< December 30 January 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache








































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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 00:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Evolutionary medicine[edit]

Evolutionary medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The established editor User:Evolu has edited the article in the past. User:Evoluu (notice the extra "u") is the one proposing deletion. SWAdair | Talk 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least someone has a sense of humor. One SPA spoofing another SPA. Still, not cool. SWAdair | Talk 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
































































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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Kissoon[edit]

Freddie Kissoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A speedy deletion of this article on a Guayanese columnist was overturned at deletion review, but an AfD was called for since the assertion of notability still lacks sourcing. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)[edit]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). The same reasons still apply, namely "WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines already state that plot summaries "should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles" (as per WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". (Thanks to Mrph for the wording.) CovenantD 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would really like to see some of the Keep advocates discuss how this article fits in with WP:NOT#IINFO #7, which is official policy here on Wikipedia. ""Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Until that happens I fail to see any valid reason for keeping it. CovenantD 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). Lots of good info can be included in this page. - Peregrinefisher 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the article to which you direct our attention nor your comments address this conflict with policy. I see no sourced analysis, detail on historical significance, etc, etc. CovenantD 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Spider-man page, which is how this page can be if it's fixed instead of deleted: real world context = creators and dates. historical significance = first appearances and deaths. sourced analysis = Notes like "This storyline is continued in the video game.", differnces with the original Spider-man continuity, etc. This is the larger topic that reasonable sized plot summaries can accompany. I agree this page needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted. It sounds like we're going to disagree on what constitutes a valid larger topic, but I'd like to point out this is just a matter of opinion, not an obvious fail of WP:NOT. - Peregrinefisher 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not a fan page, which is where plot summaries like this belong. The important, encyclopedic info is already covered in the Ultimate X-Men article. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy is not a reason for deletion. This page organizes the info in a way that the main page cannot. - Peregrinefisher 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In and of itself when related to articles, no. However, I was pointing out that the material being used to shield what is essentially an arc by arc summary of the entire run to date from Wiki guides, is, for the most part, duplicated on the parent article. Hence it carries less weight in evaluating this article. If the material was unique, then it would be a strong argument for retention of the article. As it stands, the primary aspect is the summary, the notes do not add enough to outweigh that, even in the revised format of "Tomorrow People" and "Magical". — J Greb 08:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love comics, so it pains me when I have to support deletion in comics AfDs. But it's justified here. Plot summaries are fine if short and in the body of an already encyclopedic article. Articles that are only about plot summaries are pointless. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the old format or the new format? Look at the edits over the last two days and see if fix the problem. - Peregrinefisher 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Your edits still fail to address our concerns. - Lex 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw, I like the new format used in "The Tomorrow People". One other thing - we should avoid duplication. If we do plot outlines here, they should be removed from the main article - just add a blurb like "Main article: Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)" in the main article. Quack 688 10:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V as only one of the many stories have any references. Also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as I believe this article to be plot summaries of the comics listed. Davidpdx 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems do exist with this article. I do agree with many of those who chose "Delete" that this page has a large problem: lots of plot summary and not much else. Worse, it was all from an in-universe point of view. However, I don't believe a large problem means it is an unfixable problem. Peregrinefisher and I have worked toward providing better formatting and less summary in three of the sections: The Tomorrow People, Magical, and Cable. The sections still discuss plot, but we've added references to more real world perspective such as an interview where Robert Kirkman (the current main writer) describes how his perspective on the 90s mainstream Cable affected his choices when introducing the Ultimate version of Cable.
  • A problem also exists with the main article. The main page for the Ultimate X-Men is now 30kb. According to the Rationale section of WP:Summary, 30kb is the point where articles start to become lengthy. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball but I'm going to gamble that the Ultimate X-Men series will not end or be discontinued soon. The article will continue to grow larger when Brian Singer takes over writing, and larger when subsequent changes happen to Ultimate X-Men. Much of the information from the plot section on the main page can be merged to or added to the story arc page. This would leave more space to add additional general information on the main page while putting more detailing information on the story arcs and their creative teams (in a NPOV, out-of-universe style) on a seperate page without leaving either page lengthy.
  • The page is not unfixable given work and time. Is the page or even these three sections perfect? No. However, making a featured article or a good article takes time. 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies is an example of an article that went from AfD to Good Article status. I know some editors are worried that few improvements happened between the first and current AfD. However, the page history shows that since this AfD started many edits have been made. I personally have worked hard to contribute, and it would not end after the AfD ended. fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Hopefully we will be given time to fix this page. - Peregrine Fisher 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom 2.0[edit]

Telecom 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism 2.0 Artw 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak as (an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)). Flyingtoaster1337 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TwinBlades and the DoomChasm Brigands[edit]

The TwinBlades and the DoomChasm Brigands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Plot summary of non-notable, self-published book SUBWAYguy 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Device 2.0[edit]

Device 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another "neologism 2.0" Artw 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 like it or it's fun isn't a valid vote reasoning. Jaranda wat's sup 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of calculator words[edit]

List of calculator words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is kind of fun but hardly encyclopedic. Wikidepia is not a collection of trivial information. Also, it is not for ideas made up in school. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Lister[edit]

Turbo Lister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability, is only a dictionary definition, and is not linked to any other articles. It appears to be an advertisment. I originally proposed deletion, however, the PROD template was removed by what I believe was a spam-bot. Sagsaw 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge I misread Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --BenWhitey 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural (band)[edit]

Natural (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems like an elaborate hoax to me, but at the very least violates W:BAND and W:Verifiability Mikeliveshere 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content is hopelessly unencyclopaedic but the band is real, and did release singles that charted (hence meets notability guideline). I actually remember seeing TV ads for the album at around the time in question. My vote would be to rewrite the article as a stub and rebuild it. Orderinchaos78 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Google senses must be off. I've been looking for hours and can't find much on this. I've found a listing of some songs by Marc Terenzi that made the Swedish charts, but nothing attributed to this band outside of mirror and myspaces. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm wondering why I can't find any of these things. :) Mikeliveshere 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The RIAA's official website notes they got a Gold single in the US, plus they had a No.1 single and No.2 album in Germany in 2004 (noted on reasonably reputable charting sources). There's several claims about a multi-city sell-out tour in the US but I can't find any independent confirmation of that. I've completely rewritten the discography section just now (note I had nothing to do with the original article) and provided refs to the above, but I'll let others decide what sections of the prose should be removed (IMO - most of it). Orderinchaos78 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help. I guess I'm just always wary of pages that include phrases like "It seems there's nothing on the web about X" especially when that seems to be true. :) Mikeliveshere 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope Im allowed to write here; if not please forgive me Im only aware of how to write articles not the other workings of this site :p. Anyways Im the one who started this page and no its not a hoax. The history is similar to what is described: they were one of Lou's last 'successful' boybands and there biggest hit in America, Germany, Malaysia, and Japan was 'Put your arms around me' in 2000 and 2001. They had a lot of success in Germany (see German page) but didnt take off much here. They charted in the German top 20 for most of their career and the band ended in 2004 again as described. Marc Terenzi went on to marry Sarah Connor (German Britney Spears if you will) and hes charted in the top 50 himself. Maybe my tone wasnt right but the whole article is fact. That much I can say. Many of the links are long gone...Lou deleted their website (naturalofficialsite.com) which usuing the wayback machiene you can see (http://web.archive.org/web/20010509141202/http://www.naturalofficialsite.com/) and if you check amazon their CDs are listed especially on amazon.de. As for the tour in the US I dont know if it sold out but they did tour with the Monkess and partner with Claires as Claire's site still has the press release (http://www.clairestores.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=68915&p=irol-newsArchives2001). Thanks. User:Thegingerone
Anyone's allowed to write on an AFD - that's the whole point of it. :) Thanks for your contribution - the above verification re Claire's would be useful to the section of the article dealing with that partnership. Orderinchaos78 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failure of WP:CSD a7 (no assertion of notability of subject). alphachimp. 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Planet[edit]

Acid Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This non-notable site fails WP:WEB. Contested endorsed PROD. ➥the Epopt 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudy Bup[edit]

Hudy Bup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unverifiable neologism. Looks like something made up one day. Prod removed by anon user without comment. Resolute 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J2 Products Trading Co.[edit]

J2 Products Trading Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable website, with no assertion of notability. Paltry Alexa score, as well.[7] It has been around for over a year, though, so I thought I'd give it a proper AfD, rather than speedy it, in case there's something that everyone else knows that I don't... EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adejinle[edit]

Adejinle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable family name, no non-trivial independent sources located Orderinchaos78 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it will be a useless disambiguation page, because there are no people in Wikipedia of that name. MER-C 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense, POV, nonnotable "movement", you name it. NawlinWiki 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penkridge independence[edit]

Penkridge independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Obvious junk article M100 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus the Pious[edit]

Magnus the Pious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. Minor fictional character. Reads as if subject of the article was real. I am also nominating these pages as they are just the same.

Sigmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karl Franz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Felix Jaeger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Morglum Necksnapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JorcogaYell! 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Lucas[edit]

Diana Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Having trouble meeting WP:V on any of the articles claims to notability. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Bravo Bravissimo" which appears to be a national and international show/competion in which she won the national competition. This tends to support notability if more can be demonstrated about the prestige/notability of the contest.
  • Two recorded albums which may meet Item # 4 of WP Musicians: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, if the label is important. Meeting this criteria is an automatic notable
  • In 2003, Diana entered the Portuguese Idol competition, where she reached the semi-finals -- not individually notable, but tends to support
  • Several songs had substancial success by being featured in several national soap opera(s). This tends to give credibility to the significance of the two recorded albums.
  • Even though we are an english language based medium, we should be including notables from other cultures. She is considered notable at Portugese WP: (see [8]). While this article is new here it has been on Portugese WP since July.
  • It seems that there is enough on the web to disprove a hoax, but little to support the author's list of accomplishments.
--Kevin Murray 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnstones (band)[edit]

The Johnstones (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, a7. NawlinWiki 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Bloink[edit]

Dominique Bloink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC and fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 02:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Comstock[edit]

Barbara Comstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Based on the current article, the subject was at best a minor personality within the Department of Justice with some marginal involvement with the Jose Padilla case and an occasional talking head on news shows--unclear where there is any encyclopedic notability. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The article, even if kept, would need a rewrite - it's not NPOV as it stands. Orderinchaos78 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Wanuskewin NDP[edit]

Saskatoon Wanuskewin NDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A Riding Association isn't inheritently notable. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Delete GreenJoe 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (copyvio) by Uncle G. Tevildo 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Swystun[edit]

Lenore Swystun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, protected. CSD#G4, recreated several times. Deizio talk 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybergrind (third nomination)[edit]

Cybergrind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 meet WP:BAND, no proof of major album yet. Jaranda wat's sup 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermynd[edit]

Mastermynd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
delete as per nom-once publishes, then article. Chris 06:19, 31 December 2006 (
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLATSTOCK[edit]

FLATSTOCK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

lack of notability, possible advertisement Chris 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support merge back into American Poster Institute, with major linking and wikifying, as per trialsanderrors Chris 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aptuit[edit]

Aptuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:V. No improvement in the last month since an unsuccessful ((prod)). BigrTex 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would be willing to change my vote if the article cited third party Reliable Sources. I think WP:CORP really boils down to The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. which is a reasonable requirement. Independent coverage separates notable companies from a company I started in my garage yesterday. ~ BigrTex 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Christian Anthem"[edit]

"The Christian Anthem" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn advert. Just H 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are 64 ghits? Why is this linked to Google results? Why do you feel it is full of meaningless buzzwords? In the 2 years the presentation has been online, I've never heard such a thing!Kutlessfan777 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghits == Google hits. "Touched millions of lives" is meaningless, especially when Google hasn't heard of it. MER-C 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely an article that details a song. I was intending to add much more information, but I am new to this (first day) and I see now that you can't just add a page because chances are it will be deleted.Kutlessfan777 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kutlessfan777, may I respectfully draw your attention to WP:CIVIL? May I also recommend that you make it clear that your opinion is that the article should be kept? Thanks. Tevildo 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo, I find the comment civil enough. Dont bite .... DGG 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See your talk page, there is a better explanation there. --Dennisthe2 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish it to remain.Kutlessfan777 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would not need to be merged with Lee Behnken; the entire content of the article is already there. It would need to be de-linked, though. Joyous! | Talk 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurston Street Gang[edit]

Thurston Street Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable East Boston street gang, possible vanity page. Only Google hits [10] are Wikipedia mirrors and a MySpace page. Canley 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

the article is an advertisement, majority of it is written by the subject or one of his socks which violate WP:COI and the article doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements of notability ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was once nominated for deletion, the result of that discussion can be accessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

That is your own understanding what am doing is disgraceful of your group's another AFD Scam. But read this about what an editor said on this canvassing here.[11][12].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you have learned something from that..Now I know, why you have decided to increase spamming to 10+ talk pages. Makes perfect sense. ThanksIwazaki 会話。討論 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have learnt something from that.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator might have brought this article to deletion because of a dispute, but that doesn't make Rajkumar notable. All the links given by you are trivial, and mention him just once. The large number of Google hits is thanks to Wikipedia mirrors and his articles on PR sites where anybody can submit an article by registering an account[17][18][19][20]. utcursch | talk 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ezines and on-line PR firms where I have published my articles and PR releases also having editorial policy. If you refer their policy you will come to know. Most of the other Blogs and Ezines only picked those articles from those Ezines.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Nominator :o) do not have anything against Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I have not even for a second assumed bad faith on him without proper reasoning. Princess Diana Institute of Peace is another scam of this editor, if you do a google search for this only hits you get is the wikipedia article, I come from Sri Lanka and I have never heard of it here. If one examines the image included in the wikipedia article, it clearly says its a limited liability company thats allowed to use the name "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" without the word Limited. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For your comments in the last AFD a few Editors have already answered here.[21][22][23][24][25]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply: I am sorry ,none of them have answered.Means, your notability is not yet confirmed or established !!.In fact most of them came to vote as a result of your pathetic vote canvassing, and glad to see that you are doing the same this time .Iwazaki 会話。討論 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their reply stands forever, they should not repeat once again for you pre-planned AFD. See the details here.[26][27][28][29]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where ?? Could you please stop accusing me with fairytale stories in which my name doesn't even appear.Iwazaki 会話。討論 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean based this, you are working as a group of wikipedians against me.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please make your self more clear ? Are we debating about Rajkumar Kanagasingam or Rajkumar Kanagasingam ? If it is the latter, don't you think you are in the wrong place ? Iwazaki 会話。討論 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can take the revenge something for other, don't you?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As a Tamil and a Hindu, I am related to India Tag. Mere political jurisdiction can't single out a person from his cultural and language boundaries. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know you are a tamil, but how that would make you an indian ?? Are you a tamil of indian origin ?Can you prove that here ? From what I gather from your BIO,You are a Sri Lankan and have nothing to do with india..Please refrain from adding unnecessary Tags.Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is only a India - related Tag, that doesn't require someone to qualify that he should be a Indian-origin nationality or an Indian. The same culture, religion and language also qualifies one for that tag. Why you are so interested to delete that tag?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it, if you read Wikipedia policies instead of wasting our time hereIwazaki 会話。討論 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which wikipedia policy are you talking about? It is good enough if you could furnish that before you delete the Tag. Your interest to delete the Tag only shows - I am more related to that Tag than unrelated. All are originated from Africa some 2000 generation ago, but the close ethnic, religious and cultural identification qualifys for the Tag.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment: I see a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? Incidentally, I'm surprised that anybody worth an article in WP would be so involved in the effort to retain that article: wouldn't he or she be too busy to be interested in, and above, such humdrum recognition? -- Hoary 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion process is highly biased and had some ulterior motive, I don't feel anything wrong a subject is taking interst for his article or image(you can interprete as you want). If you take some interest you will come to know the real motive of the nominator rather than accussing the subject.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: These references were already discussed before at the previous Article for deletion debate that resulted in a Keep decision. I suggest that all editors review the Afd guidlines, in particlular Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. I am concerned this re-nomination was brought forth for non-policy reasons as the nominator has recently been in a dispute with the subject of this article. Ccscott 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any of the references were actually discussed at the previous AfD, which featured sockpuppet votes by Rajsingam. The references are multiple, but not non-trivial. utcursch | talk 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the references are non-trivial or not is an editorial decision, but in my opinion (and that of the majority of editors commenting in the first AfD) it is clear that this article and this article both have the subject as the main focus of the article and are non-trivial. This is enough to satisfy WP:N. Remember, notability is not subjective. The article still needs much work, and Mr. Kanagasingam's behaviour has not helped things, but the article should not be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peace medals ??!! Hundreds of them were given to students during 1994-1996 period by then Government..As a Sri Lankan I find it amusing that someone consider him to be notable just because he was given a medal, just like hundreds of other Students..Sorry, he won't become notable, just by getting an odd medal.Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable because he has won a peace medal. He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here) and therefore this article satisfies the primary notability criterion of WP:N. Aside from the argument of utcursch who believes that the many newspaper articles discussing the subject are not non-trivial (I disagree), there have been no policy-based reasons put forth to delete this article by any of the editors commenting. All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom" (please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). None of these are valid reasons for deleteing an article according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Ccscott 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ccscott says: He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here). Pardon me for repeating myself, but: I went there and saw a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? I still haven't seen an answer to that. Ccscott says: All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom". Yes, I cited the apparent COI issues. But that wasn't all I wrote. True, I hadn't heard of him, but I'm very willing to concede that I haven't heard of most noteworthy people. (Example: I haven't heard of a single skateboarder, but I'm reliably informed that they can be noteworthy for skateboarding alone, let alone for their other achievements.) And I don't know why I should have to make such a banal declaration, but I neither like nor dislike Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Reason, I think, for deletion (from the very page Ccscott cites): Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth), of which the important member is WP:BIO. But perhaps I'm wrong and he does meet WP:BIO. If so, how? -- Hoary 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not addressing this directly but I have provided the link several time to the off-line articles, written independent of him, that discuss the subject directly. Again, the list can be found on the talk page for this article. Specifically: [30], [31], [32] are published newspaper articles completely independent of the subject which are primarily focused on the subject (and are therefore non-trivial). There are also numerous more marginal published articles (a few are: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and more here ) which discuss the subject in a more trivial fashion. This amount of news coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BIO and WP:N easily in my opinion and that of the editors participating in the first AfD. Ccscott 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the peace medal nor handing out an unknown report make this person notable..I don't see anything but pure propaganda in those pictures..In case you don't know, It is not a big deal to have your photo on a newspaper..Some people when they get married put an add on the papers, some when they passed an exam do the same, some others prefer to notify the whole Sri Lanka when they win a medal or competition(in most cases just to boast) by having their picture on the papers..So, just because one has some photos on a newspaper he/she won't automatically become notable , kinda common sense. And, no one here saying things like i don't like him and bla bla..People have come up with very good points and I would kindly ask you to read them instead of dragging this into a different direction.Oh,,You can always shed some light on this by showing us anything written of him in media BY others..So far i have failed to see a single article or anything reported in local media OF him, quite strange for such a notable person, isn't it? Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sockpuuppet vote is only one, not several. But read these comments by another editor on AFD.[38][39].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rajkumar, The number of votes that you stacked doesn't matter here. If it's 1 or 1000, still you have violated the policy. You directly or indirectly violated number of policies. You know you are lucky to be here until this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict of interest is based on some unrelated issues as a wikipedian developed from the Sri Lanka Conflict and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no the conflict of interest stems from the fact that you are writing your own articles and citing yourself. A bit circular, no? —Ocatecir Talk 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That starts from here. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentFirst, please refrain from bringing irrelevant things to this debate.And remember you too in the glass house and should not throw any thing(even a dust) at others. Second, please tell us what are those, many newspapers, all we know is, he wrote 4 articles(1 or 2 kowtowing of a political leader) for Daily news and 1 article for some other..Mainly to promote his NGO work and him self!! Could you please bring us one or two articles written of him(by others) in the main stream news papers ? Since he is notable even in India , hope this won't be a big problem for you. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Reply - I have only edited sporadically in Sri Lankan/Tamil articles, a little bit in Anton Balasingham, and a few random historical Hindu figures in Sri Lanka. Just because I am Tamil does not automatically mean I am from India or that I support a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Noting this, I fail to see the glass houses you talk about. I noted above that I know you have not engaged in peculiar behavior unlike lahiru k and netmonger. As for notability, the sources on the talk page (kanagasingam's ) seem to assert notability.Bakaman 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply to bakaPlease stick to the point, this is not about those ragtag LTTe terrorist(even though Mr Rajkumar is an adamant supporter of them). This is about a unheard,not-notable person using wikipedia to boast himself..So, all we do is asking you to shed some light on this issue by giving us reliable sources about his achievements. Not blogs, Not School character certificates, Not self boasting articles, Not some clueless photos..If he is so notable, why can't you provide us anything written OF him?? ?

I didn't even know you were tamil ,and sorry if I have made a mistake about your nationality.All i know is that you are a trustworthy friend of this person and even shared wiki-passwords with him ,and came to vote here immediately after his SOS. And about the glass house, I was speaking of the same glass house which you mentioned earlier.So if you don't see it now, neither do I Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bakasuprman's allegations of sockpuppetry is mere speculation, I dont quite understand how he arrived at this theory of sockpuppeting by me and Lahiru_k and Iwazaki is clean!!!.. This only amounts to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith on fellow editors. And these things are not something to be discussed here. This discussion is about whether to keep an article or not, so please adhere to the topic. As LastChanceToBe says lets not bring our real world fights to cyberspace. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Almost all the references to newspaper articles are those written by him. I fail to see how this is notable in the least. Seems to be more of a vanity article than anything else. --vi5in[talk] 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki. Cbrown1023 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacagawean[edit]

Sacagawean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

belongs in Wikitionary, useless Adam 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies in My Stomach[edit]

Butterflies in My Stomach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells parodies[edit]

Jingle Bells parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is largely a collection of a few of the many parodies of "Jingle Bells". It is unsourced. It is highly debatable if thsi is a notable topic at all. An attempt was made to propose this for deletetion last December, but the AfD page was improperly formed. This was recently tagged as a speedy, but does not fit any of the criteria. I considered WP:PROD but several editors have contributed to thsi article, so i presuem its deeltion would be contested. But as it stands, this article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. Delete. DES (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XS Energy Drink[edit]

XS Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been around for two years but has never had a decent source. The only references I can find from Google are related to its distributor, multi-level marketing company Quixtar, to folks who are selling it, and some reviews on BevNet[43] (they review every beverage). The BevNet forum has almost banned any mention of it due to spamming and the lack of credible sales figures.[44] The product does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Will Beback · † · 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Behnken[edit]

Lee Behnken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Ok, I understand that WP only wants to see "verifiable proof" that an artist has been successful all over the place...which really confuses me. Obviously in ths case we have a person that has accomplished MUCH in his career (read "Accomplishments") and yet because he has not had songs on the top 40 charts, WP wants to see him deleted. Very, very sad and unfortunate indeed...but typical. If a person hasn't made millions, nobody cares.

This person travelled with one of the most well-known Christian music artists, Rich Mullins, yet should I assume that the article would need some sort of proof of this? Too bad it was in the early 80's, and now that Mr. Mullins has passed away, we can't get a quote from him.

Anyway, I am willing to "tone down alot" the "hagiography" as requested, if you'll allow this well written, well laid out, and interesting article to remain on WP. Either way, I had fun spending my ENTIRE DAY putting this article together, only to have it nominated for deletion before the ink was dry.

Cheers. Kutlessfan777 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it is our policy (see WP:V) that all our information has to be verifiable by independent third-party sources, and that all our articles have to establish the notability of their subject matter. As a musician, Mr Behnken is subject to WP:MUSIC to establish his notability - if you can prove that he satisfies any one of the conditions on that page, the article can stay. You may also want to look at the general WP:BIO guidelines; it's quite possible that he may be notable as an evangelist rather than a musician, but we'll still need independent proof of this. Tevildo 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that I personally communicated with the folks at CD Baby and YES, they in fact DID copy/paste the information from the article I WROTE which has appeared throughout the Internet at various times. And, I might mention here that the reference to the charts was made in regard to the earliest release (1988), and I would like you to point me to any records of the 1988 CHRISTIAN charts (Not "Billboard") online so I can use them as my source. Kutlessfan777 05:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put the only magazine articles from the late 80's I could find on the article, which falls in line with WP:MUSIC MAIN CRITERION: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. - This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" Kutlessfan777 06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Doesnt seem to completely satisfy WP:MUSIC. Not listed at all on Discogs.com, one gospel album is listed on allmusic.com. If the authors cannot satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC by the end of the AfD would argue for a strong delete. MidgleyDJ 06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added information in the article about Mr. Behnken's long-time producer and keyboardist, Jason Webb, who fits in with the WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"Kutlessfan777 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesnt this last addition apply to bands, as opposed to solo singers? MidgleyDJ 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it states on the Notability page: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"

According to this statement, Mr. Behnken is, in fact, notable. He has met 2 of the notability requirements, including the main criterion. Kutlessfan777 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Mr. Montco, Mr. Behnken has in fact met the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC (see above). Kutlessfan777 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - found 2 cites from 2001 and 1994 which reference his trips to China and Uzbekistan, but both are from the local newspaper Dayton Daily News in Dayton, Ohio. I'm surprised that no Asian-region or US newspapers or religious journals reported on the China visit in particular. The reference to the "Samarakand city museum" seems suspect - I tried searching under "Samarkand", the correct spelling, and found no reference to Lee at all. If anyone can think of anywhere else to look, this article might be salvageable - but it's leaning towards a rather reluctant delete from me :( Orderinchaos78 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for youur comments, Dennisthe2. I must point out you are then in disagreement with articles on such people as Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Bill Gaither, Michael W. Smith, and so on and so on. It just happens to be their career, and it is their American right to have a career as an evangelist. Anyway, these folks can have an article I suppose because they have won awards and sold millions of books and records in their careers as evengelists. You're right, WP is not the place to go on about this, since it is clear that WP allows articles on such people.And once again I repeat that the article now meets WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." I have inserted the criteria here exactly as it appears in WP"MUSIC, so I'm not sure why there's any question. As for China and Uzbekistan, we have plenty of photos. Is that sufficient? Or not because we took them? We have photos from several different concert venues in the Philippines, as well as appearances in Thailand. As for why there are no articles in Chinese newspapers about the TV event, might it be because China is a Communist country? They do not necessarily support an event that has an American singing a "Christian" song on their airwaves. I can understand why there might not be any press on this. However, we may have some things in print that are not online. Does every source have to be an online source? Still learning.Kutlessfan777 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion only, but the consensus lies between weak keep and weak delete, and work can be done on this article to improve it. I don't think there's any doubt that within the field or area this individual is notable, so it wouldn't fail notability - the main issue is verifiability and published reliable sources, which I would think to be more of a cleanup issue. Perhaps what we should do, and what I might propose as a compromise that could be acceptable to all here, is to close this AfD debate, whack a big cleanup tag on it, fix it up, find more sources (I've found two, Kutless may have a few more) and if within, say, 2 or 3 weeks we haven't got or can't get it to the stage where it's a decent article that cites sources, then revisit this debate. (In answer to a question you asked me, Kutless - a magazine that is out of print can be a reliable source as long as someone else can find it in a library somewhere. Much of my work is with geographical articles and most of the information can only be found in either the nearest local library or in the State Library.) What do others think? Orderinchaos78 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think we've even established that he's notable within the CCM community. We have two album reviews from 15 years ago, and two articles in a local newspaper. As an absolute minimum, I think we need evidence that he's been in the CCM charts. We should, of course, let the AfD run to completion, but I still think that we should delete the article if more sources aren't forthcoming, with no predjudice against re-creation if such sources are found subsequently. I'm sorry to sound sceptical, but it's important for us not to rely on unsupported assertions of notability. Tevildo 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my part. However, I want to point out to Tevildo that you continue to ignore the fact that the article DOES meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." I have inserted the criteria here exactly as it appears in WP:MUSIC. Why does this continue to be overlooked? It is very clearly spelled out, and WP:MUSIC is very clear in the criteria. If the notable sources are weak, but nonetheless are THERE and may just need "cleaned up" as Orderinchaos suggests, AND criteria #5 is covered without question, then why do you still suggest keeping this debate open?Kutlessfan777 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would only apply if Mr Behnken and Mr Webb performed together as a group (rather than as soloist and accompanist) - and, indeed, if Mr Webb is notable. We have no article on him at present, and his involvement with the (undeniably notable) Bill Gaither doesn't appear to be major. I'm not saying that this applies to the current situation, but a session musician _might_ be notable for performing with a major artist; that doesn't automatically convey notability on anyone who's ever performed with that session musician. Tevildo 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kutless, for what it is worth I agree with Tevildo (and I've commented on the band vs soloist issue previously). Notability has not been asserted (yet) and I dont think the subject (yet) meets the requirement of WP:MUSIC. MidgleyDJ 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak as (empty). Flyingtoaster1337 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Reality Television participants[edit]

National Reality Television participants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. This looks like a failed attempt by the same person who created Category:National Reality Television participants which is also up for deletion. Otto4711 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-statement, not even an article. Chris 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradshaws[edit]

The Bradshaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced treatment of a group of characters created on a radio show. Existence, yes.. notability? not convinced. User:Booksbooksbooks who has been the sole substantive editor here recently has been unresponsive to several messages advising of good practice. Deizio talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the imformation from the Bradshaws episodes and Buzz Hawkins' live show in Salford, there are dozens of articles about fictional characters that go deeper than I did (for Example, most of the articles about the Discworld series of novels go so far in imformation that the articles have become like a fansite) I'll add some references very soon and I'll try to remove imformation that is not needed-User:Booksbooksbooks

The Bradshaws was a radio comedy, with tapes and CDs of performances as well as VHS tapes being sold commercially. A television spin-off was aired nationally, and a spin-off theatre show also toured. I fail to see how The Bradshaws is not a notable series, and would in fact argue that the article needs a request for contributions from other editors, not deletion. Lavareef 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Baptist Church[edit]

New Testament Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore J. Van Toll III[edit]

Theodore J. Van Toll III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable; fails search test and WP:BIO. Created entirely by a SPA. Carson 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Guerrero[edit]

Kristina Guerrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject, as a local news personality, has not achieved sufficient notability or notoriety to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Burghboy80 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has done some noteworthy programs and shows. Examples include Acess Hollyood and Great Day San Antonio. --Scapone 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep funny I type her name into google and get all kinds of hits for TV she has done. IMDB has a listing for her as well.--Xiahou 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru[edit]

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pre-announcement of a Tollywood movie, supposed to be released in 2007. From the sources I can read the only thing that has been settled upon is the name of the movie. The oneindia source could contain more, but sadly I can't read it, so I'm hoping the community can offer more input. Prod was removed without comment by an IP user. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 00:49Z

Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)[edit]

Michael Keith Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Malformed nomination, I completed this for User:Edchilvers, who will hopefully add a nomination statement. I have no opinion other than that I checked and this article is not identical to the one deleted in June, so speedy criterion WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all honesty I don't feel terribly strongly about this. However, for the purposes of having a proper debate - could someone who has voted "keep" explain to me why the man himself needs an article, distinct from the article about (1) CDA of which he is chair and (2) the important libel case which he was party to? Yes, the CDA is notable, yes, the case is notable - but is he?
There are plenty of clubs, pressure groups etc. more prominent than the CDA, the leaders of which don't have articles (and rightly so). There are much more important landmark legal cases where the plaintiff and the defendant don't have their own article (and rightly so).
Setting aside whether or not the nominator may or may not have a personal issue with the subject of this article (I gather he does), I think these questions need to be addressed. --SandyDancer 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second point is that even with the two assertions of notability - they are seperate enough to warrant a bridging article. When you count in the other political activities (particularly the UKIP candidacy in Portsmouth) this point is more crucial. While the argument that if he only attracted attention as the leader of the CDA, or only the UKIP candidate or only the plaintiff in Keith-Smith v Williams then he would have no independent notability might have some merit, as someone who attracts attention from all three fronts then he merits an article as a bridge between these.
Lastly there's a more general point. Politics is never simply about the people who hold official office it's about the sea in which these fish swim. It is important for a student of politics to get an idea of the people who are in the background influencing the political climate. People such as Mike Smith, Tim Montgomerie and Mark MacGregor may not be well known to the public - sometimes by their own choice - but their influence means that they should be known - at least by those who wish to find out. Des Wilson in the Liberal Democrats or Neal Lawson in Labour would fill similar positions. While I have little sympathy with vanity articles or articles for every councillor on a particular council, influential non-office holders should be included - whether or not one agrees with their politics.
JASpencer 09:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JASpencer. I see your point - thanks for summing things up like that. Vote changed to keep. --SandyDancer 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (season 1) / Lost (season 2) / Lost (season 3)[edit]

Lost (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Lost (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Lost (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I was a member of the List of Lost episodes mediation a few months ago, where we unanimously came up to a consensus regarding season/individual episode articles. The guideline that we established for season episodes straight from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#General article guidelines reads as follows:

"In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments."

As of now, these pages do not discuss any themes or character developments; they are blatantly plot summaries. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7 (Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.), the current season pages do not pass this policy and should be deleted. -- Wikipedical 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I definitely do NOT want this AfD to be seen as an attempt to overpower the mediation. I am not presenting any arguments whatsoever regarding redundancy with individual episode articles.
I am merely acting as a committed member of WikiProject Lost and fully believe that deleting these articles now will overall benefit the quality of our Lost articles and Wikipedia as a whole. I also hope and expect this deletion to be temporary until we as a Project can create meaningful pages discussing thematic and character developments over the seasons. Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Julliard[edit]

Bruno Julliard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable french student. Page has been tagged for notability additions since September. The articles creators contributions to the English Wiki are restricted to two edits on this article. Bob 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz on Da Run (Part 4)[edit]

Boyz on Da Run (Part 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is about a television episode, but there's no scheduled air date and I couldn't find anything about it on Google. J Di talk 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spotlight Players[edit]

The Spotlight Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I removed a prod from this article which had been placed there because the article had been vandalized. However, after cleaning it up, I realized that the article described an essentially non-notable high school theatre group. The article is completely unreferenced, and I've had to remove some possibly libelous comments about one of the past directors. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa el-Mullah al-Howeish[edit]

Wafa el-Mullah al-Howeish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Somebody tagged this for prod but did so incorrectly; the prod reason they provided was "reason". Ah, literalism. Anyway: I'm doing a procedural nomination as there was a bungled prod, but I have no personal opinion as to whether this should actually be deleted or not. What say you, good AFDers? Bearcat 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

Chris Sullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod[51] (prod tag removal was user's 5th edit). Respectable person who can found at some security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[52]. Jyothisingh 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references qualify this respectable person for Wikipedia:Notability (people). [57] says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, [58] mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, [59] mentions that he is author of a tool called Nikito, [60] has no reference to his "splendid work" -- it has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 11:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Desperate wish" is not a reason to keep the article! Jyothisingh 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susam Pal[edit]

Susam Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod[61] (prod tag removal was user's 6th edit[62]). Respectable person who can be found at some security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[63]. See also Chris Sullo. Jyothisingh 09:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (References: Secunia, [ SecurityFocus]).
  2. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (References presented in support of the above point and references in the article are all part of enduring historical record.) -- Nareshhacker 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, article is wrong. the article implies that this person found a dos vuln, yet the link says its sql injection. there's a big difference 207.229.176.46 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above commenter means the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database which is different from the Bugtraq Mailing List. Bugtraq Mailing List may not be considered notable but Bugtraq Vulnerability Database should be IMHO) -- Nareshhacker 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go to sql injection. hit ctrl+f5. do a search for "denial" or "dos". you won't get any results. sure, maybe it could help in a few rare circumstances, but they are, in actuality, two very different kinds of attacks. sql injection compromises databases. it allows attackers to read data they might not otherwise be able to read - to insert data they might not otherwise be able to insert. denial of service, per its very name, does not do this. denial of service attacks do just that - deny service. honestly, how can you presume to comment on the notability of anyone in the security field when your understanding of the fundamentals appears to be so piss poor? -- 207.229.176.46
You are about to start a flame war where as the fact is that you yourself have not gone through the article nicely. Where in the article did you find "dos vulnerability" being mentioned? Susam has found lots of vulnerabilities, a few of which are listed in this article with proper references as well. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you should follow your own advice and go through the article nicely. check out Susam Pal#Assistance to Indian Tourismv. it says he found a vuln "which could be exploited by an attacker to bring the site down thereby making it inaccessible to intended users". "bring down the site" is the definition of a dos. and whether or not it can be is moot. it violates WP:NOR and mistates the vuln. 207.229.176.46 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Whatever is written in the article is true. It is an SQL Injection in the site which can be used to drop tables in the site in question there by causing the DoS attack. I hope you have understood the meaning now. (How the tables can be dropped is not a publicly disclosed fact and is still a guarded secret of the Indian underground community). Ok if that particular statement violates WP:NOR, then that particular line can be removed and it can simply be written that he discovered SQL Injection in the site and demonstrated standard probing techniques. The reference for the latter fact is present in the article. --Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i will concede that i had not thought of dropping the tables. that said, you're still a fucking idiot. SQL injection allows an attacker do a hell of a lot more than DoS attacks do and to call it a DoS attack is highly inaccurate. here's an example:
::::::http://www.wormweb.nl/nieuws.php?request=nieuws&item=&id=%3Cscript%3Ealert(/xss/.source)%3C/script%3E
would it be more accurate to call that xss or sql injection? technically, it's both, but if you could only chose one, it'd be more accurate to say sql injection, because that's, ultimately, what is enabling the xss. your calling of an sql injection vuln a dos is akin to saying that the above is xss, which is wrong. 207.229.176.46 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as for the forum i posted a link to being non-notable... you're missing the point. you're claiming this guy should stay because he's found vulnerabilities. people in that forum have, too. so what if they're not posted on bugtraq? a vulnerability is a vulnerability regardless of whether or not it's posted on bugtraq. test the latest ones out for yourself if you think otherwise. -- 207.229.176.46
No, there is a difference between a vulnerability that you post in some XYZ forum like a school kid and some vulnerability that is reviewed by SecurityFocus Bugtraq team and included in the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database. If a vulnerability posted by you enters the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database, network scanners all over the world include this vulnerability in their scanning list. For instance, Susam's Apache vulnerability disclosure is used in scanners. Here's a reference. [66] -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a difference between a story that you post in some XYZ forum like a school kid and some story that is reviewed by the slashdot.org team and included on their website. If a story by you enters slashdot.org, websites all over the world cover the story. since your argument can be so easily adapted to advocate wikipedia entries on everyone who's ever gotten a slashdot.org story accepted, you must also believe that? otherwise, please explain to me how you're not being hypocritical.
also, your suggestion that people who post vulns on XYZ forums are as "school kids" is petty and childish. anyone who posts a vuln, in public, is an attention seeking whore who's more concerned about their own reputation then they are about a creating a safer anything and if you think bugtraq is an exception, you're a tool - an apologist - who conveniently truths when they disagree with your own vision 207.229.176.46 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H. D. Moore does just that. So you mean to say H. D. Moore is an "attention seeking whore"? :-) -- Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i think he is an "attention seeking whore". you can, of course, be notable and skilled, despite being an "attention seeking whore". 207.229.176.46 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrators - We are arguing here in good faith. We don't mind even if this article is deleted if it doesn't meet the policies. But we do object the language 207.229.176.46 is using for living people. He/She implies that all security researchers who go for public disclosures which include great researchers like H. D. Moore are "attention seeking whores". -- Root exploit 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, being an attention-seeking-whore isn't all bad. The upside is that "being known" allows projects like Metasploit to stay in active development. The more people that know about and use our tools, the less chance we will let the project die for lack of interest. The downside is that psuedo-anonymous Wikipedia users rag on you for being a whore :-) --Hdm 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and if you think bugtraq does make a difference, consider the fact that it's a mailing list to which anyone can contribute. just because bugtraq is notable does not mean that every peon who sends emails to it is. jesus christ, how can you even believe your own arguments? -- 207.229.176.46
We are not talking of the Bugtraq mailing list. (Have you even bothered to click and open the references?) We are talking of the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database. [67]. Not anyone and everyone can contribute there. Only vulnerabilities which are reviewed and considered notable and of importance to the whole world are kept in the BID list. Please have a look at the references in the article once again. Bugtraq vulnerability database and Bugtraq mailing list are quite different. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in any event, Travis Schack should be deleted, too, not to mention most of the "manglers" at OSVDB. 207.229.176.46 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! But this is not the place to discuss Travis Schack. Please do it in the appropriate page. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ 207.229.176.46 - I think a person who can't figure out how to cause a DoS attack using SQL Injection needs to be commenting on a person who is far more respectable in the field of Information Security. -- Nareshhacker 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think your fucking idiot. i am not saying that SQL injection can't be used to DoS - I am saying that you can do a fuck of a lot more with SQL injection than you can with a DoS attack. at best, DoS attacks are a subset of SQL injection. SQL injection allows things that DoS attacks do not and therefore, calling an SQL injection attack a DoS attack is highly misleading. 207.229.176.46 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that "Secunia, SecurityFoscus, FrSirt, etc. not notable or verifiable?". When I said "it seems that on an average day, more than ten security vulnerabilites are reported at both the sites", I meant that the subject of the article is just one of the many people who report vulnerabilities. Subscribing to all security-related mailing lists and registering at all security-related websites doesn't make a person notable. And if the person is so notable, where are reliable references? Jyothisingh 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What else is a reliable reference? Please clarify this point. I admit we might not be understanding the Wikipedia policies well enough. But I don't understand why I am being attacked like this by 207.229.176.46. This is just turning into a flame war. And if this is the case I am never returning to Wikipedia again. -- Nareshhacker 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I didn't get this. We are a bunch of guys from erstwhile Orkut hackers' community, erstwhile since the community itself was deleted, who were trying to write some wikipedia articles on the OSVDB volunteers. So our purpose was just that. We never intended to edit articles outside the domain of OSVDB. So why are we supposed to make more than 10 edits. We have made 2-5 edits per subject. Does that mean our arguments won't be given any importance here? -- Nareshhacker 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for what it's worth, i do think your arguments should be given as much weight as anyone elses. to dismiss something because of someones edit count is an ad hominem and is something to be ashamed of. 207.229.176.46 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following comment was made:- "Subscribing to all security-related mailing lists and registering at all security-related websites doesn't make a person notable." by JyothiSingh. I would like to make a correction. We are talking of two differen things. Security Mailing Lists and Security Organization Reports. It is quite easy to get your name into every security mailing list of the world. Just post a mail in the Bugtraq mailing list and it would soon be copied by all other security mailing lists. I agree with this point. But the story is different in case of Security Reports. All the references in the article are those of security reports. A security report is published only after verifying the security incident or vulnerabiliy. Only when it is found verifiable and worthful by the security organization, it is published as a report or advisory. So the subject in question had no way of forcing his name into the thousands of security reports that are available in his name. This is just a clarification. Of course the administrators have the right to decide what is the best thing to do with this article. -- Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tornio[edit]

Steve Tornio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod[68]. Respectable person, who can be found on security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[69]. Jyothisingh 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Delete. already merged at closing, see last vote. Cbrown1023 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Security Foundation[edit]

Open Security Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Respectable organization, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Less than 300 Google hits[70]. I could not find any reliable sources that can establish notability. Jyothisingh 09:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reprinted press releases don't count for corporations, bands and artists, biographies and webcontent, so there's no reason for it to count here. MER-C 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally interested only in OSVDB. So what's wrong? How does that reduce my credibility? -- Root exploit 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Accardo[edit]

Paul Accardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial site, sad as a death may be Chris 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Cliffhanger. Cbrown1023 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be Continued...[edit]

To be Continued... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. Sr13 (T|C) 09:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Storm in the Glass[edit]

Star Wars: Storm in the Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable fan films. imdb no page. Google News no match page[71]. Sufnv 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That it was selected as DYK does not make it notable in my eyes, it's just another kind of original research in my eyes. And the argument about the Russian search result is not valid either in my eyes, I guess most of the results are due to the fact that Star Wars is in the title. Snailwalker | talk 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may possibly be mistaken on how Google searching works, or at least it appears so from the above response. If you search for the entire title as a quote, only sites taht directly reference that title will be returned as results. If I just search for Star Wars as loose words, I am going to get about 3 billion results. (give or take)... it is only if I search for the entire title that I get meaningful results, which is what I believe Alkivar did. Selection as DYK doesn't itself confer notability. But what it does is suggest that (since the DYK process downchecks non notable articles all the time) that the selectors DID think it was notable, whether they (our new process means one person selects, and usually another vets it before it moves to the page) actually turn up here to comment or not, and that perhaps they saw notability where you did not. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the original research was NOT with quotes. I just tried to search in Google using quotes and it only returned 559 results, which I must say is not very impressive Snailwalker | talk 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have to remind that IMDB doesn't have it and they have almost all notable movies, including foreign languages. Snailwalker | talk 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even those that big movie producers might not want to be there? After all, as far as I know, the movie was translated and sold in violation of international copyright (something which doesn't really carry much weight in Russia). Chronolegion 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fanfilm, it's a mocking translation/total conversion. Perhaps you can decribe what do you want those reliable sourced to mention? That Goblin himself has become fairly famous thanks to these movies in Russia? --Illythr 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy meeting you here. Centrx, please stop reading my contributions and following me around everywhere. Philwelch 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "reliable sources", and then I can try to find those. Do you want the online store where you can buy it? The official website? An article reviewing the translation? Chronolegion 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaybib Yambao[edit]

Jaybib Yambao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Actor is not listed in the credits of the movies and soaps he has supposedly played in, except for one Wikipedia article where he is a By-stander near Eli's House (this line was also added by the creator of the article). Looks like a non notable background actor to me. The article was speedy deleted before once. Chris 73 | Talk 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey DeChausse[edit]

Jeffrey DeChausse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Spam (Previously prodded) Harris 10:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete-vanity, Created entirely by a SPA. Chris 10:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man characters in film[edit]

Spider-Man characters in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete pointless article that is redundant to the movie articles. This is another entry from user EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who keeps creating categories and articles that get promptly deleted for being inappropriate or redundant to other categories and articles. Doczilla 10:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gilbert[edit]

Simon Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject of this article is a 22-year-old sports journalist. The article does not clearly establish notability, and the external links provided just go to the front pages of sites or companies he has worked for, not to anything that specifically relates to or identifies him. A Google search was unsuccessful because his name is apparently quite common; among the other Simon Gilberts is a musician, Simon Gilbert (drummer), who was previously covered by this article but has since been moved to his own article and is not the subject of this nomination. I previously submitted this article about the journalist for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed with the edit summary, "Big name on Fleet Street. Notable in the opinion of many." Since I am unable to determine who the "many" are who consider Simon Gilbert a notable journalist, I recommend that this article be deleted due to lack of evidence that he meets any of the criteria at WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 10:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please refrain from absurd non-arguments like that. If you have nothing at all to add, you could simply state "NN per WP:BIO" which won't add any fundamentally useful information but is at least non-inflammatory. Tarinth 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hooley[edit]

Chris Hooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy on an academic. Being an academic, or your local union rep, is not notable. Nothing else of note offered. Nuttah68 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it shouldn't enter into it, bu perhaps the numbers may be the other way round. 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Mike 'Nug' Nahrgang, Delete, and then Redirect to Mike 'Nug' Nahrgang. Cbrown1023 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard Man[edit]

Mustard Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Absolutely non-notable meme. It was not mentioned on any reliable source (newspaper or the like). bogdan 11:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan Guides[edit]

Magellan Guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP; not verifiable BJTalk 11:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make to read less advert. Actually heard of them in our small neck of the woods, so notability is coming. Chris 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Day[edit]

Kenneth Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable veterinary surgeon. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Emeraude 12:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Giraffes (Brooklyn band)[edit]

The Giraffes (Brooklyn band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable band. Not one of the external links gives notability. Akihabara 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Oaks Mall[edit]

Fair Oaks Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was ((prod))'d, deleted, and is now undeleted. This article has existed for eight months without references. There is ample trivial reporting on Google news and news archive - Factiva not checked - but nothing found which takes the mall as its subject. A directory entry only, with no claims to encyclopedic notability through independent non-trivial reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, but if there are reliable sources at all, it might bear mentioning in Kim Possible (character). —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:00Z

Kigo (Kim Possible)[edit]

Kigo (Kim Possible) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and unverifiable genre of fan fiction, and article is mostly original research. Prod contested. SpuriousQ 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really needs to be a strong reason for invoking WP:IAR, I don't think slash fanfiction on a Disney cable channel character is important enough. never be any articles published on it by “reputable” independent sources That pretty much sums up why this shouldn't be in WP, it can not pass sourcing and verifiability guidelines, IMHO. Last, ref Xena, has Disney has ever made such a statement regarding these two characters in Kim Possible? The two are enemies, not partners, right? Tubezone 09:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How small? How about "fanfic isn't important enough to get mentioned at all" small? Danny Lilithborne 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, and how about "fanfic on a copyrighted Disney character that makes implications about her sexual preferences" small? This would fall under WP:BLP, if Kim Possible were a real person. Tubezone 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments moved to talk
comments moved to talk
because it has been acknowledged as possible by the creators and writers When and by who? Where can I look that up? If that's true, please put a reference in the article to where we can see a reliable source that supports that assertion. Tubezone 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that God has more relevance than Kim and Shego getting it on. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
extended commentary moved to talk
comments moved to talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect and Merge. Cbrown1023 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonios Androutsopoulos[edit]

Antonios Androutsopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A Greek neo-Nazi who has attacked a person once, does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. An alternative solution would be to merge with Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 14:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships on Scrubs[edit]

List of relationships on Scrubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Cruft, plain and simple. We don't need an oh-so-detailed guide to the love lives of characters on a TV show, no matter how awesome said show is. I believe a firm delete is in order, or at most merge into character pages. -- Chris is me 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional government agents[edit]

List of fictional government agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this instance, categories are better organizational tools, such as Category:Fictional secret agents and spies and its sub-cats. Is it really a useful organization scheme to put for example Emily Sloane, who worked for the State Department at some point before the events of Alias, with Agent 13 (who doesn't even have an article, instead it's just a link to Get Smart) and Manuel Valenza? Otto4711 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops thought I was signed in --BenWhitey 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the agencies already have categories, which I still contend are superior to lists for this information. Many if not most of the listed characters don't even have individual articles. They just link back to the TV show or film the character is from. Rather than a separate list for the members of a particular show's agency, or lists of fictional agents not otherwise notable enough for individual articles, list the agents in the article for the show itself or, if the fictional agency is significant enough for its own article (c.f. Covenant (Alias) list the agents there. Otto4711 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lack of individual articles indicates to me that a list could be far more useful than a category. (this is not to say a category is useless mind you, but categories and lists do not exist in opposition to each other). And while sometimes the source material may cover the material adequately, at other times it might be worth having a separate list. For example, members of the FBI are in the X-files, Law and Order, and dozens of other works. While there is a category for them, I know there's a lot that don't have an article about them (and probably shouldn't). This indicates to me that a list would work better. Putting them in the real article about the FBI won't work either. I suppose FBI portrayal in the media can fulfill this role, so it's not a huge issue, though more articles on that sort of thing should be done. (can't find the equivalent for the CIA for example). But then we have to factor in size issues. Covenant (Alias) may be able to list all of its members, but I can't say the same of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I think a similar issue could happen with regards to the CIA, KGB, MI-6, Mossad, even if they had an article like the FBI one. FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists are never made redundant by categories. AndyJones 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is: it doesn't include any information. To be pedantic, ((db-empty)) could apply here. Adding "List ..." does not make an article immune from WP:CSD A3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that only a pedant could think {db-empty} is relevant, so why are we arguing about it? As for the lack of information, in my view an organisational structure IS information (this is self-evident, I hope: correlating fact A with fact B adds something more than fact A and fact B both appearing separately in the encyclopedia somewhere), and this list provides an organisational structure that isn't available in the category. My vote still keep. AndyJones 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current information in the list is completely categorized, but it does not follow that all entries in the article will continue to be so. The impossibility at completeness is an inherent problem with all articles and lists. Zahir13 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Priory Gardens[edit]

Beach Priory Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod - see here for confirmation. There are no sources given, and nothing in the article is verifiable, apart from the location of the street and the individual's address mentioned in the external link. However, there is nothing else in this article that asserts its notability. SunStar Nettalk 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gururaj Ananda Yogi[edit]

Gururaj Ananda Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article previously deleted per WP:CSD A7. Founding the FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment) appears to be a claim of notability. Was tagged again with ((db-bio)), tag removed. A procedural nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar and related articles, lacking the claim to notability of having founded FISU, are bundled with this nomination:
Again, a procedural nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! So far the only notability regarding these persons is that they founded / leading FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment). These people, organization and their functions concern a certain thousand people, so that's why they are considered notable. They are also responsible for authoring books and other publications, but this list is being compiled and will be added. Same goes with news / media clippings. Please note that these articles are rather young and content is being added gradually, as soon as the certain community of contributors are mobilized. Thanks and Happy New Year 2007! MarekTT 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, time will tell :) Cheers! MarekTT 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, whatever then. Personally I disagree, but if someone wants to go ahead and delete it, it's fine and understandable. Anyway, it will be rewritten in a way that is proper for wikipedia, so either being online or deleted, it's mostly fine. So, I favour whatever :). And happy new year! (PS: What is better to start our first day of the year? - Checking out wikipedia, of course! :))) Cheers! MarekTT 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greetings all, thanks for your time and effort into this discussion. A user friend staple across this: ::http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gururaj_Ananda_Yogi and was cool enough to let us know in the talk page. And it seems it has been there for a while. I should have made this search earlier and simply having it translated from Spanish to English and other languages (since the article was already accepted in the Spanish Wikipedia). I notified some Spanish speaking wikipedia users and they promised that they will take over soon; and if anyone else knows Spanish and English is most welcomed to contribute! :)) For the time being, I just added a link of the corresponding Spanish wikipedia article in the English one.
About the rest of the people, Rajesh Ananda and Jasmini Ananda, yeah, their articles are currently poor in content and citations. I will personally will not remove them (as I disagree), but thankfully a friend told me that he will take over; he found list of books that they written by them (and their ISBNs) and other information and stuff so to increase their notability. He also told me that he will gain access to news clippings archives from newspapers, magazines and television stations and use them too. well, good luck and hopefully soon we will see some quality contributions, until then, be well and c u laser, MarekTT 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense (Solon's birth certificate, yeah, right). NawlinWiki 15:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silon[edit]

Silon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is apparently fiction. Nothing links to it, and the topic does not appear anywhere. The original author is anonymous and has not responded to an earlier proposal to delete the article. Paul 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathville Road[edit]

Heathville Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion that this road in London is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional heroes[edit]

List of fictional heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - a number of similar categories, e.g. Category:Fictional Heroes, were recently deleted on the grounds of POV. The same POV concerns would apply to a list, which also has the added problems of maintainability and impossibility to ever approach completeness. Actually I'm thinking we may need to take a look at all of the lists of fictional characters by profession. Otto4711 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see, you are interpreting "hero" to mean, roughly, "a good guy." When I read "hero" in the context of literature, I assume the author is using it as a synonym for protagonist. In any case, I still think it is not a subjective term because one can refer to secondary sources who define them for us. Tarinth 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Swindells[edit]

Joe Swindells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was prodded in March[77] for lack of notability. After it was deprodded by an anonymous user I added a ((not verified)) tag and apparently forgot about it. I can't find any reliable sources for the information in this article. See Google results for "Joe Swindells" model and "Joe Swindells" lawyer. Delete as unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Chris 01:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stanton[edit]

Terry Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable Michigan public affairs officer. Fails WP:BIO. Dual Freq 15:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is actually more like the fifth time... please consider joining a discussion on how to make this data more usable/maintainable rather than renominating again: see also 0th, 1st, 2nd (partial), 3rd (partial), etc. -- nae'blis 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name[edit]

List of people by name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This list is absolutely humongous and completely unmaintainable. Most of the biographies on Wikipedia aren't listed anyway, making this a huge waste of space as it is unsusable. If people want a list of all the biographies on Wikipedia, then this could all be made into 26 huge categories (one for each letter). I am nominating all subpages along with the base page in this nomination. —Mets501 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what disambigs are for Bwithh 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Red links placed on LoPbN have a high rate of turning into lks to bios.
    Rd lks cannot be assigned to Cats, so replacement of LoPbN by any Cat scheme would destroy this popular venue for calling attention to needed bios.
  2. Multiple LoPbN entries for a single biography are important for people whose names don't fit the typical "Western" pattern of a one-word given name (possibly with initial(s)) followed by a one-word surname:
    1. the obvious exception is Chinese names (to which Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and traditional Hungarian names behave similarly) which, depending on the individual, may appear in their proper order, inverted for convenience of ignorant Westerners, or sometime one way and sometimes the other for the same person -- but don't forget
    2. compounds formed from two surnames (sometimes with and sometimes without hyphenation), related to noble status, or (at least in Britain) eligibility for inheritances or assertion of female equality, or gods-know-what in the case of Pauline Viardot-Garcia, whose maiden name was Garcia and whose name is so non-conforming that we mistakenly entitle her bio Pauline Garcia-Viardot,
    3. the reflection in Spanish-speaking cultures of mother's original surname, and (apparently different) practices in Portuguese-speaking cultures,
    4. surnames that include a prefix, raising the question of whether to alphabetize according to the prefix (Van Dyck, Anthony) or not (Beethoven, Ludwig van),
    5. non-inherited Icelandic last names,
    6. many surviving tribal-culture naming practices (Eritrean names were recently cited to me), and, moving beyond modern commoners,
    7. ancient Roman names ("Julius" is simply the name, IIRC, of the family line that the great Gaius Julius Caesar came from, but it is common to assume otherwise),
    8. European names from before the adoption of surnames (which tend to exist in different English-language texts in an Anglicized, a Latinized, and at least one version reflecting a language local to the person's origin or work),
    9. names of noble rulers (James I of England was the same person as James VI of Scotland, IIRC, and i think most Holy Roman Emperors were also monarchs under other titles and usually numbers), and
    10. other bearers of titles, who are likely to be sought under different parts of the alphabet depending on how many of their eventual titles they had inherited or been granted, by the period of their life that the seeker saw discussed.
    11. Besides these classifiable patterns of repetitive problems, there are misspellings and misrememberings of rare names, some of them also predictable, like Byron Janis (whose LoPbN entry i stumbled on, long after adding a rd lk for Byron Janus), and worthy of preemptive duplicate entries.
    12. Less obviously, some quirky and unpredictable mistakes like Henry James Ford need a duplicate LoPbN entry because they are so widely found on the Web. How can such quirky mistakes be so widespread? Sometimes bcz they got made by WP editors, were not quickly caught, and have been spread far and wide by cloners of our content. It would be irresponsible for WP not to be helpful to users misinformed by such WP errors.
    Multiple tags in an article for the same Cat produce only one entry on the Cat page, so relying on Cats is useless to a user who knows only variants differing from the title of the bio sought.
  3. There are many groups, each with numerous bios of similarly or identically pronounced names like Hofman, Hofmann, Hoffman, Hoffmann, and Huffman (none presently on LoPbN, tho 11 are listed on Category: Living people). Cross references could be added on those LoPbN sections to alert users whose memories rely on sound more than spelling, or who heard a name in a lecture or broadcast, that they've not considered all the options. (A few of these have been done by me and others, tho i haven't made it much of a priority, and can't remember an implemented example at the moment.)
    Cats offer no facility for putting instructions, let alone cross-ref lks, on the Cat page. And altho you could have smaller Cats, for people named Hoffman, or for people with surnames that sound like Hoffman it's hard to see what good either of those could do for people who are expecting the bio's title to have a spelling other than "Hoffman" as its surname.
  4. Speaking of "unmaintainability" (the name being bandied about here in place of the truth, which is undermaintenance), pick a common given name, and go to the corresponding page on Category:Living people to see how many bios for people with that given name are listed in the Cat among people with surnames that start the same way as that given name.
    Fortunately for users seeking bios misfiled on Cat LP, LoPbN has two factors making it more maintainable against such errors, so that is serves as a backup for some such cases:
    1. The errors occur much less often, bcz those who make them in most cases have to place them adjacent to entries that are clearly filed by surname, whereas you can put a biographical-Cat tag on an article without piping the tag, are likely see no examples with piping, and don't see the rendering of the Cat entry without following the Cat lk on the page you tagged to the Cat page.
    2. When an LoPbN maintainer notes such a misfiling (usually a given name like James or Henry that has a heading ending "... as surname", containing lks to monarchs surnamed James, Henry, or whatever), they may be keeping ((List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned))) open in a window or pane, and can use it to lk directly to the correct page for the lk, use its ToC to lk to a roughly 24-line section, cut and paste the offending lk from page to page, and if necessary repipe that lk (or re-code it using ((LoPbN Entry)) and get the piping done for free). (Those maintaining bio Cats re misplacement may have to wade thru an oversized section on the bio article, or even scan the 18 Cats 3 times before it occurs to them to look at the top of the page for the offending Cat tag!)
  5. The assertion that Cats would be a valuable supplement to LoPbN, let alone a superior replacement, is belied by the fact that no one has created no one suggests that there exists a Cat that embraces all bio articles except thru its descendant subcats, and i am confident that no Cat (except hopefully Cat LP, which lacks subcats) exists that embraces solely bio articles thru its descendant subcats. In order to find a bio using its subject's name as the most definite information, you have to have people of all fields of endeavor, eras, and nationalities on the same alpha list, which we try to do via Cats only to the extent of all living people. The existence of LoPbN is no barrier to the creation of such a Cat, so either its creation would be not worth the improvement over LoPbN that it would provide, or all the other editors on WP are stupider or less responsible than the Del voters on this AfD, who are trying to destroy something that colleagues consider useful but not taking any action to create what they think should replace it. At the very least, it is inconceivable that LoPbN should be deleted without the creation first of an automated tool that can verify that every bio listed on LoPbN is tagged with (at least) a descendant of Category:People. (Ideally, those descendant Cats that do not consist overwhelmingly of bios should be detected, so that a DAG descended from Cat People can be searched, rather than all descendants of Cat People.)
  6. The above list is not intended to be exhaustive.
It is also important to mention that proposals for enhanced Cat features, that some argued would meet some of these needs, began being discussed soon after the introduction of Cats, and there has been no sign of motion toward those enhancements. (The reason may be despair abt making the Cat structure into a DAG, which is also a further reason to dislike using the current Cat system in place of LoPbN.)
--Jerzy•t 07:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is just a big zit on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 08:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inflammatory rhetoric like calling a complex of pages "a big zit on Wikipedia" should be avoided. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing" Issue[edit]

New vote here moved above newly delineated section, to with other votes.

The following tabulation will assist those who want to review the effect of my notification to other editors of the existence of this debate:

Careful readers will note some small errors in the statistics that i previously quoted from my hand tabulations without checking them against the records cited in this message.

I submit that the clear positions stated by those who previously voted should not be disregarded simply bcz they didn't happen to notice the capricious reopening of the closed debates, and that (with the possible exceptions of Eliyak and Chrislk02) the remaining editors i contacted are a good sampling of, and much fewer in number than, those who would have taken note of the AfD during its 5 days if it were legalistically posted on all 700+ pages whose deletion was requested. Eliyak & Chrislk02, tho not typical, are better qualified than average to grasp the issues, and can only improve this process, in which the numbers are only a valuable guideline, with closing admins exhorted to consider them only in the context of the relative quality of the Keep and Del arguments.
--Jerzy•t 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I said i would query 3 colleagues i left msgs with, who did not respond; there were actually 4. I expected there would me more interest than has been apparent, so i will follow thru by imposing on their attention, only if there is some indication of such interest.
    --Jerzy•t 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the four editors i contacted about this AfD who have not responded on this page have saved edits since receiving their respective messages, and none has responded on either their talk page or mine.
I seem to have stimulated an admirably conscientious and reserved colleague into speaking. Here's my msg to the four:
== Notice of Process Inquiry re my msg to you, "New AfD on LoPbN" ==
_ _ A colleague has questioned the wisdom and/or propriety of my messages to you and to 14 others, each a retention-voter in a previous LoPbN AfD and/or recently showing heavy interest in LoPbN. For the benefit of the eventual caller of the current AfD, and secondarily as it reflects on my individual behavior and judgement as a Wikipedian, i have undertaken to place this 2nd message before you and the three others who have not acknowledged my respective earlier msgs to you-all.
_ _ I defended my actions in part by asserting the responses to my talk-page messages do not support misgivings on the part of those recipients, while admitting that the non-responding recipients might have been inhibited from responding at least in part by just such misgivings. At my own initiative, i am making this second contact to ensure that at least knowledge of the process question informs your choice to remain silent or comment on the AfD subpage.
_ _ The AfD nomination is stamped 15:44, 31 December 2006; 5x24 hours expires at 15:44, 5 January 2007, approximately (as i post this on the AfD sub-page) whoops, an hour ago, with closer attention of course more likely after midnite UTC, 8 hours hence. I assume potential closers will give it at least a full day from now if any of you have not saved edits between now and then.
--~~~~

--Jerzy•t 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size-Challenged Browsers Can Participate By Editing This Section[edit]

--Jerzy•t 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. A straight copy & paste from the publisher's website. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Muscle Machines[edit]

Hemmings Muscle Machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is SPAM. It reads like an advert. It claims no verifiable notability. Rugbyball 16:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep not much doubt of notability, articles on notable publications aren't spam. Merge proposal tags have been placed on this and Hemmings Motor News. Tubezone 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car[edit]

Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is SPAM too. Rugbyball 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Motor News[edit]

Hemmings Motor News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

THis is Spam. Rugbyball 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As I understand it, Merge is basically the same as Keep for AfD, except it carries the suggestion that editors merge it after the AfD closes. Tarinth 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this and the other Hemmings articles shouldn't even be on AfD, so this AfD should be speedy closed, there was no good reason to even nominate them. Merge discussions are better carried out on talk pages, a simple suggestion to merge doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Tubezone 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep not much doubt of notability, articles on notable publications aren't spam. Merge proposal tags have been placed in this article and Hemmings Motor News. Tubezone 23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Classic Car[edit]

Hemmings Classic Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is spam. Rugbyball 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McKenna (theologist)[edit]

Joseph McKenna (theologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Some random religious studies teacher. No claim to notability other than he follows the Bishop of Rome. Rugbyball 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Common-or-garden school teacher with nothing to assert notability other than he's a devout Catholic (which goes without saying if he's employed as RE teacher in a Catholic school). Emeraude 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move to Abolitionism (bioethics). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist Society[edit]

Abolitionist Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

References provided are either self-published or do not mention this organization, Google turns up little on it. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG. Seraphimblade 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination, please see below. Seraphimblade 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25/67.189.71.183 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response As I said, the article in its present form isn't solely about the Society, nor even very much about it, but rather it appears as an attempt to define the philosophy. The problem comes with renaming it to the more appropriate "abolitionism". An alternative would be to make it clearly about the society, but then I'd expect it to do less well in the current deletion debate. As for whether it's "real", I mean to say if it's not a neologism (see WP:NEO), and I don't attempt to answer that question either way ;) – Kieran T (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Good for you as moderator I guess... ;) The perception of attempt is irrelevant. Relative 'newness' to determine whether or not it is a real philosophy - How much time is your criteria for when something becomes a neologism? Clearly there is unique utility - though the content needs to be improved - why not spend your time there instead? You don't have to have a page with a singular utility for information.67.189.71.183 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It's not "my" determination, it's a Wikipedia guideline. Please refer to WP:NEO. I'm not a "moderator" by the way. Incidentally, since you're modifying your comments as you go along, I'm going to stop responding now, for fear of appearing later to have been replying to things which I wasn't. Good luck with the debate. – Kieran T (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response Just make your points and you have nothing to fear - use quotations. Also, expect others to correct grammatical errors... The WP:NEO guideline is not clear - and it's purpose is to ensure accuracy. When you enter your thoughts here - you become a moderator, attempting to moderate this article - with a degree of accountability and vested interest in your role. What is your motivation here? To preserve accuracy of information?67.189.71.183 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lamb[edit]

Paul Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Footballer who doesn't appear to have even played at Conference level. See also Kieran Sullivan. ArtVandelay13 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Sullivan[edit]

Kieran Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Footballer who has barely even played at Conference level. See also Paul Lamb. ArtVandelay13 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- also Adrian Fuller and George Redknap. ArtVandelay13 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy and Legends Organization[edit]

Fantasy and Legends Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

None of the 39 unique Googles appears to be a reliable source. No evidence of meeting the primary notability criterion, namely that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[79], [80] and [81] are independent of the subject.--otherlleft 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But not reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request of author and sole editor Macspaunday (talk · contribs), who explains both here and on the (now deleted) talk page, that given the Wikiquote article this page is entirely superfluous. The policy that Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of quotations also applies. Uncle G 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Auden: Quotations[edit]

W. H. Auden: Quotations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Superseded by vastly superior wikiquote page for Auden Macspaunday 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/export to wikiquote. Rugbyball 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Weak Keep. 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Terabithia (band)[edit]

Terabithia (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn band FirefoxMan 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How famous does a band have to be in order to merit an article? They released a CD on a record label, and it got reviewed by third parties. Is this not enough? skoosh [[User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy to User:DivineLight/Atlas Honda CG 125. WP:V is an overriding concern here, as the article cites no sources; please recreate it only once all substantial assertions (e.g. technical data, popularity) have reliable published sources. Sandstein 08:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Honda CG 125[edit]

Atlas Honda CG 125 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think this article should be deleted because it does not seem to be notable, has no sources, and is a stub. Natl1 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a stub but I expanded it pretty much and Now i think it is better not to delete it, as I will continue to expand it over time and i have big plans for it. Thankyou --DivineLight 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anti-heroes[edit]

List of fictional anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • No need to rename it, and your suggested name would just open the door to a bunch of nonsensical borderline cases (anything can be "argued" but generally disregarded by the plurality of professional opinion). Tarinth 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 breast implant, which all interested editors are invited to do. Sandstein 07:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant controversy[edit]

Breast implant controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Started as a fork of breast implant, not much edited since, has all the hallmarks of a POV fork and is less discussed than the main article so does not seem to be under active scrutiny for neutrality. Strongly sympathetic to the implant damage cause, which is not supported by the medical establishment. Paucity of sources reinforces that. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It already is, pretty much - it was split out because, it seems, it didn't say quite what one lot wanted it to :-( Guy (Help!) 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info.--Dakota 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge is not an option per GFDL requirements. --- RockMFR 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VSG[edit]

VSG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A bar band with one original song and no albums. Horribly non-notable. Salad Days 17:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Events[edit]

Unique Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A local company which makes no claim to notability. Since it's unreferenced, I cannot find a website for the company since it is apparently a common name for one. Salad Days 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ledvina[edit]

Justin Ledvina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Self-created vanity page Kymacpherson 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take your word for it, I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject. Tarinth 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Chris 01:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 by Mel Etitis. Tevildo 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuxor[edit]

Nuxor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems like nonsense; could have done a speedy delete, but I thought there might be some point to this page that I hadn't understood, so decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt as per WP:AGF. Walton monarchist89 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep the content (which is poorly sourced, b.t.w.); merging it or not is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hopkins[edit]

Alec Hopkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

He appears in one scene in the new Harry Potter movie, and nothing else. Is this enough for a Wikipedia entry? Phileas 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's had professional acting jobs before appearing in OOTP.68.210.18.226 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott steinberg[edit]

Scott steinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was prodded and then immediately deprodded by the author so I bring it here. This is nothing but advertising. There is very little content, yet a load of external links to the various things associated with this person. The editor who wrote this has edited nothing else. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

Andrew Gower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't think this is notable, or that you could get reliable sources for it. Previous AfD was over a year ago, so we're doing it again instead of G4ing. Amarkov blahedits 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to point out (sorry if it's been mentioned/noticed already), the article on the link above resembles an almost exact copy of past versions of the RuneScape article - we can't use ourselves as a source :\ Same goes for the thestocktools.com link below, it resembles a past copy of RuneScape Agentscott00(talk) 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyvio. --Coredesat 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega zeta chi[edit]

Omega zeta chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was removed without comment. Non notable sorority Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) low Ghits [83] no independent sources given Dakota 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn student group — Swpb talk contribs 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb talk contribs 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

University of Nottingham Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn student group — Swpb talk contribs 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb talk contribs 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)--Docg 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times [84] and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money[85] Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union[86].Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)--Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not?--Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb talkcontribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far).Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random[87].if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus.Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. --SunStar Nettalk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based.Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable. I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Guy. I'm not averse to keeping if coverage in non-trivial sources are established. - Aagtbdfoua 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. --Docg 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zonk[edit]

Zonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page has been flagged for months to address its issues and has seen no change whatsoever. There are no real credible references to this game. The tone and person of the article are entirely unencylopedic. As a variant on an existing game the subject merits possible mention as a variant in Farkel if it can be source but as it stands this is not really salvageable — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wa Lolita[edit]

Wa Lolita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is simply a subsection of Lolita fashion, to which it adds nothing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, fair use galleries are not allowed and in any case these images are posted as pd-creator, which is absolutely not on. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and Tia Twins Cars[edit]

Mia and Tia Twins Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

We already have a page with more information here: Mia and Tia. This page isn't necessary. I put this up as an afd since a CSD would make all the images abrupt orphans. -WarthogDemon 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall[edit]

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Poorly-defined list article (i.e. what exactly is meant by the term "building" the fourth wall?) with potential original research. Most of the examples can already be described in more clearly-defined articles such as List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall, metafiction, etc. Stratadrake 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How ironic. Dramatically so, in fact... Guy (Help!) 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of Entropy[edit]

Icon of Entropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another bar band with no albums. Salad Days 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

Principality of Freedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable micronation, with no references in article. All Web references to the Somaliland story come directly from the nation's founder. Prior AfD in Feb-2006. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.
Land of the e-con.
1266 words
8 August 2000
The Australian
(c) 2000 Nationwide News Proprietary Ltd
First 2/3rds of the article are not about Freedonia but about another micronation at the centre of a fraud case
The Principality of Freedonia, an internet nation based on libertarian ideals, hopes to set up a physical state, either on :Norfolk Island - if the Australian Government agrees to sell it - or in a remote part of Somalia.

...

More than 260 people are involved in Freedonia, according to its leaders.
Founder, Texan John Kyle - who prefers to be known as Prince John I - claims to be involved in negotiations with the Sultan of Awdal in Somaliland with the intention of setting up a Libertarian nation.
Kyle says his nation is still some years away from becoming reality. "The next thing to do is send an emissary to North Africa and Pitcairn and to consider fundraising and making preparations," he says. "We're about five years off."
Freedonia remains unfunded - apart from an attempt to sell Freedonian currency online - and Kyle, who fusses over his international phone bill, admits he has not even raised money for a plane ticket.

...

Even the "unstable" Somalis appear to have become leery of the Freedonians, exemplifying the difficulties internet-based nations have in getting off the ground. When The Australian spoke to a source close to the Sultan of Awdal, there was a swift denial of any links with the libertarians of Freedonia.
The source says the Sultan agreed to the deal after a Somali Freeport representative, Ethiopia-based Flory Barnabas, made an approach.
"Sultan Ibrahim and elders of Awdal had no idea about the connection between these groups," the source says. "When I called today, the Sultan and rest of the elders were surprised.
"There is no deal and these people will not be allowed to do business in Awdal or other regions of Somalia. We never support these types of groups."

Bwithh 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference you just added [90] says Meanwhile leaders of the intellectual community in Borama have established, after reviewing documents presented by Vice-President Riyale, that the Fredonian project was actually a fake. That seems like a fairly strong delete argument to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE PRINCIPALITY OF FREEDONIA: www .freedonia.org A country of libertarian leanings, Freedonia has very little connection with the Marx Brothers' fictional country of the same name. Its leader, John Alexander Kayle, is a student at Babson College in Massachusetts. He is studying for a degree in investment finance and professes a fondness for the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand.

Mr. Kayle, who uses the screen name John I, and his fellow Freedonians hope to purchase a chunk of territory in Somaliland and establish a libertarian enclave. Notwithstanding its homelessness, Freedonia has minted its own money (silver) and even written a national anthem that has this refrain: Oh, Freedonia, Freedonia the land that saves, Freedonians never shall be slaves.

My opinion is that this does not make the micronation notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out http://www.freedonia.org/articles/ there are quite a few more media mentions. Most of them aren't available elsewhere online, so I won't press them, though I doubt Freedonia made them all up. Still, there's a Wired Article and an article from Der Spiegel. The Metro Santa Cruz article was reprinted in the Boston Phoenix. This one concept, whether or not it's very serious, has been covered in repeatedly in different media. Add on all of that the very real-world deaths caused by their attempt to buy land in Somaliland, and I'm extremely surprised why this isn't a slam dunk on notability. –  Anþony  talk  15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article also has just one graf on these guys, with the bulk on Talossa (whom the Freedonia site refers to as "imaginary," which may be Freedonian for "not notable"). The Der Spiegel article is behind a wall, unfortunately. But the real reason I'm commenting is this: I don't buy the riots/deaths story at all. It's mentioned on the Freedonia site, and in that one English-language Somali publication that only says that the Freedonia issue is "believed" to be the reason behind the riots, but then refers to the Freedonia project as a fake. Is there a better source for this particular story? I'm pressing that point because that claim in the article more than any other bit sent my delete-o-meter to red (per WP:NFT). | Mr. Darcy talk 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article posted above from The Australian at a minimum confirms that Freedonia representatives were in contact with the Sultan. It would be appropriate to note that most of the details come from Freedonia itself, but I don't see why that means the article should be deleted. I think the "fake" bit was the Somalis' impression of Freedonia people as a group of pranksters playing a joke on a tiny country rather than a serious organization looking for terrority. Even if it is just a joke, it's a notable joke which merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. –  Anþony  talk  17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's a question of what constitutes notability. I see passing mentions in articles about other, more notable micronations. To me, that is insufficient for notability, a problem exacerbated by the joke-like nature of the project. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time understanding how you can keep referring to this as joke-like nature of the project despite the well documented fact that their very real attempt to purchase land on which to found an actual physical independent micronation was sufficiently real that it resulted in a riot and fatalities. That is the most serious real-world incident involving any micronation project in the 20th century. Despite the fact that it admittedly started as someone's made-up project while in school, Freedonia clearly moved beyond that into having very real and serious real-world activities. That they went nowhere ultimately is not in dispute - but their active pursuit is well documented and in a sense notorious. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That bit of rhetoric does not address the very real question of whether the riots or fatalities ever took place. It's just a claim by the Freedonia founders, picked up by one news outlet none of us had ever heard of which in the same blurb referred to the Freedonia project as "fake." We've seen no mentions of it in reliable news sources, no photographs of the riots - nothing. There's no actual evidence that the riots or fatalities actually took place, or even if they did, that they had anything to do with Freedonia. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources independent of the Freedonia project which all state the same basic facts. These sources meet WP reliability standards. You can't just say I don't believe them and change WP articles based on that opinion. We report what's verifyable. Those facts are verifyable. If you believe that they're all some big media conspiracy, you have the burden of proof to disprove the events or the reliability of the sources. Georgewilliamherbert 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change any Wikipedia articles based on my opinion. I removed unsourced content. Since you added the sources - even though one is the Freedonia project, and the other might also fail WP:RS - I haven't removed it. You say that these "facts" are "verifyable [sic]," when in reality, you haven't verified them at all. And given the way your responses have focused more on me than on the topic, I'm guessing that you can't do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't go around just rejecting sources and saying "You haven't verified this!". They're reliable by WP standards. You have provided no referenced information claiming that those sources or events are bogus. All you have is your opinion and suspicion. Those aren't valid reasons for deleting an article. Evidence and references are - and we've got them reliably cited now. If someone's pulling a megascale media hoax on all of us then they've done so across a very wide array of otherwise completely unrelated sources. The burden of proof is on you to show that there's something suspicious about the sources. You keep claiming I'm attacking you instead of the question - that's because you've stopped attacking the article's former lack of sources, and now are attacking the sources themselves. You can't do that. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of Wikipedia, I haven't rejected any sources - I haven't even removed the items that are sourced by the Freedonia Website, which fails WP:RS as a self-published source. You earlier used the riots/fatalities as a way to argue for notability, but it seems to me that the evidence that these riots/fatalities happened or had anything to do with Freedonia is quite weak. Hence my comments in that regard. The article should be deleted because the subject isn't notable, and because it appears to fall under WP:NFT as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, there are exactly five Google hits on the phrase "sultan of awdal" (link), all of which relate to Freedonia. Are we even sure that such a person exists or existed? Awdal makes no mention of a sultan or sultanate. There were sultans in the region in the 1500s and 1600s, but I can't find any other mention of one today. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican piece refers to him as "one of the elders of the Gadabursi tribes". Presumbably, the Sultan title is more of an affectation than an official title. There does seem to be plenty of evidence that the Awdal Roads Company was real and the two actually did travel to Awdal and met with local officials.[91][92] In a mailing list post on Somalia, Davidson notes that local communities are run by sultans.[93] –  Anþony  talk  23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to describe real events. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This appears to be an obituary of one of the prime movers in those events. Again, there's no reason to believe the reportage to be false, or part of some co-ordinated information falsification conspiracy, as the nominator appears to want us to believe. --Gene_poole 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Poole, neither of your links mentions Freedonia at all. And again, I'm looking for any bona fide news source that mentions rioting and/or fatalities as a result of the Freedonia founder's trip to Somaliland. Looks like none exists. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple sources you've already been directed to are perfectly "bona fide" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. They show that people associated with Freedonia travelled to Awdal, had discussions with clan and/or govt officials there, and that after those people were deported, public disaffection resulted in the shooting death of a protester. Incidents of a similar unfortunate nature occur throughout the world daily. Few, if any of them are reported in any mainstream media outlet. On the balance of probabilities the events described in the article took place. The fact the New York Times or Fox News didn't report doesn't make them any less real or verifiable. --Gene_poole 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've pointed me to two sources. One is the Freedonia site itself, which does not qualify as a reliable source. The other is apparently the site of a newspaper in Somaliland, which referred to Freedonia as "fake" - so if we're going to accept it as a reliable source, then that's a clear motion for deletion of this article. Is that what you're saying? And is there some other source that indicates that the Freedonia visit to Somaliland led to a riot? Because right now I count ONE. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally pointed you to 2 sources, neither of which is the Freedonia site, yet both of which support assertions made on that site. Others here have pointed you to other references, including one above in the national Australian broadsheet daily which also plainly support those assertions. It is for you to demonstrate how being described as "fake" is a "clear motion for deletion". Continuing to claim that there are no reliable sources is symptomatic of disingenuity, wilful deception or outright stupidity. Take your pick. --Gene_poole 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stunning display of personal attacks, Mr. Poole. You pointed to one source, The Republican, the accuracy of which I have questioned; the only connection made between Freedonia and the demonstration is unsourced ("The demonstration was believed to have been triggered by a government decision to deport two foreigners who arrived in Borama recently..." - believed by whom?). The other source you gave (the obit of the Dutch libertarian) never mentioned Freedonia at all. The Australian article, printed in full above, doesn't mention riots or fatalities, nor does the paragraph in the NY Times. There is no source other than the Republican article and the Freedonia Website (which isn't reliable, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources) that verifies these alleged riots or fatalities. Your ardor to defend a micronation like your own is admirable, but the verification of these alleged riots and fatalities is sorely lacking, and if they are part of the argument for notability, I take issue with it. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, MrDarcy. Let's assume for a moment that Freedonia was a fake. Ern Malley too was a fake, and see how that worthy article is categorized for plenty more (many of which may be undeserving, for all I know). That something was a fake is not in itself reason for its lack of notability. Rather, one should see if the fake, phony, sham, fiction or whatever was a notable one (and most aren't). -- Hoary 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with that. I still don't see notability, but the fact that the best reliable source we have on the project's efforts in Somaliland refers to it as a fake is rather telling to me. Bottom line is that I don't believe we have the "multiple, non-trivial works" required to meet the standards set out in the notability guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--- reset indent
OK, first off, it should be pointed out that all of the reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia -- including The Australian article, the Wired article, the New York Times article, and the Santa Cruz Metro article -- were printed prior to the December 2000-January 2001 trip to Somaliland, so it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't mention the trip. For that matter, that I can name that many reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia at all should be sufficient to prove notability.
It's clear from several sources that Jim Davidson and Michael Van Motten really did travel to Somaliland and spoke with local authorities. The Van Motten obit doesn't mention Freedonia because the men weren't actually involved with Freedonia. Freedonia claims that the Somalis mistakenly associated the men with Freedonia because their website made reference to Awdal as a potential location. I would guess that the website likely mentioned Davidson by name since he was actively promoting the region via the Internet.
According to The Republican and The Australian, the Somalis had a very low opinion of Freedonia. They thought it was a sham/hoax/fraud/fake, whatever. That has nothing to do with notability here, but the fact that they formed an opinion on Freedonia at all is proof they were aware of the group.
Given that the Somalis were already suspicious of Freedonia, this last bit makes sense, but honestly can only be attributed to The Republican and Freedonia itself: The two men were (erroneously) associated with Freedonia and deported, resulting in a protest which was put down with lethal force. It would be entirely appropriate to note that the claim originates from Freedonia and can only be confirmed by a small Somali newspaper. –  Anþony  talk  18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Piecraft. --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I was hesitant about commenting here. I don't really have that much faith in the wikipedia processes any more. Does participation in a process imply endorsement? --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Active editor from May 2005 to October 2006.)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD criterion G4 (repost of deleted content). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlow Crab[edit]

The Carlow Crab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete; violates WP:V, plain and simple. More than likely WP:BALLS or some sort of fan fiction for which Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. Kinu t/c (éŕ) 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No wonder NPWatcher appended "(2nd nomination)" to this... it's been deleted before. I believe CSD G4 applies in this case. Admins, can we close this one? --Kinu t/c (éŕ) 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article is essentially gibberish. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article that should have been here for longer, Zhanle 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the work of the North Carolina Vandal. Already speedied. --Kinu t/c (éŕ) 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to St Ignatius' College. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Ignatius Enfield[edit]

St Ignatius Enfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A duplicate page to St Ignatius' College also St Ignatius' College has more information than this one.

I suggest delete and redirect to St Ignatius' College Fatjoe151 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just redirect it, no special powers required. Be bold! Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting.Phase4 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The redirect will be helpful - it would seem the creator of this page did not realise the other page was the same place.Obina 23:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done it now.Obina 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as Bobcruft. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right Sets[edit]

The Price is Right Sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unusable, unneccesary entry Scottydude 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Worthless article. Any such information should be contained in The Price Is Right (US game show) (and related articles). --- RockMFR 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was a bad idea for an article, and it was not followed through to its illogical conclusion (probably a good thing, in the end). Guy (Help!) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could easily be put in the main article. Hello32020 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oy. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to merge; The Price Is Right would be a better home for this. --Dennisthe2 00:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Bobcruft. --Charlene 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing there to merge, anyway. Quack 688 08:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sources provided by Uncle G indicate that a practice of stopping watches on advertisements at ca. 10:10 likely does exist, but there's still no reliable source on it. The content is available on request once a reliable source is in fact found. Sandstein 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10:08[edit]

10:08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't contain a single verifiable fact. Dtcdthingy 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think that one of the references is stupidquestions.com says a lot. -Amarkov blahedits 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other is Cecil Adams, however. Moreover, the name of the web site should not detract from the fact that the article on it appears to have been researched and fact checked. Furthermore, what does the fact that the name of the web site cited is actually "stupidquestion.net" say? ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself and the links it provides give numerous times (8:20, 10:08, 10:10, etc). Certainly worthy of a mention in the main watch article if it can be sourced. Considering the claim that almost every watch manufacturer sets their watches to the same time, it should be documented somewhere. --- RockMFR 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have mixed fee about his article. As I mention on Talk:10:08, I strongly doubt many of the claims that are made here. On the other hand, the subject of how watch hands show up on advertising has been around for a very long time, I gave a reference from 1922 on the talk page. There *are* many facts that can be verified, such as not obstructing the logo or the date window commonly found at the 3:00 position. Unfortunately, some of the other "facts", such as most ads use 10:08, can be verified to be incorrect. I could see this article being cleaned up and made into something that could be kept, but I don't see much evidence that this will happen. Wrs1864 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Intriguing if barmy idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Back in the 70s, Bill Walker (former host of Party Game in Canada) did TV ads for Timex watches, addressing the "often-asked" question of why Timex watches always read ten-to-two (1:50). I immediately checked the catalogues in the house (yes, yes, WP:OR), and noticed that all the Timexes were set to 1:50, but all the non-Timexes were set to 10:10. I idly wondered if perhaps Timex had somehow "trademarked" ten-to-two in visual ads. Perhaps the verifiable info here could be moved to wristwatch or somesuch. -- SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's actually true and verifiable, it deserves its own article. But it isn't, really. -Amarkov blahedits 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Well, that and WP:Notability.) It is clear to me that this is a notable subject that could have verifiable facts documented about it. Those facts could include such things as people having the impression that there is "one" time that all watch manufactures use for all advertising for all of history, and the misunderstanding that people may have with the relation to that time to famous people dieing. Other facts include major watch manufacturers stating that the reason they use a given time is so that the hands won't obscure important logos and names. What is also somewhat clear to me is that this article doesn't currently meet those standards and I don't think it is likely that anyone will put the effort into fixing it. Wrs1864 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, yes, but if it's not going to have anything to do with 10:08, it shouldn't have an article 10:08, anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would be trivial to move the article to something like Watch hands in advertising. That would also preserve the edit history and discussion pages. Wrs1864 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That the title may be inappropriate is a matter of renaming the article, which any editor with an account can fix. It doesn't require that the article be deleted, and doesn't require administrator intervention. Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Hello32020 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an unusual and quite amusing problem. I "know" that people who sell analogue watches set them to specific times. I know this from firsthand experience, because I once had a job that involved (amongst other things) adjusting the positions of the hands on watches being displayed for sale. But I cannot immediately give you a source for this, because the knowledge was imparted by word of mouth. Wikipedia articles must not be based upon the sole words of pseudonymous editors.

    As Wrs1864 says, there is this source on the article's talk page, which could form one part of the basis for an article. It's far more authoritative than the Straight Dope article. But it doesn't support either the current content of this article or its current title. Similarly, the stupidquestion.net article appears to have been reasonably well researched and fact checked, but it doesn't match what the article currently says or what its title currently is. I'm going to hunt for some sources, but given what sources we already have I'm currently at weak keep with the strong provisio that the article requires a major rewrite to remove the unsourced speculation and hypothesising and to include the material from the Elgin source, and almost certainly renaming (to something like watch times in advertisements) as well.

    I hereby reserve the right to discover, now that I finally have cause to research it, that what I've known for so many years is wrong. ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a repost of deleted content. BryanG(talk) 08:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-bar[edit]

G-bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I prodded this and it was removed, so I nominate it here for non-notability. I've also discovered that User:Kneale, the person who removed the prod, his talkpage indicates that this article has been deleted before. Make of it what you will. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete was a valid A7 speedy at G Bar, reposted here and still makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. So tagged. --Charlene 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Mergers remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below the line (film production)[edit]

Below the line (film production) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I nominated this article because it belongs either on Wiktionary or as a small section on the Film page. It's basically a short definition that I don't feel could be expanded further. I am also submitting Above the line (film production) for the same reasons. Quadzilla99 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Above the line" as dicdef. Weak Keep and Rename to Below The Line (magazine) on "Below the line" - the magazine has the potential to be notable, at least. Tevildo 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added more clarification to the different jobs that fall under "Below the Line" and the distinction between ATL and BTL is very important in film budgeting. Also the ATL deletion box links back to here; there is no deletion page for it. But I'm also for keeping the ATL page. I've added more clarification to it and again it's important for the people that will actually be searching for it. Joey 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both one - The article should be expanded (and not only for costs, but also for crew classification). The term is well know so it should be possible to expand with good material. Eventually merge Below the line (film production) into Above the line (film production). It is no a simple dicdef (and see also dab Above the line). Cate | Talk 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Cate | Talk 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think I agree that these terms don't necessarily need their own articles; as important as they are, there isn't much more to say. There is actually an article on Film budgeting which would be the perfect home, and a Production budget stub which references ATL and BTL could be merged too. There are several similar articles/stubs in Category:Film and video terminology; some are deserving of their own articles but perhaps others may be merged into other pages. The list Motion picture terminology is a place to start. TheRhani 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - ATL and BTL is not only about budget. I use it also for notability in AfD: BTL (technical and artistic crew) are per se n.n., ATL people needs more checks (an awarded film "creates" notability of some ATL). So merge BTL into ATL, but keep one! --Cate | Talk 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perú Top 100[edit]

Perú Top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article contains absolutely nothign which is not blatantly obvious from the title: Peru Top 100 is the top 100 in Peru. No shit, Sherlock. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No shit, Sherlock"? --FlareNUKE 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ut uh If its a WP:CIVIL thing, pehaps his user talk page might be appropiate for a template of sorts. :P Navou talk 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, close to being speedy delete per empty. Hello32020 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion Unless the article can be fleshed out, for now I endorse deletion. Navou talk 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete - but is there anything else to this story? Is there, for example, a famous, notable Peruvian Casey Kasem that reads the list out each week? Anything else that makes this notable? A Google investigation seems to say no, so I'd say delete. But if anyone knows of a reason to keep, I'd be willing to change my (cough) "vote." --TheOtherBob 23:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per The Other Bob. This may simply be underrepresented online, or it may not exist; perhaps somebody in Peru could elucidate? (The Peruvian Casey Kasem?) --Charlene 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little assertion of notability other than the fact that it exists. —ShadowHalo 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaytime TV[edit]

Gaytime TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Small tv show that ended some years ago. Not notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough notability is asserted for this article. Hello32020 22:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Pioneering show, the first entertainment show for lesbians and gay men on British television. Attracted considerable press coverage at the time and after and if you're not nice I'll dig it all up and annoy you by showing you what a stupid nomination this was. Incidentally it used to be the number one most requested redlink on the 'to do' list on everyone's watchlist. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, assume good faith here and be civil. If you can dig up said information, that will prevent the article from being deleted. In short, change our minds. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Asserts notability, but no links on the site. I'll leave it to Fys (above) to get those - the article certainly could use it. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (vote changed, see below)[reply]
  • Delete, though if Fys can dig up that mass press coverage I don't mind changing my mind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Source here (repost of Gay Times article), non-trivial mention here in American national gay magazine, tons of articles on the hosts that mention the show and the Gaytime TV awards and their recipients. Sufficient to establish notability IMHO. Otto4711 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto4711. And, as always, the references need to be in the article, not just the AfD. Tevildo 06:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A show that ran four years on the BBC is certainly notable enough. Keep. Bearcat 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references added to article, including praise from Daily Mail. Eludium-q36 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my mind is changed. Good show! --Dennisthe2 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple non-trivial references. —ShadowHalo 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hardy[edit]

Leslie Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Didn't seem to do much besides be in a Hole for a small while and some other band; no info that can't be put on other articles. FlareNUKE 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being in Hole, however briefly, _does_ constitute a pass of WP:MUSIC. Tevildo 06:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, subject seems to be notable but the article lacks Alf photoman 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has been in two notable bands so lacks an apropriate merge target. Eluchil404 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Schultz[edit]

Bryan Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - not every medical doctor is entitled to a Wikipedia article (and neither is every Who's Who entry...). The information supplied in this article and the results of several Google searches I've conducted fail to yield evidence that Schultz meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. The book he wrote, Office Practice of Skin Surgery, has 49 Ghits, mostly coming from his official website and Amazon, and I did not see any independent/third party reviews. "Dr Bryan Schultz" yields only 16 Ghits from the same four sources, and "Bryan Schultz MD" yields 28 from 3 sources. Only some of the "Bryan Schultz" sources are relevant (here). The article also mentions that Schultz has done research. I used this generator to compute his h number (which is the number of times your paper with the median number of citations has been cited by others), and searches for "Bryan C Schultz," "Bryan Schultz," "Schultz Bryan C," and "Schultz Bryan" under biology and medicine all yielded zero. (Full professors at research universities well into their careers often have h numbers in the 20s or higher). Fabricationary 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • use rational criteria The source for scientific articles by a physician is PubMed. The way authors are listed there is by name and initials, so he is "Schultz BC" He has written 11 articles listed there, one in Journal of the American Medical Association; the latest in 1998. His book was published in 1985 and it is therefore not surprising that almost all the entries in Google were used book dealers. The H-number generator works with Google Scholar, and more than half of Google Scholar's content is from 2000+, while all his articles were earlier. But in any case the first step is to use the name in the standard format for the field, and if you do the h-number is 2, not zero. (There is no magic number, and no intelligent database.) He is an associate professor in a major university, but it's an associate clinical professor, which is a distinction most medical specialists get with time.
But adding all of this up, it does not amount to notability in a general sense, though he may well be notable among Chicago area dermatologists.
Delete-- DGG 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as spam. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weir Brothers Adobes[edit]

Weir Brothers Adobes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No indication of why a single homebuilder's homes in CA are notable. No sources. Also including Weir brothers. NawlinWiki 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lafayette, California. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Valley Elementary[edit]

Burton Valley Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable elementary school, merge with article on school district, if there is one or Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Naconkantari 23:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lafayette, California#Schools. Cf. WP:LOCAL, WP:N; there aren't sources (at this time) on which to base a proper encyclopedic article, but that doesn't mean this shouldn't be covered. "If there is one?"  ;-) -- Visviva 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any independent published source that has the school as its subject? Is there any reason to think that there exist such sources? (Is 3 playgrounds and 45 classrooms notable?) If not even one can be found, on a modern-day subject, it is doubtful that multiple non-trivial ones could be found. —Centrx→talk • 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, which is why merging is the best solution. -- Visviva 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school district or town article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that Jaranda wat's sup 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLS. Article is part of a series of similarly-maintained stubs by the user 169.199.38.130. --ForbiddenWord 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously that doesn't make any sense, WP:SCHOOLS been inactive for a while, 169.199.38.130 haven't really done any non vandalism edits since March, and this was the only article the anon wrote back in October 2005, there is no other stubs, so your explaination is completely wrong and misleading. Jaranda wat's sup 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lafayette, California#Schools, per Visviva. There's nothing here indicating enough notability for this to stand on its own. --Coredesat 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. We aren't a directory. WMMartin 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect already merged. Vegaswikian 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Vegas, already merged. Silensor 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Vegas. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Vegas. Guettarda 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect doesn't seem to be independent notability. Any redeemable info should eb merged and the article redirected as suggested above. Alansohn 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Muslim[edit]

Mere Muslim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Notability not asserted. Articles circulating the net do not qualify for notability. Allegedly mentioned in "Sexual Ethics & Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence. Oxford, UK: Oneworld, pp. 146, 191, 192" possible minor discussion (unknown, though only three page references). If notability cannot be asserted the article should be deleted MidgleyDJ 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the subject of the article is more notable than the subject of the Wikipedia entry for John Gilchrist. Both are polemicists and the subject of controversy.--Mere dhimmi 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The references in the article are largely self-referential. Not seeing it here. Might I suggest referencing WP:N and WP:BIO for what is requrired? --Dennisthe2 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, written without any references. Looks like propoganda article used to improve hits on some freaky website. I being a Muslim has never heard this term because either you are Muslim or not-Muslim... --- ALM 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable and NPOV.Montco 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly referenced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability has not been established. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another web pundit trying to make a name for himself; what makes him notable ? Nothing in the article says. WMMartin 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you took a look at the history, it's obvious that this entry was originally submitted by a detractor and critic of the person in question, not himself. Mere Muslim is a well-known figure and writer on Muslim apologetic websites, winner of several awards for his weblog, and I have updated the article to show that. ALM missed the point, since his pen name Mere Muslim relates to the name of his Mere Islam weblog, which is an Islamic twist of C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity. FatimaAR 07:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for lack of substantial third-party coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesea[edit]

Nemesea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Concern: "Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria; no referenced assertion of notability. Previously deleted at AFD. Possible CSD A7 / G4." See Talk:Nemesea#Save Nemesea! for explanation of prod removal. The editor who removed the prod tag cleaned up and expanded the article; it's no longer a speedy candidate but there are still no references to verify that the band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Muchness 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll bet on a G4. Speedy DeleteRetracted, see below. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure whether the current version is a substantially identical duplicate of the previously deleted article, so G4 may not apply. --Muchness 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, figured that and then I saw the talk page a little closer; the talk page would constitute enough for a ((hangon)) I think. Retracted between then and now, but I'll still hold to a Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah sorry, didn't notice you'd retracted before I added the hangon tag. --Muchness 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs improvement, but the move to delete is misguided. This band is well-established and popular in Nordic Europe, an integral part of the gothic/symphonic metal scene thriving there. Appropriate Google and established rock reference searches will easily confirm this. I accept that appropriate references need to be added, and given enough time either myself or another editor will add them. This is the third time I have had to defend an article from individuals ignorant of a band and the genre with which they are associated. If these AfDs were raised by those knowledgeable of the field, in this case Symphonic Metal, this would be a reasonable debate, but there is a flaw in the system that allows articles to be removed on the initiative of people who know nothing about the associated genre or anything musical that goes on outside of North America. In short, I resent having to defend knowledge against the unknowledgeable (in the field concerned). I believe that the upgrading of an article, (which is certainly needed in this case) and proving beyond reasonable doubt its worth to the layman should not be to a deadline after which the article is removed. In my last two experiences, justice and the preservation of knowledge triumphed over ignorance, and I hope that experience is repeated with this article, because this is what is at stake. Headshaker 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And the band played on... Major label? No. Multiple albums? No. What part of WP:MUSIC is this supposed to meet? Specialist knowledge of minor regional music subgenres is not required in order to assess inclusion, sources - specifically, multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources - is what's required. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have read the "And The Band Played On" section and found it disturbing if not sinister. Is its author seriously suggesting that even if a band makes the cover of Rolling Stone, they would be excluded from Wikipedia because they pushed their luck before they got famous? Would that not make Wikipedia itself vain and arrogant? I would argue that the objective of the enterprise is the preservation of knowledge. If that principle is sacrificed to make a point then mindless bureaucracy has triumphed over reason. Returning to the matter in hand, I will address each "point" in turn:
      1. The absence of a Major label deal or prolific discography are not the sole criteria: extent of fanbase is also important. Given time it can be demonstrated that this band has a significant European fanbase and therefore are worthy of inclusion.
      2. Symphonic Metal specifically and the European metal scene generally is not a "minor regional sungenre". Regional yes, but a multi-million dollar regional industry with a massive fanbase. Metal in general is mainstream in Northern Europe. Some knowledge of it is required in order to make a fair judgement of an individual band's significance within it.
      3. Nemesea has had considerable coverage from the regional rock media of Northern Europe. Given enough time, that can be demonstrated. The AfD came to my attention only 24 hours ago.
    • Finally to point out that I have no direct interest in Nemesea, and only have one of their tracks. I have however in a relatively short time learned much about the metal scene in Northern Europe in general and Symphonic Metal in particular, so I know about that of which I speak. Proof will be forthcoming, but I resent having to produce it (again!) just because some individuals in North America know nothing about a scene thriving far from their shores. I am also passionate about the proliferation and defence of knowledge. I plead that a travesty of justice is in danger of being perpetrated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headshaker (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 January 2007.
      • I don't think that's what the article is suggesting - it's pointing at a possible path that the article can take if it keeps popping up. I mean, if this were 20 years ago and you had (say) Toad The Wet Sprocket, if I may name one amongst millions of examples, they would possibly have been rejected before 1991, when their third album (Fear) was released - or possibly later, when it went gold. Point being, local notability doesn't work unfortunately, and thinking it would may get the article killed if they do become popular enough for Rolling Stone. --Dennisthe2 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for trying to explain, but by your own last sentence, the cumulative effect is that a band making the cover of Rolling Stone would not have its own article. That is just plain wrong. I know the significance of Toad The Wet Sprocket and as part of a new movement it would also have been wrong if they had been excluded, gold album or not. Regarding "local notability", in the case of Nemesea, we are not talking about a few bier kellers in Amsterdam, but a fanbase across Northern Europe. --Headshaker 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added some references to the Nemesea article as external links and divided them into two sections. The first is "band-sponsored", ie endorsed by the band. The second section consists of references to the band from independent sources such as online magazines. I hope this goes some way to demonstrating that this band are well-known in Northern Europe.--Headshaker 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the newest articles on the group that have been added and bio's. Someone should merge these links and these articles information into the current article. I will put it on my to do list for next week if the article survives. Good work to whoever tracked down the sources. It should also be noted they did release on a label and the popularity of the group to attract the attention and tour for another group is pretty high. --NuclearZer0 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As of now, the article offers nothing towards WP:BAND. Notability criteria are not interpreted mechanically. However, ignoring criteria in a random and chaotic manner, with no predictability or consistency, is cruel and unusual to those articles that do get deleted for failing the very same criteria to which we'd be turning a blind eye in keeping this. So the question becomes: Does this band have something WP:BANDish, with reliable sources backing it up? Not "established / integral / WP:ILIKEIT / part of something thriving / has fans in different places / uninformed people want to delete". See WP:BAND, very carefully read the paragraph that starts "Also, please keep in mind..." Weregerbil 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very hard for me to respond to most of the above points because I simply can't understand them. Plain English please! I did get the NPA bit, to which the short answer is that my remark that people moving to delete this article are uninformed is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Unless any of them can tell me that they actually know about the European metal/goth scene, it is perfectly valid for me to question their credibility in attacking articles related to it. If I had accused them of being uninformed generally (which I clearly wasn't) that would have been out of order. If anything they are out of order for failing to assume my good faith. I defend the article out of a sense of right and wrong, not from any personal stake. As a matter of personal morality as opposed to Wikipedia policy dogma, I would never move to delete bands just because I had never heard of them, particularly if relating to whole genres and (major!) regional scenes of which I was previously unaware. On the contrary, I would feel gladdened that I had learned something I didn't know before. I believe passionately in defending knowledge and people's access to it, and I am well within the bounds of politeness and Wikipedia policy to point out that in this case, in the eyes of any reasonable neutral, those judging this article as not worth knowing do not have the credibility to do so.--Headshaker 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having had a good night's sleep, I went back to the Weregerbil's arguments to see if I could make more sense of them with a fresh mind. It was still very hard to read (which is not a personal attack but a statement of fact), but I have the following counter-points to make:
        1. In the limited time I have had available I have included neutral recognised information sources in the external links to back up the article, so I do not agree that I have offered nothing towards criteria for inclusion.
        2. The fact that the band are established and well-known within the field of European gothic/symphonic metal is a valid point to make. Researchers into this genre would want to know who the established bands were.
        3. It is most definitely not valid to counter arguments I never actually used. I have never at any point said that I liked the band. On the contrary, I have already stated that I only had one of their tracks in my possession.
        4. Not only are policies quoted inappropriately, but in Wikipedia policy itself, in the same set of guidelines as I LIKE IT, it also clearly states that simply quoting policy is not a valid argument, unless it is properly backed up with how the policy is breached.
        5. Instead of asking ME to chase round looking up all these misused policy articles in order to counter the points, it would have been more useful to neutrals viewing this argument if the relevant passages had been quoted directly here. I couldn't even find the part that started "Also, please bear in mind..."--Headshaker 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD's on notability are not decided by who calls others "uninformed" etc. Please see WP:NPA: there is no excuse for personal attacks. None. Please don't even try. If you attack other editors we'll just think you have run out of rational arguments on the real issue at hand. It truly does you no good.
AfD's are also not decided by essays on "defending access to information". Those appear regularly here, and are kind of a running joke... Not helpful.
The outcome of AfD's are decided by policy and guidelines. Instead of "defending information" and speculating on other editors' knowledge please concentrate on WP:RS and WP:BAND.
"Also, please bear in mind" is the fourth paragraph of WP:BAND. "Established and well known" opinions on talk pages have no importance; explain in the article itself using reliable sources. Weregerbil 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. Sorry, but I can't find a reason to ignore WP:BAND here. The article has sources that review their only album (which is nothing unusual), some sources are trivial listing, some are written by the band itself. There is no evidence of meeting WP:BAND or some other special condition that WP:BAND doesn't list but would establish notability. Weregerbil 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BAND. If they were notable they would have been covered by some of the mainstream metal magazines, which they don't seem to have been. One Night In Hackney 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasna Mađarević[edit]

Jasna Mađarević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 83.3.33.136 with reason: "Not a professional mathematician, just a teacher". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find it a little interesting that the original anon nominator is a contributor to Đuro_Kurepa which I'd sooner delete before this article. wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to failing WP:NOTE WP:CITE and WP:PROF, both this and Đuro_Kurepa could probably be speedied under CSD:A1 and/or CSD:A7. wtfunkymonkey 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE and CITE aren't deletion policies, let alone speedy deletion policies, and neither are the many notability guidelines. A7 requires that the article doesn't even assert notability, which this one does. Melchoir 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are her cites going to be obvious on a search if her name is normally written in Cyrillic and could be transliterated in more than one way? WP:GOOGLE actually uses the example of a Serbian individual to point out that individuals from countries that don't use the Latin alphabet may be underrepresented in any kind of search, not just Google. --Charlene 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really can't tell about this person, but I can't understand why wtfunkymonkey wants to delete the article on Djuro Kurepa, who is clearly notable. But with that article too, we see the problem of various transliterations. For example, the biography in the MacTutor History of Mathematics is titled Dura Kurepa.--OinkOink 06:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried all kinds of Latin transliterations (including for example Madjarevic) as well as Cyrillic, and found little else than hits related to teaching mathematics and giving presentations at local maths conferences. I found no publications, also not on the "Jasna Madjarevic Official Website". The list under "Recent works" appear to be such presentations; that is why we have no citations. No evidence of notability.  --LambiamTalk 09:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, no full citations to any printed works. EdJohnston 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More