cited are all personal web pages, many with rantings similar to the "Word attachments" article we have been discussing. I just don't think this topic is one where we could even find reliable sources we can use as a basis for a separate encyclopedic article, even when we have a sane, non-paranoid, intelligent person like yourself working on it. But please keep working on Wikipedia articles with that enthusiasm that you've got. I'm glad we've got you around! OfficeGirl 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep per the Stallman article and the rest of the literature that can easily be found on the topic. The article could use cleanup, but I think the subject is relatively notable. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Cut down, removing unverifiable content in particular, and merge what remains to E-mail and Microsoft Word. I'm not altogether convinced that this subject is notable enough to merit an article, but perhaps more important in this case is that the subject simply makes more sense to the reader in the context of these other articles. Jakew 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's an anti-MS rant that doesn't merit its own article. Its issues could be listed as "cons" under a Microsoft Office article and "pros" under an OpenOffice (or other similar) article. --McDoobAU93 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:OR, WP:COATRACK. Mystache 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete A soapbox rant, thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article by adding a single advantage of using word attachments Lurker (said · done) 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is an original research essay about word attachments analyzing the benefits/downfalls. Encyclopedia should not be the place to review software Corpx 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article definitely match deletion criteria, however, I plan to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimerl (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several things that you can do to make a deletion-worthy POV essay into a successful article on Wikipedia. The first thing you might consider is "userfying" the article (making it a part of your User space, rather than publishing it right away in the main namespace). Then you could work on it without any fear that your work would be deleted in the beginning stages. See Wikipedia:Userfication. However, you would still be faced with the task of proving that there is sufficient notability for "Word attachments" to justify a separate article from Microsoft Word. I think you will have trouble on that issue. There's not a reason for a separate article, though you might enjoy improving the Microsoft Word article.OfficeGirl 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unencyclopedic. John 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Delete. However, the subject is fine for an article and more sources should exist. Recreate later and better. • Lawrence Cohen 18:46, 7 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 which has already been done, with this made a redirect. Bduke 07:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cast members in Casino Royale (1967)

Unnecessary fork from Casino Royale (1967 film)#Cast which already lists the main cast. Any other important information should be detailed in the Casino Royale article. This sets a bad precedent for countless other List of cast members in film X type lists to be created. Masaruemoto 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does it matter that nearly 50 of the cast members listed have Wikipedia articles? It seems to me that this is a unique situation, with the notability of the cast itself potentially being notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - In response to the above comment, many of the cast members may be notable, but for reasons other than the fact that they all met up to make this movie. In my mind, this article has no reason to exist.--Danaman5 06:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Normally such a list would be inappropriate, but Casino Royale is a very high-profile movie known for having many high-profile actors. Appropriate fork per WP:SS. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, or possibly merge into the main article, as per Around the World in 80 Days. Cameos aren't notable enough for a separate article. Clarityfiend 06:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It was only created because the long cast was not permitted in the main article it was a split rather than a creation. Because most of the cast are notable this really is needed. I would never normally think of creating such an article but Casino Royale is unique due to its high number of top actors. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Casino Royale is the only Bond film that is an epic.

The cast is huge and talented. The main article focuses on the major characters but this article gives space to all the characters. It is for this reason that it must be kept. Tovojolo 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unnecessary list. The movie article can list the cast just fine. Wryspy 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong MERGE The long cast listing in the main article is permissable, and reasonable. Use It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World as an example of a "cast of thousands" type movie, and the cast listing is not prohibited by WP:NOT#TRIVIA since the actors are notable both for themselves, and Charles Feldman's (?) efforts to pack the screen with big-name talent. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:50, 9 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. --MCB 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Saba

No notability established. Appears to have co-authored a book, perhaps two or tree; one of which ("Homeschooling Companion") may be a serious work. The rest is "based on an interview" with the subject of the author. Lots of claims of fabulous products, games, web sites, "well over 1000 projects", awards, groundbreaking work, future products and books, whatnot; little of which is shown to exist, much less evidence of being notable. No sources allowing for a genuine WP:NPOV, non-spammy, non-WP:COI article to be written. Weregerbil 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive (not even a review). Only Google Books results are her own works. Fails WP:BIO. Created by Timequaker (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account (who, according to article Talk page, "won't be back"). --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a single-purpose account was I got disgusted with the whole wikipedia process - it is illogical when you see something like John Taylor-Gatto - far less noteworthy in the same field - not be questioned, but someone industry folks know to be far more 'noteworthy' being attacked like this. So I got disgusted with the Wikipedia process. If you search "Laura Saba" under google in general or yahoo you will find dozens of reviews, particularly of The McGraw-Hill Homeschooling Companion. I don't understand Dhartung's inability to find those. I asked weregerbil to provide an understanding to a 'newbie' like myself as to how this works and there was no response other than an addition of 'tags' again. I find that to be elitist - it doesn't seem Wikipedia is serious about wanting to produce accurate stories or to encourage outside participation when admins don't respond and instead post new tags. I was simply trying to UNDERSTAND so that future entires to wikipedia would NOT have such issues. Weregerbil only seemed bent on discrediting mine and others' entries - not on helping us understand the process. Sad commentary on the wiki process - I once counted on it. However, I've now an interesting topic for my PhD thesis so I'm grateful to weregerbil for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
one of the most reputed homeschool review groups posted a review at http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art6205.asp again I don't understand how dhartung claims there are no reviews there are dozens and dozens out there and this book has been featured in virtually all homeschooling magazines and mentioned in many other homeschooling books. Perhaps the trouble is that with the nature of homeschooling, as homeschoolers tend to have a 'distrust' of the government and organized approaches, too much of their workings are NOT on the web - including most of the industry oriented magazines of which there are 14 - but only 4 have any online presence. Perhaps admins should need to understand the industry they are attacking before passing judgment? Otherwise it demonstrates a certain ignorance of the standards which they are utilizing to judge, given the standards of judgment fail in the instance off movements and industries that fall outside 'the box'. The qualifications utilzed to attack this entry - a true one - fall short herein. John Taylor Gatto is known to pay to have his work promoted endlessly, so he meets your requirements, though all within this movement know truths. Confusing, this whole Wikipedia approach. I'm not here to argue I could care less whether you keep this article here or not - i'm just perplexed that an admin, when A) asked for clearer understanding, ignores it instead, when wikipedia supposedly prides itself on encouraging participation and B) not caring to examine an issue more closely when they come upon something that doesn't fit inside a little box. For such a groundbreaking technology as wiki is, you would think those involved would stay on top of things rather than locking themselves into a little box. The reason for not wanting to continue 'conversation' or 'coming back' is because I cannot discuss with someone who has already made up their mind, and done so based upon 'standards' that in this case cannot reflect truth. disappointing, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE This article is poorly written and hard to understand, after wading through all the POV stuff it appears that the very nice lady who is the subject of this article just doesn't meet WP:BIO. Through the history of this article and its talk page other Wikipedians have tried in vain to help. When it comes down to it, we just don't have verifiable, reliable sources showing any evidence that Laura Saba is notable or well-known enough to be in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - high-profile, well-published, clearly notable author. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, I do not find notability "clear". Could you expand a bit on why you think she meets WP:BIO, e.g. which independent sources make her notable? --B. Wolterding 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Lots of assertions (and wordiness), but WP:BIO isn't being met I don't think (too much verbiage to plough through). Cute though :) --WebHamster 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just a reminder that poor writing, wordiness and (correctable) POV are not reasons for deleting an article but are reasons for cleaning it up. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep as she's clearly notable and it has sources (although I haven't checked or verified. Now, I think the whole movement is inane, but that's no reason to delete. Really needs a clean-up, not a deletion. Bearian 18:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, I made a crack on wikifying the article. 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

Delete. The question here is: Can we find substantial independent coverage about the person in reliable sources? (Not publications by her, and also not publications by organizations she is affiliated with etc.) The article actually lists 23 footnotes. I tried to verify against these sources; but I found none (in those available to me) that would support notability. The most promising (if unavailable to me) seem to be an article in the Guardian and one in the Washington Times; most others seem to be trivial or not independent. Perhaps someone else with access to the newspaper archives could check. But consering that the article otherwise makes many trivial claims in illustrious words (she has a Red Cross Instructor certification! I'm amazed!), I am not inclined to believe without verification that those newspaper articles contain nontrivial coverage about the subject. I have no prejudice towards recreation of an article that reduces to notable, verifiable facts. But this would need a complete rewrite anyway. --B. Wolterding 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:SPAM--AmerHisBuff 09:31, 9 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. Bduke 07:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of painters

Redundant to Category:Lists of painters. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this does nothing the category can't. Masaruemoto 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as I feel like the category is sufficient to serve this purpose Corpx 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to the category~~. I think this is a case in which a list has no substantial advantage over a category. A redirect would be useful since "List of X" is a common search query. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing to keep. Since this is a list of lists, it makes a lot of sense to reference this parent list in a "See also" section of the child lists. The main issue I have with only using a category in this case is that category links tend to draw very little attention. I expect that many readers browsing a list of Spanish painters might be interested in other similar lists, but aren't likely to notice the parent category. I'm undecided as to whether it's best to have a list + category or just a list, but I'd prefer either option over just a category. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also good to be able to link down to this, eg from Lists of people by occupation. Kappa 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is much more in this list than in the category, and more could usefully be added. The real problem in this area, which this nomination would make worse rather than better, is the overlap and duplication between "artists" and "painters" lists and categories. The category page rightly refers readers to the article for more lists. Johnbod 12:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 12:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This list is not a problem. It is an alternative method of accessing information for those that prefer using lists and their display layouts to categories, which can be rather complicated. It includes more information than the category, under "See also", which can be expanded. Tyrenius 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - these lists and the category are useful, necessary and important, especially for Visual Arts editors, Modernist 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - not every country on Lists of painters is in Category:Lists of painters, Americans don't have a list of painters - I just added American artists before and after the 20th century to the category of painters just in case. I just might revert myself - because as Johnbod and Tyrenius point out this can begin to get very complicated. Modernist 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep As it is not listcruft and links to other lists which maybe those can be categorize.--JForget 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and list is redundent.--Sefringle^Talk 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything in WP:NOT#DIR that this contravenes. Tyrenius 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is an overall list of lists of Notable painters from different countries, positively Not redundant. Modernist 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with lists of artists. Kappa 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They are distinct entities, and it makes it more confusing if someone wants to find painters specifically, but not other artists, such as sculptors, printmakers, conceptual artists etc. Tyrenius 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually merging these two articles to Lists of artists and painters (or and sculptors etc) is not a bad idea. Merging the individual list articles, to keep these distinctions listed, would probably be a good idea, but an awful lot of work. In most cases, the painters lists seem a lot bigger, although in theory it would be the other way round. Johnbod 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please lets not mix apples, oranges, tomatoes and cantaloupes - Modernist 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is they are already mixed, and it may be necessary to look in two places to find someone, but many people won't realize this. In theory all the painters are in artists, in practice they are not. But that is not really an issue for this debate, now it has gone so far. Johnbod 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Organizational articles should be judged at least in part on their usefulness, and i would not support removing a fundamental article like this that clearly helps in navigating a very confusing group of other lists. WP uses both categories and lists as organizational devices, and it makes sense to me to organize lists using a list (and categories using a category). DGG (talk) 05:21, 7 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. --Core desat 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiporno

Alexa reports that the site is not in the top 100,000; a search of ProQuest finds no newspaper or magazine articles mentioning the site; the top-ranking Google results appear to be self-generated. AxelBoldt 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article. Fails notability guidelines as well. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Main page created on July 31, 2007. Notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete until it becomes notable. -Henry W. Schmitt 04:44, 9 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 04:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America's most important businessmen

POV title and original research. At first I thought "Latin America's most important businessmen" was the name of this event, but it appears this is just a title made up by the aricle's creator to describe the people who attended the event. The event is non-notable as well. Masaruemoto 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There are better, more objective ways to get at this information. Particularly galling is the inclusion of non-attendees, on no apparent basis whatsoever. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete it is original research to gather importance from a list about richest people Corpx 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to inherently subjective title. Daniel Case 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 01:27, 5 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 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haim Zut

I changed the Prod to AFD because personally I think he is notable but am pretty sure that it is debateable. I say Keep but for reference please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haim Gidon (2nd nomination). One other thing is that I thought for a moment both these people were the same - I think they are different.Peter Rehse 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Placer of {{prod}} voting Delete. I found this article as part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. I searched for and did not find reference to meet WP:BIO, WP:NOR and WP:V. Of the 70 some non mirror references on ghits, all of the ones I looked at where primary references or advertisements. I would like to thank Peter Rehse for bringing the article to AfD when he removed the prod :) and I would like to request that if anyone finds or has references to meet WP:BIO and WP:V please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as no sourced claims of notability --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:25, 7 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 Consensus to keep. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrel children

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barrel children

Articles for deletion/Barrel children (2nd nomination)

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, page was previously deleted and meets criteria for G4, as such I have requested speedy deletion as well. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the CSD tag. The version previously deleted was only two sentences long. This incarnation is substantially different and better sourced. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article speaks about a real (and unfortunate) topic, and a lazy Google search came up with a good amount of articles. It can be expanded. --UsaSatsui 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Term dates to 1980s, was subject & title of 1996 Newsweek feature, has currency in Jamaica and Trinidad at least. Needs more sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see it is being expanded even as I wrote the above. Advice to improvers: don't use a citation as a press-release-style name-check e.g. "mentioned in Newsweek". That's fine for an AFD but in an article it's more important to go to the next step and say what Newsweek (or whomever) said about the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put in a quote from the Newsweek piece. Nick mallory 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep A host of sources have been added to the article. I wonder if the nominator did any research on this before nominating it as it's a well known term in Trinidad and Jamacia with a large number of media mentions and google hits. Nick mallory 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - well-known concept; clearly notable. I wouldn't consider it a neologism since it wasn't coined by anyone in particular but arose out of common utilitarian use. Article is much more that a definition, so it doesn't fail WP:DICT any more than philosophy, science, math, or most of the other ~2 million articles that exist. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep poorly-written article, but sources show notability and scope for improvement. Jakew 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
delete poorly written, and sources don't show notability.--Sefringle^Talk 03:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep However, this article must be improved. RS1900 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep needs to be cleaned up, but the sources provided above indicate notability. Melsaran (talk) 13:48, 7 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 List of Star Trek races, though there's almost nothing to merge. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caitian

No (assertion of) real-world notability and no reliable secondary sources. Had redirected to most notable appearance of this species (e.g. a specific character) per practice with dozens of other Star Trek-related ship, planet, species, character, etc. articles but User:Honeymane objects. No larger List of... to merge info. EEMeltonIV 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Not so; List of Star Trek races? EEMeltonIV, you know this isn't the way to solve debates between users, I was merely asking you take the time to discuss the idea of redirecting or merge on the page, something you didn't even attempt to do. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad missing the List of... -- I searched for "species" instead and came up dry. Anyhow, the content in the AfDed article is uncited non-notable plot summary. I've provided a link to the character -- which itself may not even meet notability -- in the List of... The content at Caitian is trivia that should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 04:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This nomination is toeing the line of being in bad faith, And the notability of M'Ress is not being discussing here. I'd suggest merging it with the list, or perhaps copying the information from memory alpha, to fill out the article. The species has, appearently appeared in Star Trek IV, something not noted by the current article. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MA does not have a compatible license. Even if it did, again, there's no notability, and MA itself is not a reliable source. The thing's appearance in Star Trek IV is your own original research. --EEMeltonIV 05:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, not really, the Star Trek IV Sourcebook update names the race (as depicted in the movie) as caitian, so it's not WP:OR--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per lack of real world coverage for this fictional race Corpx 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge (with List of races) Or keep However, I still feel this is a bad-faith nomination for deletion. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Star Trek races if it can be reliably sourced ("Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources." WP:V). Otherwise, delete. Jakew 11:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Star Trek races as stated above, but again, only if it can be reliably sources. If not then delete. Ejfetters 05:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Since 2005, the closest the stub's come to having a reliable source is mention of a Lincoln Enterprise's snippet. Google search yields barely even any in-universe Star Trek hits; I doubt there's anything substantial/substantiating out there for any sort of notability. --EEMeltonIV 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus [46]. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mon (currency)

The three currencies (Japanese mon, Korean mun, Chinese wén) are all pronounced and spelled differently, even though they originated from the same character (文). It is inappropriate to put them all under a disambig page with the Japanese transliteration.

Precedence:

They are all disambig pages that can mean currencies or something else. But on krone, we don't see a link to Czech koruna. In addition, kroon may only refer to one currency, so it simply redirects to Estonian kroon. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. That's a bad example as all of those are not written with the same character, so there's no possibility for confusion. There is definite possibility of confusion for those unfamiliar with the pronunciation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge back to mon, which is already a disambiguation page. Also merge to mun and wen if you want. Don't see any reason for this to exist separately, though obviously the three national groups in question desparately need something else to edit-war over now that the Takeliandokcourt Dorockshimas, Tianchonchiji, etc. debacles have settled down. cab 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Noting that the Chinese wén is the roots for all 3 currencies in this case, moving it to Wén (currency) might be an idea. Ideally we can move it to Wén (currency), and then expand it into a multicultural article like Dollar is now. I think we should pave way for more CJK (or CJKV) collaboration in the form of a new wikiproject, to make such things possible. Please let me know if anybody is interested. (If the naming conventions had allowed, a move to 文 (currency) would have made even more sense, but that's not possible.) --Endroit 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps just link all three currency article together? One article each for the three currencies, then have See also links. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I believe expanding the See also section in all 3 articles is a good alternative for what I will suggest below...--Endroit 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Move to 文 (currency)~~ ; ~~Move to 文~~ ; Merge into User:Endroit/文 and rename it 文, if Chinese characters are allowed in DAB page titles. If we take this route, I believe WP:WPDAB should be involved. I have requested comments from editors at WP:WPDAB at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Creation of a CJK Taskforce to handle Chinese characters to discuss if Chinese characters should be allowed in DAB page titles.--Endroit 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (Revised 20:17, 6 September 2007, then 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC))
Comment If moved, please move to 文 or merge to Wen or similar . There's not need for a parenthetical if the base name is open, and disambiguation pages try to avoid separating based on case or accent marks. (And if the base name weren't open, the disambiguation should be 文 (disambiguation) or Wen (disambiguation), not 文 (currency) or Wén (currency). There is no need to use a parenthetical other than (disambiguation) on a disambiguation page title, and the Disambiguation Project also works to "fold" the exceptions back in to the "main" disambiguation page if they've been so splintered. The guidelines for use of Chinese characters is disambiguation titles should follow the guidelines for use of Chinese characters in article titles, whatever those are. -- JHunterJ 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- DAB pages are considered "non-articles", per MOS:DAB. They don't necessarily follow the same rules as for normal articles. Redirects with Chinese characters already exist... 横浜, 中国, 中華民國, etc. Therefore, it follows that: DAB pages with Chinese characters should obviously exist as well... 文 or 文 (currency).--Endroit 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  Redirects aren't disambiguation either, so that doesn't obviously follow. I'd still lean toward naming the disambiguation pages using the article naming rules, and if redirects to those dabs need to be created, then they could obviously follow the pattern of redirects to articles. Either way, not 文 (currency) unless it's a non-disambiguation page that needs to be distinguished from the base name 文 page. -- JHunterJ 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  ... but (coming around to what I think you're getting at) a good reason to break that rule/guideline would be if there isn't a common transliterated representation of the term to be disambiguated. So 文 or 文 (disambiguation) if 文 is an article or a redirect to an article. -- JHunterJ 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  Since 文 doesn't exist yet, I agree that the disambig should be at 文 (not 文 (currency)).--Endroit 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  ...and no there isn't a common transliterated representation. The transliterations we have articles for (that I know of) are: wén, mon, and mun.--Endroit 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  - We should keep in mind the contents of these pages, too, on the Japanese Wikipedia: 文, 文 (disambiguation). There is also a Wiktionary page. I can't speak for any pages on the Korean or either Chinese Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I just looked around for 文, and here's what else I found:
    
    We have multiple instances of Chinese 文 transliterated as wén: King Wen of Zhou, Emperor Wen of Han, Emperor Wen of Liu Song, Wen Tianxiang, Wen Zhengming, Wen Zhenheng (from the DAB page Wen).
    
    There's a dab page zh:文 in the Chinese Wikipedia, but without so many entries.
    
    From Korean history, we have 文 transliterated as mun: Emperor Mun of Balhae.
    
    We even have a Japanese 文 transliterated as fumi instead of mon: Fumi Hirano.
    --Endroit 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, these solutions are acceptable to me:

文 (currency) as dab, and Mon (currency), Mun (currency), Wen (currency), Wén (currency) all redirect to 文 (currency).
Just link the three currencies in question under see also.

And I am against this solution:

文 because it can mean many things in Chinese (I speak the language). It most likely also means many things in the other two languages. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, well-formed dab pages are titled without a parenthetical or with the parenthetical "(disambiguation)". And pages in general only use any parenthetical when there is already a page at the name without the parenthetical. The full list of things that 文 can mean in Mandarin, Cantonese, or other languages can be handled by Wiktionary -- the dab page is only needed for listing the Wikipedia articles that might have been titled that, not for listing all the definitions of a phrase. But if there are Wikipedia articles about other things that 文 is used for, they can be listed on the same dab page. There's no need for a separate dab page for the currency articles. -- JHunterJ 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: See User:Endroit/文, a suggested dab page for 文. Any information in Mon (currency) should be merged into this page and renamed 文. Please feel free to modify it to conform to MOS:DAB.--Endroit 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I like this solution. It seems very well thought out. The only suggestion I have would be alphabetizing the list of people in order to keep it NPOV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  Ordering by likelihood is NPOV, but often hard to reach consensus on. :-) I'd suggest chronological order, which is sometimes easier with names not in the Latin alphabet. -- JHunterJ 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  For "people", I just inherited the ordering from Wen (disambiguation) without much thought. Then I added Emperor Mun of Balhae chronologically after Emperor Wen of Liu Song, and added Fumi Hirano alphabetically before Wen Tianxiang. Sorry for messing up the order. I believe it would be easier to fix it chronologically.--Endroit 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good job! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influential businessmen of India

Subjective title and no inclusion criteria, so apparently original research. How influential does a businessman have to be to get listed? And how is "influence" measured? Category:Indian businesspeople already includes the relevant articles neutrally. Masaruemoto 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:LIST. Lists must have a clear inclusion criterion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete original research to decide who is influential and who is not Corpx 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unmanageable. Could in theory be a category but the problem woluld still arise from the word influential with the inevitable original research on defining who is influential and who isn't. Fails to be encyclopedic Pedro | Chat 07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Keb25 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Pedro et al. Accounting4Taste 22:05, 8 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 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFL Dream Team

This article is not encyclopedic, it is about an obscure web game Grahamec 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article is about an online AFL fantasy football competition apparently run by the AFL. It cites no reliable sources and the only sources I can find are from the AFL. It might be worth a brief mention on the Australian Football League. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless coverage from independent reliable sources are found Corpx 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per CorpX. Twenty Years 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Yamakiri 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. & Wikipedia is not a fan site! ** ko2007 ** 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 05:37, 7 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. Nevermind. The creator's other edits are disgruntled vandalism. I'm speedying this for now. Chaser - T 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat day

Declined A7 speed nomination. This is a holiday that I can't find any evidence for anywhere. The web results that I've seen are totally generic. Chaser - T 02:24, 4 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. --Core desat 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important Places near Thrissur City

POV title and content, no explanation why these places are important, but if there was then it would probably be original research. Masaruemoto 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even if useful could be merged into Thrissur City. Samuel 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge what little useful stuff there is into Thrissur City. Realkyhick 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentions of the places and links thereto should possibly go into the main city article, yes, if they're very prominent, but beyond that, I don't see much in the way of mergeable content. --Agamemnon2 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this is essentially places near Thrissur and it is not notable on its own to stand Corpx 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is basically a list with extremely subjective inclusion criteria: "important" and "near [to Thrissur City]". I see no way of salvaging the content, whether as a list or rewritten as prose, since it is fundamentally POV and OR. Jakew 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mehran Ghassemi

Has been tagged as an unreferenced orphan with questionable notability for many months with little or no change. This may need to be kept but hopefully the AfD will be a good occasion to check the claims of notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep 19,900 ghits. His interview is all over the internet [47] and has even been translated [48]. I don't know a lot about this subject, but it seems notable to me. -Flubeca^Talk 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete there isn't much to differentiate himself from most journalists. The article itself needs alot of work Sasha Callahan 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Iran is a large country; its independent press is of wide interest and the subject appears to be one of the better known figures in it. Itsmejudith 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Mentioned in a few sources, including The Economist. Wish it wasn't an orphan, but that shouldn't get the article deleted. Cmprince 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Almost all his google hits are for a single interview that has been syndicated (and the estimate of 19000 hits is way over the top. There's no evidence of his commanding widespread respect as a journalist or even being known. Deb 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. This may be the first patient for my new WP:ICU concept. Realkyhick 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment 699 GHits in Persian [49], once you subtract out Blogfa (popular Iranian blog site). My reading skills aren't exactly top of the class, but my cursory scan shows that many of these are articles written by him or interviews conducted by him (rather than interviews/articles of which he was the subject), which doesn't do much to establish notability. Similar comment applies to the interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh: a byline does not contribute to notability. cab 04:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and send to emergency room for immediate intensive care. :-) Does seem notable, per the above. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 4 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. Singu larity 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo GameCube Linux

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Chealer 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, weasel-worded original research, possibly unverifiable too. (Damn it, another weasel word...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is original research - The project itself may be original research but an article about it cannot be. Terrymr 06:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Feel free to improve the article with [50] and [51] among other sources. This article may be poor, but I think being in Forbes and Wired meets any reasonable notability criteria and satisfies the question of this being "original thought" . FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep FrozenPurpleCube already said it, I'll refrain from repeating. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Embedded Linux. Leibniz 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's valid, as while it might be appropriate to mention this there, I do feel it's distinct enough on its own to merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Too crufty and weaselly for that. Leibniz 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case, the article is rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per sources suggested by Mister Manticore. Ideally, merge along with similar articles (eg Xbox Linux) into somewhere more appropriate such as Linux on game consoles or, as suggested above, Embedded Linux. Jakew 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge as above into an article about Linux on games consoles, Embedded Linux is a bit too catch-all for such a thing.. Xmoogle 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. From checking around the web, it seems there is not much activity any more on Nintendo GameCube Linux. Even the web site linked from the article, http://www.gc-linux.org, seems to have not acquired much new material since March 2006. That suggests to me we are now looking at this Wikipedia article almost in its final form. The last edit which added *any* new technical information was this one on 2 March, 2006, by an anonymous contributor. Nearly all the present content is from the creator, User:Wrayal, who has not edited Wikipedia since May 2007. So I'm not optimistic about this article getting any better, and I don't think the creator is going to fix it. I'd be open to having the closer of this AfD userfy the page, in case anyone here wants to clean up the WP:OR and add references to the article. Otherwise I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Although it might not be active, mention by Forbes and Wired (reliable sources) are sufficient to give the project notability already.--Alasdair 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve - highly notable subject, solid beginning of an article, just needs sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:46, 4 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. Doesn't seem connected enough to O'Brian to justify it being a redirect to him, and the original production has no article.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mephistopheles Smith

Non-notable production. (The musical itself might qualify for an article.) Productions on the Edinburgh Fringe are most definitely not automatically notable - even I have performed there! -- RHaworth 07:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Richard O'Brien. There appears to be enough interest online as demonstrated by search engine results to support this as a proper redirect even though I would agree those same results do not yield anything in the way of reliable sources that would cement notability. The O'Brien article already goes into the subject in enough depth for this to be a viable suggestion. Erechtheus 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I've added a BBC preview about the show, which adds some notability. Crazysuit 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, or merge & redirect to Richard O'Brien, Johnbod 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom not notable programme.Harlowraman 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Keep" This is a seperate production in its own right, not particularly for its own merits but the fact it was given special permission by O'Brien. Also, it would be nice to have this alone and elaborate it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutty girl 2001 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 4 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 copyvio MCB 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saleem Javed

Totally violates WP:NPOV barley reads wiki at all. And just how notable is this guy? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. Vanity page for non-notable singer. Google search turns up singer's attempts to market his songs, bit absolutely no reliable third party sources that have given him any coverage. OfficeGirl 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, spam, vanity, just plain crap. Realkyhick 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Clear-cut WP:CSD#A7. Also, please avoid using the term 'vanity' in AfD's. See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as copyright vio of [52].--Alasdair 03:18, 4 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firestarter (Charmed)

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

*Comment - I thought we were doing television article reviews with this type of stuff, because AfDs are long, and generally ask for deletion when most people want "merge". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I created this back as a noob. Create a new article for all the silly Charmed words that make no sense to normal folk? And then merge this, Whitelighter, Darklighter, Elders (Charmed) etc. into it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes our early works come back to haunt us. :-) Since you know more about the subject, go ahead and do the merged article, then let us know when you're done. Realkyhick 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I thought this was an episode at first glance, so ignore my initial comment. No one is going to look for "Firestarter (Charmed)" in a search, though mention of it on the disambiguous page may be ok. It should be something regulated to one of the season articles (if one exists). BIGNOLE (Contact me)

I believe you mean relegated, although regulating them is indeed appropriate. But yeah, merge to the appropriate episode article, and put in a redirect from Firestarter (disambiguation) (and if it happens to pop up somewhere else). --Agamemnon2 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, as i do watch the show, i know what it means but like i said its fancruft! ** ko2007 ** 01:41, 6 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. --Core desat 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ottawa Senators teams

This article is one long essay that tries to link together the various incarnations of ice hockey teams named the Ottawa Senators. This article is complete original research and synthesis of facts. All reliable sources about these teams point to them being separate entities, not connected as this article suggests. Further, the histories of the current Senators, the original Senators and the senior team are already well documented at their respective articles, making this one redundant. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominaton. GoodDay 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SYNTH. It is an attempt to bind three different franchises into one, and is completely redundant to the three articles listed by NeoChaosX. This POV fork is also being pushed against consensus in a debate that is currently spanning at least three separate talk pages: Talk:National Hockey League, Talk:Ottawa Senators and Talk:Wikiproject Ice hockey. FWIW though, I do beleve that User:Alaney2k meant well when he created this. Reso lute 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge all policy compliant info with Ottawa Senators. Should have read nom statement better :) Delete per nom as redundant because of the other Senators pages listed in the statement. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Peter Fleet 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete teams are seperate. per WP:SYNTH. T Rex | talk 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SYNTH --Djsasso 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dont Delete If it is deleted, then information written about the Ottawa Senators history will be deleted. For example, the financing struggles, etc. I would dispute that all of this is in the other articles. To delete would indicate A) that the article has not been read, B) that a group of Wikipedians is unwilling to allow other than their points of views to be heard. Also, complaints have been heard about the amount of History info in the Ottawa Senators article specifically. Therefore, instead I suggest that people willing to take the time to document the history go ahead and edit it. I believe that people will find that these teams sharing the name 'Ottawa Senators' are linked historically by various factors, including name, people, city, etc. This is not a denial that the three clubs are different, rather that they are linked historically. It would be a shame to not have that overall view present. Alaney2k 05:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think you are still missing the point in that the history is all there and is all linked in each of the 3 articles. Each of the articles mentions that the other ones exist and any user can follow the wikilink to those pages. That is sort of the point of wikipedia actually. You don't have to have everything all on one page, and as a matter of fact its preferred that you don't have it all on one page due to page size issues. --Djsasso 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Do not delete The financing history is not in the current Sens article. Secondly, I have tried to put the links in the various articles and they keep getting deleted, some of them by you djssaso. I can't even mention the Cleveland Browns as a comparison! :-) :-) Anyway, since there had been comments about too much history on the current Sens page that I moved text to the 'History of' article. Anyway, it makes a reasonable sized article and frees up space for the current Sens article to focus on the current. This is the point of the other 'History of' articles, such as NY Rangers and Leafs. Alaney2k 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename and Expand Accordingly, otherwise Delete I would be in favour of the article being changed to Ice hockey in Ottawa, Ontario, where you document the actual hockey history of the town. The creation of the Ottawa HC, of the Ottawa District Hockey Association, the Silver Seven, the Senators, the Sr. Senators, the CJHL, the gazillion jr. leagues that popped up, how the Ottawa 67's were bred from the CJHL, the Ottawa Nationals of the WHA, so on and so on and so on... There is useful info in the article... but I too think Alaney2k is pushing his own agenda... DMighton 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Do not delete Whoa. That's much more than one article. Yes I have synthesized from the 3 Sens articles. Much, if not most of the text is not mine. I put it together, but, these are facts that have occurred, not my 'speculation'. There ARE links between the teams. How is that not neutral? In fact those links have been present in the 3 Sens articles for a while now, and were not all highlighted or originated by me. The first owner of the current NHL club had a campaign to win an NHL franchise called 'Bring Back The Senators' with a representative of the past players, a representative of a past owner. It was prominently displayed in the campaign materials about the number of Stanley Cups won. After the franchise was won, the president of the league 'reinstated' them. Controversial and not followed up on, but nevertheless it happened. I think we could remove the sentence about operating under the reinstated franchise, as the only proof I found was the certificate, and Total Hockey doesn't mention it. But then TH doesn't mention everything about the NHL. Not to denigrate it, only to mention that there is more than the NHL's books to consider. The second club is linked to the first by having an owner who owned a piece of both phases, consecutive seasons, played in the arena of the first. The second club is linked to the third by the owner's descendents of the second club giving permission to the new club to use the name. I have given references for everything or tried to. The links shown between the teams also are similar to situations encountered by other NHL clubs, as shown in those articles. E.g., Vancouver Canucks have played in multiple leagues, with different ownership. You would not say that the Vancouver Canucks of the WHL moved to the NHL. The WHL franchise would have terminated and a new NHL franchise started. The Montreal Canadiens have a franchise discontinuity in 1911 where George Kennedy bought the rights to the Canadiens name, but bought the Haileybury club, not the Les Canadiens club. The Les Canadiens franchise instead went to Toronto. The Toronto Maple Leafs are listed as starting in 1917, but that was a temporary franchise owned by the league, operated by a separate company. The Cup won by the Arenas seems to be claimed by the Leafs. These are all things that are part of the history of those teams, so it would appear that no consistent policy exists. In any case, the differences and discontinuities are mentioned as well. So, my vote, is to work towards improving the article. Alaney2k 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. While the editor has done much good work on early hockey articles (hell, I gave him a barnstar for it), he has been pushing a determined POV that several unrelated clubs must be the same team by virtue of having the same nickname, to the degree that WP:POINT violations have been made. While the details of the dispute have been exhaustively listed on the appropriate pages, WP:HOCKEY does have a consistent policy: teams that have demonstrated common ownership, players, recognition of records, nicknames, corporate structures and unbroken lineage of seasons played (such as the Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers) have unitary articles. Those with no common ownership, no players in common, no recognition of records, no common corporate structure and breaks in continuity stretching over decades, such as the various Senators teams, don't. If there are facts in this article pertaining to the individual teams, they should be in the individual articles. RGTraynor 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: ~~do not delete~~ I came up with my 'biased' point of view from working on those early ice hockey articles. I did not even know about the Senior Sens until I read the recollections of Frank Finnigan and others in his daughter's book. Also, Lord of the Rinks and Deceptions and Doublecross and Robinson's book on the Sens. I did not know that the NHL suspended the Sens franchise in 1935. I assumed they just shut down. On the same page in the Globe and Mail of that day with the info on the Eagles shutting down is an article about the Sens' upcoming season. We are not talking about the field of science or anthropology here folks. There are articles on singers and their current CDs on Wikipedia. There are NHL articles out there that have no attributions or references. I have attributed the information in the 'History of' article, and tried to cover the clubs with reasonable and interesting information. What the real objection should be is not that the article exists, but that my style or choice of words is misleading. That is not my intent. My intent, like the early history articles, is to provide all of the information. I think it's wild that the NHL would provide a certificate of reinstatement, then not follow that up! But it doesn't make sense to put that in an article without referring to the previous clubs. So, I urge you folks instead to consider a case for improving the article, not deletion. Alaney2k 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on one of the talk pages, fully one third of the History section in the Ottawa Senators article is talking directly about the original team. The links, tenuous as they are, are very much front and centre. The issue with this article is that it unnecessarily combines three articles into one, and therefore tries to argue that three different franchises are the same. This is original research as it was created to advance a position. Whatever new information you have added to this article, please feel free to add to the appropriate article for whichever team it is most pertinent to. Incidentally, you only need to say "keep/do not delete" once. Reso lute 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My vote is still don't delete If I were to transfer the text from the History of article to the current Sens article, the proportion would be even higher. I do not want people to think I've changed my mind about deletion. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've worked on the article a bit. I have tried to make it more clear about the distinctions, though I do need to work on the first and second paragraphs. (Please try to read it again. I know, I know, it doesn't taste good. :-) ) I think partly some of the issue with the article is due to some of the text being unfinished. I copied it over from the existing articles and expanded it, but I would not say it is ideal. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The 'histories' of the 'three' Ottawa Senators franchises, are already covered by their respective articles. GoodDay 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've copied over the text from the 'History of' article to the the original and current era Sens articles. I predict however, that the Reinstatement paragraph won't survive as-is after making the trip. I think feelings are quite dead set against it. However, I have tried to cover both sides of the argument about the certificate, and it does fit in with the info about the banners, etc... Alaney2k 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. RS1900 10:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the links to the article. The redirect from History of the Ottawa Senators is still there and will have to be deleted too. Alaney2k 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment You realize this is a discussion about deleting the article. Not a discussion about what you are currently changing in the article each step of the way? --Djsasso 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Duh. :-) Alaney2k 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm sorry, was that a '[WP:MOCKERY OF PROCESS]'? Maybe it was. :-) Lighten up, I'm trying to be helpful. Alaney2k 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete (see T-rex). Also the article of the Original Senators should not include the expansion team, it's long enough. --Hasek is the best 02:05, 6 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. Singu larity 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davide_Stefanini

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Davide Stefanini

There is no established notability, and the claims of being a leading expert are puffery. This should really have been a candidate for speedy deletion, but someone has deleted that (in the apparent belief that there is some claim to notability).Gregalton 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. The original speedy tag was spot-on. Not notable. Realkyhick 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of significant coverage of him Corpx 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete From what I know and have been able to find, he is a leading expert in his field; the work of his agency is notable; but there is a lack of reliable sources to establish his personal notability to justify an article. –SESmith 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I wrote 'leading expert' - perhaps this is not sufficiently precise. Someone might be an expert, but 'leading' expert implies (to me) personal notability (i.e. substantially published and cited frequently as an expert in the field in relevant publications), as per SESmith. It was not intended as a comment on personal or professional qualifications, just notability. The text also says 'leading world expert,' which none of the refs appear to support.--Gregalton 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Response Yes, thanks. I think we are on the same page here. –SESmith 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the text of the article was a bit strong, so I am chaning some of the words as I know the subject matter. I think he is an expert within the field, and an expert within the United Nations, so I dont see why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton372 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only two edits, all of 5 September 2007. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete totally non-notable UN bureaucrat. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Dont delete. Bureaucrats are those who deal with papers, not those like him who manage projects in humanitarian and development action, benefitting thousands of people. If these UN figures are not notable, what is the benchmark or yardstick ? If you are a UN official and notable within the UN, I would say you are notable by this. Otherwise you should also delete the Chilean Ambassador to Paris or the Sudanese ambassador to Kenya... user:myth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only eight edits, all of 6 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can benefit people too. Its quite ludicrous to liken this man to the Chilean Ambassador to France, by the way. Bigdaddy1981 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Why is it ludicrous ? The Chilean Ambassador to France may have done nothing more than attend receptions. This guy at least is notable in the country as someone who helped 200,000 people, and this is all referenced and sourced. And as a relatively senior UN official already, and very senior in the country, he is not less notable than a senior Chilean diplomat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only six edits, all of 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372 and Myth1727. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many hundreds of senior project managers at the UN - this man is just one of them. The issue isn't whether he is a good person or whether his work helps people - both of those things may be true. The issue is whether he is notable - and I cannot see that he is. Bigdaddy1981 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator. The subject of the article though apparently good at his job seems to be otherwise non-notable. --WebHamster 10:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There is sufficient published material about him to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerh38 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only edits made on 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372, Myth1727 and Edges273. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per Corpx and SESmith. --Edcolins 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I see references and links, I dont see why not notable. Perhaps because the country is small and remote ? Imagine he would be doing the same in Florida, would you say he is not notable ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan283 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only edits made on 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372 , Myth1727, Edges273 and Rogerh38. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- If he were doing the same thing in Florida he'd be even more anonymous and less notable as there would be more people doing the same thing.--WebHamster 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think Burton372, Myth1727, Edges273, Rogerh38, Alan283 are all sockpuppets. ~~Can we block this practice somehow?~~ --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- ~~See also Step287, Yolfvivd888, Casesvoice88, Roland988, Issh288, Rangeitem87, Hairsongs, Helpentry88, Porchthis22, Role281... --Edcolins 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)~~
- See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727‎. --Edcolins 00:03, 9 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. Singu larity 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of -cons

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. A pointless list based on the extremely trivial connection that all these events happen to have the letters "con" at the end of their names. Next week, List of company names that end in "com". Masaruemoto 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO, as this list is quite indiscriminate. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, very indiscriminate list. Coming soon: "List of English words ending with -s". Realkyhick 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. listcruft. May also cause heartbreak if we find List of conventions, 309BC-Present. Mystache 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Essentially, this is a directory of conventions, which to me does not seem like a strong inclusion criteria Corpx 04:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a loosely-associated list. It is also a collection of internal links, another thing Wikipedia is not. Useight 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
DeleteCon per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. cab 10:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, are you kidding? This is a well-written list and serves a useful purpose. Nah, just delete it if you want. JIP | Talk 10:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per excellent reasons above. Jakew 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletecon As per abovecon. Plus there's sites around that allow you to generate a list of words ending is whatever letter you like... I just can't see this being usefulcon. Pursey 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per con...uhm, nom. I connot see anything contrary to your concise conmentary on the topicon. --Agamemnon2 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Conment If we keep going, this AfD will get convoluted. We shouldn't continue. I couldn't help myself. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to concur. aaak. --Evb-wiki 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete A much better way would be to organize lists of conventions (AKA -cons) is based on their types and locations. --Farix (Talk) 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Biggest WP:NOT#INFO violation I've seen. --Evb-wiki 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:NOT#INFO and above. Giant directory of links. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Comical list, total crap, spam ............ totally useless. RS1900 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete but could be useful to the Sci Fi project. Probably better just as a category of conventions, which already exists. Some of the above comments are funny, but not helpful. Bearian 22:02, 5 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. Singu larity 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W.O.M.A.N

It is a rumored single. See WP:CRYSTAL Oyster guitarist 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article even states that the single is "rumored". J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now, nominate after the end of October if appropriate. Otherwise someone is just going to create a new revision of the same article and the work will be effectively lost. Besides, the subject does already seem notable. Lots of sources out there just waiting to be added. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If it keeps being recreated then it can be salted. Oyster guitarist 14:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, In theory the article should be permissible since adequate sources exist, but sufficient care has not been taken to avoid this article becoming little more than an advertisement. See WP:CRYSTAL. –SESmith 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete useless article, total crap, spam... RS1900 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 10:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) or The Return of the Spice Girls, with a possible merge. Such rumors may have a place in main articles, but not as a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice for recreation if the single does actually appear, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - there shouldnt even be a discussion about it, an article for this song title has been speedily deleted at least four times. The song is not a new single - its an old studio song. There is no truth whatsoever in it being released.Rimmers 19:46, 6 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. Singu larity 03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Zen chapters

List related to publication of Shonen Joufu, which has been listed for deletion Fg2 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:HOAX. Google only turned up one results for "Shonen Joufu" -wikipedia and that was a copy of an unrelated, uncredited Wikipedia article. "Shonen Joufu" Zen only turns up 6 articles, all of which are Wiki related. So I seriously doubt that this work actually exists. --Farix (Talk) 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The Shonen Joufu article states that "Shonen Joufu was launched April 1, 2007 as a means of circulating several American manga" and "all of them are written by high school students in the North Penn School District." This is someone's school project. Or after school project. Or something that some North Penn School District kids made up in school one day. And the List of Zen chapters is part and parcel of the whole Shonen Joufu nonsense. OfficeGirl 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete under A7 as something made up in school one day. And a mass nom for the whole article family might have been a good idea in this case. -- Vary | Talk 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Note that a CSD A7 tag is inappropriate (see non-criteria for speedy deletion). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Hoax. Fails WP:BK and WP:V. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete This is a hoax article. Spam. RS1900 10:41, 5 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. Singu larity 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hover boots

No more than a dictionary definition of hover boots, and I don't think it will ever be more than this. Even as a definition the article says nothing about them that isn't obvious - they are boots that hover (that don't really exist). I have tried to find sources discussing hover boots in fiction so I could expand the article, but they only seem to be mentioned in video game guides. Basil Richards 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete no real world information here. I suppose it could be a list, but it would still lack any significance of the topic. -WarthogDemon 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, if these will even ever be invented. Yeah, let's worry about inventing them first, then we can write an article for them. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, let this one hover away. Realkyhick 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but maybe we could ask if any helicopter parents wear them. The only significant appearance in sf film I can think of is Star Trek V's opening sequence at El Capitan. I'm sure they've made minor, uh, atmospheric appearances in various stories and novels, but not as a key world-changing technology or anything approaching WP:FICT. Plus, there is no See also to Seven-league boots. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Wryspy 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, article can be re-created as soon as my crazy uncle hauls them out of his garage to present to the world –SESmith 07:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Crap! RS1900 10:42, 5 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 Redirectify/Merge-Delete -- I'm made this into a redirect; people are now welcome to use the history to merge what (apparently little) content there is. --Haemo 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture in Chico

I noticed this indiscriminate page of directory information (see WP:NOT#INFO) while de-linking "Chico in Popular Culture" (see that AfD). It doesn't seem to have any content suitable for merging back into Chico, CA, and should therefore be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Completely unsourced. --Evb-wiki 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. rubbish. A favourite of mine is "In 2004, Chico was ranked as the #10 art town in America by author John Villani". Mystache 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge some of it back with Chico, California. This article looks like a good faith effort from January this year to split out a section which was taking up a lot of space, see this revision for example. There is no question about covering the cultural life in this town, any town or city article missing information on culture (museums, cocert halls, etc.) has a serious deficiency. Of course the list style, rather than full sentences and encyclopedia-style paragraphs, is decidedly sub-optimal, and needs some re-writing. I think most of the entries are verifiable through Chico's city website [53]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a few paragraphs to the culture section of the main Chico article, but I am no expert on the field and can in no way do that topic justice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, we shouldn't be listing every church for any town, and the rest is pretty non-notable. Wikipedia is not a business directory (full disclosure: I was born in Chico). Corvus cornix 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with the main article - not a big town enough to have a separate cultural article.--JForget 23:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Chico. Sounds like a nice place to live, just like McAllen, Texas or Florence, Alabama... but you couldn't pay me to visit there. Mandsford 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It does have a university noted as being the biggest party school in the country. :) Corvus cornix 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - - Well, if there's nothing else to do.... Mandsford 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 10:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Additionally, since when are bars cultural institutions? Bigdaddy1981 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Never been to Chico, have you? :) Corvus cornix 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep hehe, awesome!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you explain this vote? Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 6 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 see no need to salt, though. --Core desat 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who can manipulate water

Delete vague listcruft. Anyone can manipulate water. So can an umbrella. Wryspy 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nothing but listcruft. Far too vague and inclusive, impossible to verify. My kidneys can manipulate water, for God's sake... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but again, suggest move, as this too is misleading. Even experienced editors are misled by it :) Also, suggest someone strip it of all non-notable characters, and we'll see how it looks from there. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I can write my name in the snow! Delete MarkBul 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps interesting if it covered non-fictional characters, but alas, is crap. Delete. Mystache 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Despite some of the (amusing) comments above, the list clearly defines it's criterion as "...fictional characters with the paranormal or superhuman ability to create or manipulate water." That seems clear enough to satisfy WP:LIST demand for inclusion parameters. It probably still fails WP:N and WP:V, but I just thought I should clarify this point. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... apparently it's late enough that my humor sensor isn't working. Apologies :-) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per lack of notability for characters who can manipulate water Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the comment " Anyone can manipulate water." only makes clear the title needs improvement. The article needs sources yes, but the concept for inclusion is clearly explained in the article. ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This can be turned into a category as it is now this list is too vague. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Magioladitis 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely a listcruft. Keb25 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Comical article. Total crap! RS1900 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Even taken at face value, contradictory and arbitrary criterias for inclusion in the list makes it useless as an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Eqdoktor 08:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because outstandingly organized table about notable topic that is both convenient and helpful for numerous readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh look, it's YELLOWBOX MAN who has the ability to tell everyone else what to do...Mandsford 23:47, 6 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. --Core desat 05:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound

Delete vague listcruft. Anyone can manipulate sound. If there's a loud noise in the next room and I cover my ears, I've kept the sound from reaching my eardrums. If I raise the volume of my voice, I've manipulated its sound. Wryspy 00:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but suggest move, because this could be misleading per example by nom. I believe in literal terms, all fictional characters can manipulate sound in some form. But this list covers examples of fictional characters who manipulate sound on superhuman levels. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete A better way to classify superheroes by their superpowers would be through categories, not through lists whose titles are too vague.--Alasdair 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, categories cannot be annotated for straightforward verification, and some characters just have too many powers for that to be practical. Wryspy 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Very well then, but still, I believe the problem of this list lies in the presentation. So, it should be changed to the best way of presenting the info.--Alasdair 08:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability for characters who can manipulate sound Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the comment "Anyone can manipulate sound." only makes clear the title needs improvement. The article needs sources yes, but the concept for inclusion is clearly explained in the article. ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Like the above list this too should be a category. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Magioladitis 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This list is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep deletionists here are just reacting to the stupid title. "Not good enoguh" and "WP:NOT#INFO" are just generic meaningless deletion reasons that can apply to anything. It's a list of superheros with superhuman abilities just like List of fictional characters who can manipulate time. It has a stupid title, but is otherwise a perfectly valid list. —Pengo 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt: absurd list. 24.180.148.57 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Even taken at face value, contradictory and arbitrary criterias for inclusion in the list makes it useless as an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Eqdoktor 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because excellently organized table about notable topic that is both convenient and helpful for many readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE ME, DAMN IT! Mandsford 23:56, 6 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. Singu larity 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posada San Pedro Hall

Non-notable residence hall. No sources to distinguish how this residence hall is different from thousands of others across the world. WP:NOT. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable and we're not the Wikimapia of dorm halls. -WarthogDemon 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete there are tons of residence halls, I don't see what makes this one notable. Oyster guitarist 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No sources are provided other than the university's own web site. --Metropolitan90 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability from independent sources Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RS1900 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 10:54, 5 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. Singu larity 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ekpyrotek

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}}

Seems to be only for promotional use. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC and all its sources are myspace pages. -WarthogDemon 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BAND, and provides no WP:RS. Also, contains text that amounts to a spamish essay pushing a point of view. --Evb-wiki 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be some WP:COI issues involved here. --Evb-wiki 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NN myspace band.--Sethacus 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This articles references are NOT just myspace links. The main ekpyrotek website is www.myspacefears.com and also you can do a google search on 'teli brown' to verify his background. There is also a link to the defcon.com website showing he has spoken at that network security conference. Ekpyrotek is an important new age music artist. There is no reason to delete this article. Please consider to not delete this article.Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — Alanscott81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Delete for wildly failing WP:MUSIC (and ~~maybe~~ Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement). It's probably a WP:CSD#A7 speedy candidate... — Scientizzle 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment that's just wrong if you are really going to delete this article. This article gives hope to those that feel like they are stuck in a hard place in life. Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment this is an encyclopedia. Not a place for inspirational material. (Well one can be inspired by something here probably; but an article purely to inspire generally is not accepted.) -WarthogDemon 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Correct this is an encyclopedia and these are all real true events that took place in history and a real band. Just because there isnt a 'corporate' lable behind the band does not mean it should not have a place in wikipedia. ekpyrotek has thousands of real fans. please reconsider deletion nomination. Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Nobody's claiming that Ekpyrotek isn't real, they're claiming that it's not notable. Read the notability guide, WP:MUSIC, to get an idea why. Wikipedia does not exist to give everyone a free homepage or advertising service. If you cannot demonstrate any coverage by reliable secondary sources from which WP:N notability can be properly asserted and verifiability properly established, then this article fails long-standing inclusion criteria. Also, sockpuppetry is bad. If Alanscott81 (talk · contribs) is EYEZONLY (talk · contribs) (and this can be confirmed via checkuser) it's better to admit it now (and have it treated as an honest mistake by a frustrated editor than an attempt at abusive sockpuppetry (voting twice in an AfD). If not, and verified, I will apologize for the implication. — Scientizzle 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Please do a check user, you will find out that I am not the same person. Also Check the links section of the article you will find that Ekpyrotek is played daily on the radio for meditation.fm, does that satify your notable standards? This is completly direspectful and distasteful trying to have this deleted out of history. peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscott81 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Band fails WP:MUSIC in every single aspect. The fact that the article host half a dozen overtely large images doesn't help either. Besides what's the statute of limitations for drug traficing? 1redrun ^Talk 08:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI don't get it.. This is a real Artist you are wanting to delete. From what point could it be added as an entry on wikipedia? After signed by a bigtime label? What if the artist chooses not to go down that route. The fact is, none of the information in the article is false and is all 100% real. peace and blessings Alanscott81 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
KEEP You have to wonder why one would want to take this down? Do they not like the person, or are they offended by the thought that this person is trying to expand ones mind without giving them all the answers? I have listened to all the music offered on the said page, and it was amazing. I have talked to the Artist, and learned alot from those talks. Google is your friend. I can give this person credit for expanding my mind in not only the World of Telco, but the world in General! Perhaps the people trying to have this space deleted should take some time out and talk to the Artist as well. This page does not just Inspire one to explore what he doesn't know, it inspires readers to go out and make a space of thier own ... " Only Love is Real " Share The Love ... EYEZONLY 08:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Hmmm. Let's try this Google thing you speak of. Ekpyrotek gets 36 unique google hits, almost all of them MySpace links. There are 53 for "Teli Brown", but ~~most of the hits are some IT guy~~ (apparently that IT guy is this guy; no reliable information about his life as either a telecome employee or musician) and various leather products. AMG has no hits for Ekpyrotek or Teli Brown, either. Discogs even comes up empty. Google doesn't seem to be the friend you speak of... — Scientizzle 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that I tagged EYEZONLY as being a puppet of Alanscott81 and Alanscott81 as being a puppet master respectively. This is based on their edits and I'm confident a check user would confirm this. 1redrun ^Talk 11:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, you're giving this artist too much credit. I'm hardly "offended by the thought that this person is trying to expand ones mind without giving them all the answers" and I hold no grudge against anyone I've never met. I do, however, that this article is currently promotional crap for a non-notable individual. Spam is not welcome on Wikipedia. — Scientizzle 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. The article also looks a total mess. At the moment it looks more like an extension to a MySpace page. I'm surprised there isn't a ==My Friends== section at the end. --WebHamster 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that even though 1redrun claims to be skilled in all these program languages, and must love the attention that gets from others on here, lacks creative thought process. Even now I can honestly see 1redrun moving to bash another persons space here on the wiki. I would love to see just a few things he has done. I can comment on the works that Teli has done. #1 He has on many occasion helped to point out and fix flaws in major Telecommunication Networks, that You (1redrun) and I use everyday. He has wrote articles in the hopes of having major Telecommunication Companies fix security holes in thier systems. As an Artist has had the strength to stand up to a vicious number of people and release music to the general public, knowing he would face narrow minded people. If you took a look at the sites listed, he has done a great job at trying to reach more then 1 group of people. The Music is creative, and helps inspire other artists to try harder and get thier works heard. And unless you are perfect we are all flawed, and have screwed up from time to time. Teli took that problem, and turned everything around. I know the artist, I respect him, and I back him up no matter where it goes ... EYEZONLY 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you but that's just to much praise. I hope everybody else enjoys my user page as much as you did. As you say I'm hopelessly non-notable, however I guess that is why nobody bothered to create an article about me. Being narrow minded stemms from being German I guess. For that too I apologize and promise to have a more creative thinking process in my next incarnation. 1redrun ^Talk 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please be civil. Putdowns like that never saved any article. -WarthogDemon 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But I love that picture with the zebra. -- Vary | Talk 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes please be civil, again I would like to point out, this is a real band and real events, if you delete this article, let me ask the real question at hand. At what point is an article considered 'article' worthy on wikipedia? To me that answer is very obscured. I admit it should be cleaned up some. But it should not be deleted, that is just not right. There is nothing false about this article. Just because you guys that know how to edit this discussion doesnt mean ekpyrotek doesnt have real fans and makes real music. This entire discussion itself seems to be more like a witchhunt. Alanscott81 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- As has been stated over and over, check out the notability guideline, especially WP:MUSIC. — Scientizzle 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Please do a check user, you will find out that I am not the same person. Also Check the links section of the article you will find that Ekpyrotek is played daily on the radio for meditation.fm, does that satify your notable standards? This is completly direspectful and distasteful trying to have this deleted out of history. Alanscott81 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as Wikipedia would deserve it, but we can't yet delete things from history. If that was the case I'd like all articles about Nazi Germany deleted from WP. As for this article: The AFD (usually) runs for five days prior to deciding about deleting something. It's not deleted yet people are only voicing their opinion based on Wikipedia guidelines. Your opinion has been heard and will be (that's a WikiPromise) considered. 1redrun ^Talk 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment With all the skills you have, I can't figure out why you would want to delete this. Don't you know what it is like to create something from nothing? I may have gone the wrong way before, but I spin music, to me creating music is great. This Artist has created his own music, and it would be a shame to see it taken away from here. It would be the same as you writing code for something, and having someone steal it, mass market it, and make millions on it without you getting anything for it. This site is one of the places an artist like this has to reachout, and have his work recorded for the future to see what this time was like. So I would urge you to try and take a differant look at the subject, and try and understand where I am really coming from ... EYEZONLY 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - How difficult is it to read and digest WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC? Then look at the criteria they set out that is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Then extrapolate the differences between those articles and the article under discussion. If it meets the criteria then it stays, if it doesn't then it goes. It's not subjective, the guidelines don't respond to "please" or new-age rhetoric. If I can figure it out then I'm pretty sure most people can. Canvassing for sympathy won't elicit anything but lectures like this one. If the article's subject is notable (using the accepted criteria) then prove it; if he isn't then wait until he is and create another article. These are the guidelines we all have to follow, why do you feel this article and its creator should be different?--WebHamster 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment WebHanster is right about guidelines, so here the links are to notable credit and bio which are also on the links section of the article. The artist is listed in the artist section at http://www.meditation.fm/ and the bio can be verified here at the defcon website http://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-14/dc-14-speakers.html#Brown Is that all you needed? Now it can stay but needs to be cleaned up? thanks Alanscott81 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Well I tried. If you are intent on subjecting yourself to Ostrich Syndrome (whereby anyone continually with their head in the sand eventually gets their ass bitten off) then so be it. It's obvious that you either have no intention of reading the guidelines or you are just ignoring them. Sockpuppetry + non-notability + inability to conform = deleted article. A link to meditation fm does not cut it as a significant, reliable, independent source neither does a few lines about someone doing a talk on phishing. Closing admin, any chance of a speedy delete, a salt and then a deep-rooted memory deletion for all concerned? --WebHamster 19:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      - As I stated on your talk page, the meditation.fm connection doesn't help much--play on random internet radio station doesn't go very far. The defcon link has very little information and none about the music. These don't cut the mustard. — Scientizzle 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete The article is about a band, and the article fails to simply assert the band's significance; thus, it is qualified for speedy deletion (CSD) per criteria #7 on articles (A7). --slakr^(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Look no one is a sock puppet here. Just because someone else agrees with me does not make them a sockpuppet. meditation.fm is not a random internet radio station. It's a great new age radio station with listeners from all over the globe. There is enough proof to validate this article for being here. It only falls short from not being signed to a major lable which is not right to be the reason for deletion. This is ridiculous just absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe even with links, still there is problems. View the meditation.fm website and click on artist. you will see ekpyrotek is listed there. That's credibility. STOP USING YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND LISTEN TO THE GUIDELINES LIKE YOU INSIST ME ON READING. I HAVE LISTED CREDIBILITY PLEASE COMPLY. Alanscott81 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not going to help your case with the caps shouting. The links you provided, frankly, suck. They have no information. What kind of deal do you think this is? You've seemed to miss the point of every explanation I've fed you. Creating an article on Teli Brown would likely fail just as spectacularly for many of the same reasons. — Scientizzle 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"PLEASE COMPLY" .. Are you a Terminator?--Svetovid 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP ekpyrotek should remain listed. this guy is modern day hero in the computer and telecom security industry. his significance is that he changed his life around 180 degrees to include doing computer and telecom security work for the f.b.i. and fortune 500 tech companies. does it truly bother you busy bodies that much for this guys entry to exist? don't you a better way to channel your energy instead of in this negative fashion? His music is amazing. R0t0r00t3r 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Another single-purpose account/sock? Again--and please read this--nobody is saying this guy doesn't exist. We're arguing that, as the musician Ekpyrotek, he in unsuitable for inclusion in this encycopledia for a myriad of reasons deatialed above. — Scientizzle 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and deleting much of this page is not a good move. — Scientizzle 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - no not a sock puppet. Just because people like ekpyroteks music and sign up to vote their opinion does not make them a sock puppet. and saying that my links "sucks" is merly your opinion as the DO credit the artist as being creditible. What's with your opinions? eh? Those links are creditible links for this artist. Alanscott81 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The links suck because they aren't appropriate based on the guidelines you have been repeatedly pointed at. They aren't substantial and seem to be somewhat trivial, at least the meditation.fm is anyway. --WebHamster 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been speedy deleted yet? It utterly fails WP:MUSIC, there are no outside reliable sources, and this discussion is devolving into a meat/sockfest. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To be honest, this article was around for about a week, so I thought maybe it would be nicer if I just AFD this, instead of speedying it, having it deleted, and the user left wondering what the heck happened to it. -WarthogDemon 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I'd do it, but that would clearly be inappropriate...Besides, the motivation of the supporters indicates to me that it possibly would have been repeatedly recreated and would have ended up here anyways. — Scientizzle 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment That was my second and unspoken reason actually. -WarthogDemon 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
stong keep I'm a big fan of Teli Brown's music, and I use his music in healing sessions. I don't understand why this is under consideration for deletion. He is a significant artist in the new-age movement. NOREENoneshallpass 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)— NOREENoneshallpass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yet another WP:SPA arrives. Will it ever end? --WebHamster 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion, much less verification, of notability. One source could be cited to (weakly) claim notability in the field of electronic security, but not as a musician. Notability is not inherited. Potentially an interesting example of a multi-role career, but no independent source has written on the subject from that perspective. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment: I have more information to add to this article and will clean it up when I get a chance this evening at home. Thanks for all the pointing guys. Alanscott81 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, non-notable, advertising, spam...--Svetovid 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. There are 12 ways a band/musician can claim notability for Wikipedia articles, this band doesn't demonstrate with reliable sources (or even assert) any of them:
- No evidence of mention in non-trivial published works.
- No charted hit on any national music chart.
- No gold or higher records in any country.
- No international concert tours, as reported in reliable sources.
- Has not released two or more records on a major label.
- Does not contain a member who was ever a member of a notable band
- Is not the most prominent example of a notable music style or music scene of a city.
- Has never won or been nominated for a major music award.
- Has never won or placed in a major music competition.
- Has never performed for a work of media (film, TV series, etc.) that is notable.
- Has never been placed in rotation on any major radio network.
- Has never been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national TV or radio network.
Deletion does not preclude re-creating the article in the future if this band ever does become notable. Neil916 (Talk) 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete No assertion of notability (A7). No reliable, independent references. Seems to be written entirely for promotional purposes (G11). Would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic (G11). Is there really any doubt that this fails notability? Thomjakobsen 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- - - - heh you guys are not cool and I say this with a smile so don't get upset taking that as an insult..I do however appreciate the fact that you guys have taken the time to go thru all the rules to prove your points to try to delete this article *for now.. And I say for now because this is not the last you will hear of ekpyrotek. In due time a new article will submerge on here and will be accepted even from those that are not fans. So cheers for now.

peace & blessings /only love is real Alanscott81 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It already appears to have submerged. I am so struggling to hold back comments about things that float to the surface! :) --WebHamster 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- - - reply: I was only removing the article, that action is not what I had meant about submerging WebHamster. I understand why some people would like it removed so I removed it. I will only add it or someone else will add it back, after every single one of your guidelines are met and exceeded.. And trust me my friends, that day will come. So let's please remove it now. Thank you all for your time. I'm sure you all had very much important things to do instead of reading this article. I mean this in all sincerely. Alanscott81 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Only Love Is real I quote your Disclaimer:

"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." That was written by you, and I guess in this case, you stand by that ... EYEZONLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only expertise required is an ability to read and to understand laid down guidlines. Tree-hugging isn't a requirement--WebHamster 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- - - - EYESONLY this message is for you, I deeply appreaciate your loyalty and understand you supporting the article to stay. After teli read all of these persons responses, he now knows that it is not finished. He has came here to inspire all. And he realises none of these readers/editors feel he has had enough impact on humans to have an article on wikipedia. So he is requesting it be taken down and he will move forward and accomplish what is in store for him. One day this story will be known and it will be extra ordinary. Teli Brown's vote is to *DELETE There will be much more to come. See you in the future. Kind Regards Alanscott81 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to Alan - When you next see a comet in the sky... don't accept any free drinks from anyone!--WebHamster 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- - btw this really is my only wikipedia account. Those other people are friends and fans. Just to be clear about that. Alanscott81 02:29, 5 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. Singu larity 00:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoji

NN start-up. No relevant Gnews hits, not many Ghits relating to it (most relate to the Indian valley with the same name) Computerjoe 's talk 12:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and launch date in infobox: "2007, to-be-announced." I smell spamvertizement. -- Vary | Talk 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, no WP:RS provided. --Evb-wiki 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:ADVERT. This reads like a paid advertisement, and almost all of the Google hits are for unrelated items (such as words in other languages). Ariah 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete While at first glance it seems ok, I get the feeling it's not that useful. Also delete per nom --Yamakiri 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines of WP:WEB in its current form, and I am unable to track down any non-trivial media coverage of the site itself. Neil916 (Talk) 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete not-notable also reads ike an advertisment. Oyster guitarist 17:12, 8 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Daredevil 2

[edit] Daniel Duggan

[edit] LSU Student Government Spring Election, 2007

[edit] Tripoli (film)

[edit] Turn (professional wrestling)

[edit] LSU Student Senate

[edit] Gia Lashay

[edit] A Cold Case (film)

[edit] List of GUI testing tools

[edit] Onivox

[edit] Sara Jay

[edit] Voodoo Zombies

[edit] Wolfs Blood

[edit] Tina Tang

[edit] Marc mehlman

[edit] At the Throne of Judgment

[edit] Myles Dyer

[edit] James Karabec

[edit] Bacon shmellows

[edit] Camp Eagle Hill

[edit] Rakoth (band)

[edit] PH10

[edit] Michael Orlando Yaccarino

[edit] 100 Miles & Running

[edit] Mike Randall

[edit] Erin Ness

[edit] Lodging

[edit] LAPCAT

[edit] Giles Kristian

[edit] List of sporting comebacks

[edit] Shyamal Chowdhury

[edit] Brownies (Fablehaven)

[edit] Cheka (artist)

[edit] Appearance of extrasolar planets

[edit] Vector TD

[edit] PETWHAC

[edit] Hell in entertainment and other popular culture

[edit] Joey webb

[edit] I Don't Think About It

[edit] Syed Arshad Hussain

[edit] Bernady

[edit] Environment configuration document

[edit] Esquimaux

[edit] Christian Kingdom of Albion

[edit] Declan Nerney

[edit] January 0

[edit] Route 66 on the Air!

[edit] Buy n Large

[edit] International Talk Like Adam Masia Day

[edit] Criticisms of libertarian socialism

[edit] Never (Past Tense)

[edit] Vir Singh

[edit] Stewart Addington Saint-David

[edit] Falcon Punch

[edit] Cincinnati Shakespeare Company

[edit] Devilz Candy

[edit] Kianna Dior

[edit] Bentley Brook

[edit] April Flowers

[edit] Tanya Foxx

[edit] Gina Ryder

[edit] MIT Energy Club

[edit] MIT Technology Insider

[edit] Hasefroch

[edit] MIT Enterprise Forum

[edit] Chad Matthews

[edit] Kenny Plotnik

[edit] Apostolos Sourlos

[edit] Edwin de Kock

[edit] List of left handed people

[edit] Chloride shift

[edit] Hinduism and Jainism

[edit] Indo Jamaican

[edit] St Peter's Woodlands Grammar

[edit] AGAT

[edit] John 'Tonkan' Macdonald

[edit] The fast and the furious 4