< February 13	February 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NESARA conspiracy theory[edit]

The article in its current form lacks reliable sources, currently containing none. Seems to fall into line with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, fails WP:V and WP:RS. The only sites presented seem to be those of its creators, no credible news sites, government sites etc. Since noone is covering this "conspiracy theory" / "cult", it seems to also fail WP:N. Over a year and a half ago there was promises made no the previous AfD to find some RS sources, none which have materialized it seems, I think that further shows there just are not any. Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion in July 2005. The result was keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the deletion proposal for the related article at Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my reasoning above. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination can be closed because the person who nominated it has been in-definetly banned. NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Travb (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the nominator actually wants the article kept, he was making a WP:POINT nomination intended to show that certain "usual suspects" would vote delete on any conspiracy theory AfD? --Groggy Dice T | C 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third nomination) resulted in Delete. --Dual Freq 12:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A group meeting at KFC once a week to discuss it does not make the theory notable. Fundamental Dan 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the concept is absurd, it's better known than the other NESARA article. And Quatloos, which is a WP:RS about other matters, has a forum and FAQ about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quatloos may be WP:RS, however their forum contents surely are not. A FAQ possibly if craeted by them and not located on the forum. That still creates an entire article based on 1 source, much of the information in the article is not confirmed through the source as well. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a property of the source, not its contents. You can't say it violates RS just because you choose not to believe it. Gene Nygaard 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...A FAQ possibly if created by them and not located on the forum", in other words, this is the page you're looking for: http://www.quatloos.com/NESARA.htm (not a FAQ, but a full article) - Sednar 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked up the webpage on NESARA that is located on Quatloss. It is directly related to the article NESARA however, not related to this conspiracy theory which is, NESARA conspiracy theory. It does not support any of the information located in it, but talks about the "law" that the NESARA article itself discusses, not the conspiracy this article discusses. Perhaps later I will add it to the NESARA article as a source, however it does not support the ideas of any conspiracy nor even discuss a conspiracy. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the 12 references, at least 5 are reliable news media or alternative news media (such as the Quatloos article). That article notes the real NESARA concept, but is over 2/3 about the conspiracy theory (including some commentary by the people behind the real proposal). Even if you were to exclude that, it's over half about the conspiracy/hoax. That being clear, I'm forced to conclude this is a bad faith nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More harrassment, you already stated long ago you assume bad faith in everything I do, and magically found your way here. Now I have treated you with respect, and I ask you do the same. More then half of the soruces are not WP:RS, news doesnt mean some random person reported it as such. The WP:RS source is Tacoma as pointed out below and is a local paper, leaving the issue of an entire article sourced to one place, and it not meeting WP:N, since it doesnt have multiple non trivial sources, just a single source of information. Others can easily review the source if they feel I am wrong. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope that people do indeed take the time to review this source, as you are quite obviously wrong. Can you please clarify, did you just read the first sentence of this article or the whole thing? Did you read the second paragraph which begins "Scam artists often latch on to something that sounds good to relieve suckers of money...", or the third paragraph which begins "The NESARA proposal is currently being used in just this sort of a scam...", or the fourth which begins "The scam artists pitching the NESARA scam claim that the 'True NESARA Law' was already adopted by Congress in 2001, but that Congress has been keeping it a secret all this time..."? This article is about the hoax and further substantiates notability. - Sednar 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is irrelevant to wikipedia and fails WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The conspiracy theory was covered in a series of articles in a mainstream newspaper, the Tacoma News Tribune. The articles [1] are linked from this article and have been linked from this article since it was created in 2005. --Metropolitan90 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the articles and it seems the sole source is a single local paper in Tacoma. Still fails WP:RS and WP:N. Are there more sources, perhaps from more then a local paper? CNN, New York Times? BBC? Something that shows more then a single neighborhood covered this, or perhaps made it up. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly erroneous statement; Quatloos is a secondary source on the issue, which seems as reliable as many. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Quatloss not using the Tacoma paper as its source? I am being generous in all honesty since much of the links its using to make its case are blogs and non reliable sources, bringing into question what its reporting on. However since it mainly uses Tacoma, and it seems to be the only reliable source in the group, it seems its still just a local issue and fascination. Apparently I am not the only one that feels that way, your friend and someone you commonly agree with Tom, Morton etc all seem to feel you are wrong, anyway it seems concensus is speaking. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NESARA anything verifiable should be put in the NESARA article. Little is verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hipocite above, and/or maybe to the NWO conspiracy theory page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Delete - on second thought, little is useable elsewhere, and it is not really a likely search term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny, I was thinking of AfDing this yesterday. I did a Lexis/Nexis search and found literally nothing other than a letter to the editor in a CO paper and an announcement of a screening of a film about it. I did find that Nesara means "rising sun" in the Kannada language. This is an internet meme, nothing more. Not notable. GabrielF 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hipocite above Keep since NESARA now redirects to this article. Travb (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above users. Notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but should be trimmed down and included as a subdivision of the main NESARA article. PubliusFL 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Now keep as the other article has been deleted. Effectively the main NESARA article must now be merged into this one. PubliusFL 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources for this as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and delete the NESARA article as well, which seems to have even fewer references than this one. Coverage of the story by one newspaper doesn't make the subject notable by Wikipedia notability standards. I have nominated the NESARA article as well -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third nomination). MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what people are complaining about here - we have a documentary and a series of reputable newspaper articles. And the subject seems notable enough - "nesara" and "conspiracy" gets you over 30K ghits. I would not be opposed to merging in the NESARA article; NESARA itself doesn't seem very notable without the conspiracy theorists surrounding it. And I vote for keeping NESARA suppressed - 14% sales tax - ouch! --Brianyoumans 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NESARA conspiracy - Results 1 - 10 of about 30,700 for nesara conspiracy. (0.17 seconds)
Super cows - Results 1 - 10 of about 1,330,000 for super cows. (0.17 seconds)
Super alien dog cows - Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140,000 for super alien dog cows. (0.84 seconds)

I think your google search was wrong if you did not put "NESARA conspiracy" actually in quotes. "NESARA" "conspiracy" is equal to the searches above. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I paged through the results for "nesara" "conspiracy". There were 472 unique ghits; not fabulous, but better than many articles I've seen kept. And pretty much all of them were actually about this subject. I doubt that very many of the hits for "super alien dog cows" were actually about super alien dog cows! :-) --Brianyoumans 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with No Merge. That there are a bunch of nutcases out there who believe this conspiracy theory is clearly documented, so I think we have our basic notability and references. We should not merge because NESARA documents a proposal ( whose nuttiness is irrelevant ), while this article documents a bunch of people who believe the proposal has been implemented: these are two different things. WMMartin 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
I concur that they're different, but the real proposal has no notability except as it's being using by the conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references for this topic. --Aude (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is a legitimate version of NESARA but was only generally connected to a single individual who has now died, then unfortunately it's existance on here is doomed to only be used for hoax agendas, so it might as well be deleted until it can be re-created separately from the hoax. Right now it only spreads misinformation. bov 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable and fascinating. The sources are The Tacoma Tribune (several articles), the documentary (if you haven't seen the movie you can verify the info in the numerous articles about the movie), quatloos, and the conspirator's sites. How does it lack references? If you see a fact in the article in need of a reference, why don't you put a citation needed tag. Also, this article on the conspiracy theory is more notable then the legal proposal ("legitimate version") because it's more well known and almost all the references you find will refer to the conspiracy theory. Although the exact phrase "nesara conspiracy theory" may not be used in the page, even a cursory glance will verify that. Go ahead and look at the first 10 google matches yourself, 9 of them are speaking about the conspiracy theory and not the legal proposal. I don't see any language in the article being used to promote the hoax or spread misinformation, do you? Where? It seems pretty clearly refering to it as a hoax and discussing it as a hoax. I agree with the user Brianyoumans, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Sednar 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. The article has WP:RS issues. Although it has some links which point out the “hooey”, i.e. [2] do we need to write an article for every Snopes.com hoax entry that goes against the basis of Wikipedia's hoax guideline? And also, per WP:NOT: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - and this hoax is non-notable. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're citing a single of the sources - just about the shortest one - and saying "althought it has some links...", but anyone who looks at the article and starts looking through the sources - just the ones in reputable sources discussing it as a hoax - will find that there's many, many hours of reading material there justifying its notability. The series of articles in the Tacoma Tribune alone are practically a book's worth of material - Sednar 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a strong anti-conspiracy bent among some editors, a belief that since "no one in their right mind could believe this," these theories could not possibly have enough adherents to make them notable. Thus, even an entry for a plainly notable "conspiracy theorist" like Ted Gunderson can get deleted. So we have comments about "a group meeting at KFC once a week," when the article makes it clear that this is just one group of believers. Unfortunately, even theories as outlandish as this can find believers. The WP:V and WP:RS arguments are unconvincing; the Tacoma "local paper" has been disparaged as a non-notable RS, but it is a RS. Furthermore, this article is not promoting the theory; it clearly presents the case against it. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and all dat' Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Smerge (and redirect) as suggested and explained by hipocite. gidonb 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not merge. NN hoax. gidonb 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I admit that the Tacoma Tribune is a reliable source. I believe that this story should only be kept if it meets the requirements of WP:HOAX, i.e. that it fools a lot of people; it needs to be a notable hoax. This fact I believe is not established by the current sources. Arguments that 'Some people claim this..' and 'Some people claim that..' don't seem very convincing. The total documented extent of the hoax (from the Tribune article) is that one person was scammed out of $10,000 (this is so far just a claim filed with the attorney general) and 'possibly much more' (a speculative extrapolation). EdJohnston 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another concession, another objection put up in its place... But this one doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. You mention one of the articles, and the fact that it only refers to one person who had money taken, but again this is selective reporting on your part (perhaps unintentionally). In the rest of the Tribune's articles on the subject, and in the documentary film on the subject, and in the articles about the documentary film, there are many more people quoted and interviewed, who may not have given money, but who definitely profess a belief in it. The sheer number of blogs and web pages devoted to NESARA (and its supposed imminent announcement and "wonderful changes it will bring about") demonstrates the number of people that believe this. Thousands? I'm not sure, but many hundreds is clearly evident. "'Some people claim this..' and 'Some people claim that..'" are all backed up by the sources provided, including the documentary film about the subject, and it's simply a matter of reading them all to verify this. I've challenged people to put citation needed tags in the proper place on the article where they feel that there are unsourced statements, so far nobody has done this. I've been puzzling over the hostility towards this article, and I think I understand the real issue... I've noticed that a number of people wanting this article deleted have also edited 9/11 articles, and I see that someone put this article in the "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. So I think the real issue, which nobody is bringing up, is that people feel that this is not a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theory. I agree that it is not particularly notable as a 9/11 conspiracy theory (especially when there is only one other theory listed in the template). But I think removing this article from that template, which I would support, is the proper response, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the entire article. - Sednar 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. And now that's been done (removing NESARA from the 911ct template). PubliusFL 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the article is cut down to only the fact supported by the WP:RS references, with no speculation or original research. Otherwise delete. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep at least one article about the subject. If it contains some criticism that this is a financial cult, the articles' not promoting anyone. I wouldn't call it a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's a general new age racket.Merkinsmum 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entire topic is absurd, but it provides vital background information on the prosecution of a $20m scammer, and it is referenced by notable sources. The whole thing needs some liberal application of sourcing and some general cleaup, though. "Meets at KFC once a week," seriously--what's next, listing the phone number in case you want to call ahead and order a basket of wings? Jouster 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the general consensus is keep - Sednar 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So.. does anyone disagree that the rough consensus is keep? Admin, please remove the deletion template from the article. - Sednar 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks to me like the best description is "no consensus," which means the article should be kept. The voting has been pretty balanced. PubliusFL 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources and notability to warrant inclusion. Christopher Connor 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the following reason - NESARA may have started out as a minor aspect of a larger Confidence Scheme but through the tireless promotion of the concept by Dove of Oneness and others who truly believe in it, it's started to pop up in the writings of other major conspiracy theorists. You'll see talk of NESARA in with David Icke, The New World Order, The Trilateral Commission, and yes, 9/11. NESARA seems to "feel" right to folks looking for another reason to balme 9/11 on anyone but the Hamburg Cell. Yes, the article needs some work, but a basic description of what the term means, how it originated, it's incorpration into the Con and then its extension into New Age conspiracism should stay.LiPollis 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NESARA as a conspiracy is notable. NESARA as a legislative proposal drafted by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard of the NESARA Institute, a proposal name that was hijacked by the conspiracy theorists and made into something NESARA isn't, is also notable. This information should stay in wikipedia. I am quite amazed at how vociferous some are in deleting information regarding NESARA, the NESARA Institute, and the NESARA conspiracy theory when all three are notable enough for inclusion in the encylopedia alone. inigmatus 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why an admin hasn't removed the deletion template yet? - Sednar 11:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While more academic discussions about the merits of this entry ensue, I found this information helpful and informative to assist in discovering more about NESARA which I learned about in an email. It exposed the potentially damaging aspects of a NESARA hoax, and informed me of the legitimate work of Dr. Barnard, which is a relevant subject of interest. This sort of content is exactly what I come to Wikipedia for. If this type of resource is removed, being deemed too controversial or irrelevant, then Wikipedia's value and relevance to its users errodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewlingalot (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the Act exists/is notable/is believable, the degree of debate here shows that the conspiracy theory is itself notable. The references may need to be reworked to show the theory rather than the proposed facts, but all in all it seems to be a notable phenomenon for the debate it can trigger. Callix 21:45, 21 March 2007

Delete Origional research. Not a new idea.--Sefringle 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If deleted all original research and dubious sources, not much of notability is left. Mukadderat 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a statement like "Shaini Goodwin claims that X" is appropriately sourced by providing a link to Shaini Goodwin's own site where she claims X - the article's statement is not "X", it's "Shaini Goodwin claims X". See for example the article on Scientology, where statements about claims of Scientology are sourced by the Scientology site where they make these claims. I think this is what you mean by dubious sources - but if you're talking about Quatloos and the Tacoma Tribune, I think this has already been resolved above. As for original research, can you provide some examples? - Sednar 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i came here for information, but it looks more like a smear campaign. having "conspiracy theory" in the title instead of a sub-section is completely biased, and this article could probably use a NEUTRALITY disclaimer. the only good reason to delete it would be to harmonize with the "information supression" that NESARA purports to be facing. to me, the fact that some are actively trying to eliminate the opportunity for others to even consider NESARA is strong evidence for its validity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.198.172 (talk) 23:49, 27 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 No consensus to delete, at least not for a discussion where the primary reason for deletion is notability. For cases such as these where the subject's notability is borderline and solely due to another article-worthy subject (507th Maintenance Company), merge is often the best solution; discuss on Talk page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:14Z

Howard Johnson II[edit]

Private Jonhson, of the US Army, is one of the three thousand plus soldiers who died in Iraq. However, some believe that just him belonging in the 507 Maintenance Unit, the same unit as Jessica Lynch and the first female KIA since Vietnam. For those using the Google test, his name will appear in many locations, mostly due to many websites either being dedicated to the 507th or to listing the names of all Iraqi dead, US and collaition. My contention is that other than being killed in Iraq and part of a unit, he has not done anything else notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. (Most of the content is about what happened at a memorial service, two medals presented and a park named after him). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, got a parked named after him etc... Mathmo ^Talk 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many killed war veterans has something named afterthem in their neighboorhoods, just a memorial, nothing special. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Just being killed in action is not enough to establish notability. Other than memorial references, supplied references are incidental mentions. Bronze Star may meet notability criterion. Αργυριου (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, First soldier from Alabama killed in OIF. The Governor of Alabama attended his funeral along with a US Congressman and Senator. Eulogized on the floor on the US Senate. Name not only appears on standard listings of OIF dead but twice in the Congressional Record and Alabama Congressman Joe Bonner's website. He is also in Jessica Lynch's book as well as Richard S. Lowry's book Marines in the Garden of Eden. The City of Mobile and the Alabama legislature have both passed resolutions honoring him. If the 2,000 death in OIF/OEF can have a Wikipeda page why not Howard Johnson II? Ehrentitle 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd seen an AfD on the 2000th casualty, I'd have probably voted to delete that one too, unless there was something particularly notable about him, Being #2000 would not be enough for me. Αργυριου (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the first casualty in a major battle, being mentioned on the senate floor and in a state Senate Joint Resolution seems to meet the minimum of notability needed.--John Lake 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was the first one to be killed in this engagement Category:American Iraq War killed in action and is at least as notable as some of them for all it's worth.--John Lake 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article requires clean up and has many NPOV issues, however, per WP:BIO he is the recipient of several awards including the Purple Heart. According to Wikipedia this makes him notable, so I don't see how you can say he's not when its pretty black and white what Wikipedia's policy is on awards of notability. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purple heart isn't a big deal, every soldier who was killed and wounded in Iraq got one or in any war after 1917 so hundreds of thousands has/had one, my economics teacher got one in Vietnam for being shot there, is he notable for wikipedia, no, most of the notabilty that Johnson has was because he was the first soldier killed from Alabama or in that battle period also and being mentioned on the senate only because he was being killed, very weak claim of notabilty Delete as for the several awards part of WP:BIO that has to be written as right now almost every war veteran would meet it Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies notability requirements in my book. Philippe Beaudette 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Satisfies notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo. i kan reed 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Koptor 12:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is NOT a vote, this is a discussion to reach a consensus. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, do so. Otherwise, why waste your time?--Aervanath 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is not a memorial and this is not a particularly notable case. MLA 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete there is nothing notable about this person. Everyone dies, millions die in war, year after year worldwide, there is no reason each of them should get an article.A mcmurray 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dying in battle seems not truly enough, not even the first one to die from a US state. Arnoutf 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notability can only be asserted by references, this article lacks them. On the other hand, being reported about in multiple non-trivial articles, which this case obviously has, automatically asserts notability. Not using my standard sentence because of the sensitivities involved Alf photoman 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a soldier who died in the line of duty. Sad but not notable, that's what soldiers do. Jcuk 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jaranda. Does have NPOV issues, and a lack of sources. But I think he's notable, all the article needs is a decent clean-up. Gan fon 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic to lose a life in war, but not inherently notable. Passing reference or trivial mention in a book or in a list read on the floor of the congress does not satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Other articles for nonnotable individuals do not require us to keep this one under the "pokemon test." 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Edison
Delete The article fails WP:NOT#INFO, although its an article about a soldier who is no longer here it does fail the above.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I express my sympathy to the family. This is basically an obit and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Notability is not met, IMHO. Fundamental Dan 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Purple Hearts are, alas, not notable. First KIA from the State of _____ is also not notable. Jessica Lynch had news coverage and controversy, as well as being a rarity in terms of a repatriated POW. The difference should be obvious. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete truly tragic, but the deaths of soldiers are not inherently notable. Private Johnson was not a significant contributor to his field, not has he received multiple independent media articles covering him, as required by WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic yes, but so is every one of the 3,000+ deaths.--Bryson 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - nothing to establish notability beyond having died, and the keep comments are all a little too close to WP:ILIKEIT territory ("seems notable to me" etc).-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article cannot be verified through the use of third-party sources at this time, because no external, independant sources are cited or provided. Also does not appear to meet the notability inclusion guideline for people, this may change if sources are provided. -- saberwyn 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if references provided Normally I would say to delete this sort of article per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. However, in reading the article, it looks like there are some as yet unreferenced (and therefore as yet unverified) accounts of the soldier being referenced by notable politicians and receiving various medals. If the facts of the article can be properly referenced and verified, then I'd be willing to keep it. Otherwise delete as an unreferenced memorial. Dugwiki 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom's reasons are cogent. A governor and senator or even vice president or President of the U.S. at your funeral is not, in itself enough, even combined with comments on the Senate floor. I don't see encyclopedic value in what would amount to an obituary for every dead soldier in Wikipedia, which would be the only fair way to handle all the rest of the deaths. We should have a Wikipedia policy on this, since it will surely come up again and again. Noroton 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's very sad, however Wikipedia is not a memorial. He was part of the 507 Maintenance Unit and much of the attention to the unit is based on the story surrounding Jessica Lynch. As tragic as it is, there are several thousand deaths in the war. He does not meet the criterea of WP:BIO --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, especially considering the firsts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 15 February 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 withdrawn due to the UFC officially announcing this event. VegaDark 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 70[edit]

Subject is a rumored event that has not been reliably reported on yet. All information about this event that is known and confirmed is generic, it does not deserve (yet) an article per WP:NOT. Prod was removed without reason. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 67. hateless 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, withdrawing nomination per UFC's announcement last night. hateless 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As UFC 70 will apparently "deserve" its own page in a short time (see UFC 1 to 69, to my amazement), is there any point in deleting it now? Presumably the article will "improve" the closer the event becomes, and then reach "perfection" shortly thereafter... UFC 67 was deleted 3 months ahead of the event and the page was recreated (as far as I can tell) less than one week later without being further deleted. In contrast, there'll be 2 months from the end of this discussion until the date given for UFC 70. Bencherlite 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Julia 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this statement It is rumoured that Mirko CroCop will fight on main card, along with Tito Ortiz and Forrest Griffin. and WP:CRYSTAL Jeepday 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of references, and it's about an event that hasn't even happened yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the event is closer and there are actual sources, the article can be re-created. --El on ka 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but strongly oppose some delete votes WP:NOT states that events scheduled to be held soon with some information available about them are an exception to crystal ball rule. The event is notable, scheduled by an authority on the matter, and is in the near future. i kan reed 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per i kan reed. --Gwern (contribs) 05:43 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not confirmed. When more info is available, then it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 08:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there supposed to be an article for every single sporting event ever held? After having read a few of the "UFC 1-69" articles, I wouldn't mind getting rid of them all. After Tuli fell to his knees, Gordeau delivered a stunning kick to the face, knocking a tooth out. Gordeau followed with a strike to the face, cutting Tuli. After being checked out by the doctors, the fight was called, with an official time of only 0:30. Smells like fancruft. Icemuon 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns about this vote are expressed in WP:ILIKEIT. The first UFC events (events that caused a political firestorm) and UFC events since 2005 are undeniably notable, and saying the UFCs in between aren't notable enough for an article is like saying the 1924-25 NHL Season isn't notable enough for one. hateless 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not advocating removal of this material because I don't like it. In fact, I happen to be a big fan of boxing, so if you think I'm queasy about the subject matter, that's not it. However, the articles are definitely written in non-encyclopedic POV manner, contain a disproportionate amount of detail, and in total sound like advertisements that came off the main events' site. I'm afraid there's no comparing this to the NHL; I hear about the NHL all the time but I have never heard of the "UFC", and I think I probably speak for the majority of North Americans, at least. Icemuon 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources therefore failing WP:V and just seems to be trivial, failing WP:NOT#INFO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "trivia" isn't covered (yet) under WP:NOT#IINFO - that section is quite specific about the types of information it deals with. Dugwiki 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all UFC xx articles into one main article. The UFC events might be notable enough for an article, but not notable enough for individual articles. The inevitable repetition of individual articles is also non-encyclopedic. —gorgan_almighty 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That will be one insanely large article. This does not seem to be a practical solution at all, not to mention a bit off-topic. hateless 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a merge isn't a bad idea. No doubt we won't get a delete consensus on all the articles, but also it's a bit ridiculous to have an article detailing each happening of every single event. It would take a lot of trimming and not all the information of each article would be kept in the merged article. This is on topic, since why should this article be deleted if all the others are kept? This is as good a place to discuss it as any. Icemuon 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. This would not be an insanely long article, as all the repetition would be removed, and each article's contribution could be trimmed down to one row in a table, detailing the winners of each event. This would not only be neater and more encyclopedic, it would also be a far better way to present the data in the first place. —gorgan_almighty 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete While the UFC has announced an event in Manchester [3] few details are known about it. The article doesn't even say if the event will be called UFC 70. Lewis 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that we have a fight confirmed by the fighter. Lewis 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep ~~all of the UFC articles into one larger one. That way there isn't hundreds of them floating around Wikipedia someday.~~ On second thought, we have an article for every Super Bowl, and after looking over the other articles making a list out of them would become huge. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a big difference between the Super Bowl and the UFC. It would not be huge, but would instead be neater and more encyclopedic. See my earlier posts on the matter. —gorgan_almighty 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references The subject itself will probably be notable, so odds are an article of some sort about the event will eventually be kept. But this particular article is entirely unreferenced and unverified. Delete unless it can be more properly referenced, and if deleted hold off on recreating until proper sources are available. FYI, I do not recommend merging otherwise properly referenced articles about individual pay-per-view events into a single article; that is not consistent with similar pay per views, such as Professional Wrestling pay per views. Dugwiki 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , only because there are no references to indicate that the event will definetly take place; although I can imagine this being re-created when sources do arise. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a source now reporting a schedule bout I don't think it should be deleted now. Thesaddestday 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that it's been announced on the UFC home page I think this is a pretty cut and dry keep. VegaDark 09:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find out some information about this through a Lexis-Nexis news search. Only found a passing mention in two Canadian Press articles, but no details about it. I don't think there are enough good sources for this, at least not yet. --Aude (talk) 16:18, 15 February 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. ShadowHalo 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate gurus[edit]

Merge into Real estate? Seems slightly wiktionary to me. Philippe Beaudette 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing different about "real estate gurus" as opposed to any other guru (e.g. "she's a stock market guru") and doesn't deserve a page by itself or a merge. Bencherlite 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Don't redirect, since the title is inherently hagiographic. No content worth merging. --N Shar 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef and unlikely to expand beyond one. Investors and real estate are already covered elsewhere, little point in this article. WjBscribe 02:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Julia 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Natalie 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect, no wiktionary. A word like "guru" may be attached to any vocation. Shaundakulbara 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm not too sure if this would make a good merge/redirect/Wiktionary move either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Not sure that "real estate guru" is the best general label to hang on these people, though what I'd call them might run afoul of WP:LIBEL. The article seems to be about people who conduct seminars offering plans of real estate investment, and as such this may be a spam magnet. Anything worth saying can go in real estate investing for the time being, that article needs desperate help also. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not in common enough usage. --Gwern (contribs) 05:44 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have said redirect if there was much more info but it has very little context and relevat info, therfore failing WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT.-- danntm ^T _C 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Corporal Punishment 23:52, 14 February 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 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Ma[edit]

This has been hanging around for months without being sourced. At the moment fails WP:V. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It appears that Personages of the Three Kingdoms are notable enough to warrant articles, and since this is one such person, we ought to keep. I agree that sourcing (and cleanup) are necessary, but I'm no expert on the Three Kingdoms, so I can't help with that. --N Shar 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search for references to save the article and came up empty. Fails WP:V and WP:N Jeepday 03:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't be sure whether any of this really happened, and that's the problem. YechielMan 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any references whatsoever. Perhaps the romanization is wrong, but even if this is real, there's not too much content to lose. --Gwern (contribs) 05:46 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per N Shar. Added Chinese name to the article so it would be easier for someone else to expand. cab 06:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechielMan and Jeepday, and because many of this user's articles have been deleted for this reason before. Add into that that I wonder if the name is even correct based on the same user's previous article naming. -Yupik 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little context, fails WP:BIO and as mentioned by the nominator it fails WP:V.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a very minor character in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms per this page, but not mentioned in the Sanguozhi (which contains historical bios of personages of the Three Kingdoms area) and no biographical information about him is included even in the Romance itself (which is based on historical events but also on folklore). I'm unable to find any significant mention of him anywhere, and can't even verify whether he's a historical figure or a fictional one (the Romance includes several entirely fictional characters). Suppose a note about his revolt could be merged to a Personages of the Three Kingdoms, but I don't see anything to hang an article on. Shimeru 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep "article is stub" is not a valid reason for deletion. ⇒ bsnowball 13:10, 16 February 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 under criterion A7. Alphachimp deleted with deletion summary "Deleting page per CSD A7: Article about a non-notable person.". James086 ^Talk 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tramp[edit]

Non-notable person. Apparently a "suspicious fellow" who hangs around a shopping center. Speedy tag removed so I bring it here. IrishGuy ^talk 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Very notable person. I see them all the timeGypsy Eyes 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing someone doesn't make that person notable. IrishGuy ^talk 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why there would be a problem here. But anyone who has spent any time in Cambridge city centre will have seen (and certainly heard!) Radio Tramp. I've got to go to bed now, but I shall continue this discussion in the morning if you like. Gypsy Eyes 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under original research. This is not a verifiably notable person. IrishGuy ^talk 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not already SD'd - Speedy tag was back up when I looked). Clearly fails WP:BIO. Bencherlite 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. I think this page should be kept as it details a regular phenomenon and experience of Cambridge shoppers and residents, giving others insight into colloquialisms that would otherwise have them confused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.173.209 (talk • contribs).
Delete unless sourced. I can imagine that this tramp might, just possibly, have a couple of articles about him in local papers, making him notable. I want to see the sources, though. --N Shar 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable sources treating the subject in a non-trivial manner are provided. Certainly nothing can be found through Google via web [4], news [5] or books [6].--Fuhghettaboutit 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, utterly ridiculous. Natalie 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged as such. This is the very definition of a speedy for non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added _SUBWAYguy 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete per nomination.Julia 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ha ha, does he live in a Radio Shack? Sorry, very non-notable. --Canley 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being well-known does not make this person notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:44, 14 February 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 a7, no valid assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bull3tt[edit]

I do not think counter strike teams are notable Alex Bakharev 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere are probably a number of notable CS teams, but this article has almost no salvageable content and does not show verifiable notability. I would change my vote if we see some sources and a complete rewrite. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and most likely autobiography. Dar-Ape 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Natalie 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Counter strike teams could in theory be notable if they were sponsored professional gamers... that doesn't appear to be the case here, but I would like to point out the innappropriateness of your criteria. i kan reed 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I say we nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Gwern (contribs) 05:47 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even a CS team, it's one individual, and he doesn't seem notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, completely non-notable individual (not a clan). Also, check the edit history - clear vanity page. Strong delete. Seb Patrick 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:AUTO Arnoutf 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:BIO and it appears to fail WP:NN.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:AUTO, fails WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 15 February 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 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quizlet[edit]

Page fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria, does not appear to have multiple published works or won any awards. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on this article's talk page, I do think that this article meats notability requirements. This page discuses a website of fairly significant importance; though made public a mere month ago, Quizlet has more than 6,000 users. It has been mentioned in two Lifehacker posts, a quite popular blog, and included on del.icio.us's popular list. Quizlet was also mentioned on ajaxian.com, digg.com, decrem.com, macmegasite.com, screeniac.com, webware.com, fortysomething.ca, and other sites. Further, Quizlet's creator, Andrew Sutherland, made an appearance at Stirr, discussing Quizlet, to much popularity. The article's initial speedy deletion tag was added, as was also stated on the article's talk page, before much of the details were added. » K i G O E | talk 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still, in my opinion, a non-notable website.--Anthony.bradbury 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mentioned by other sources does not count - policy states the subject has to be the subject of a nontrivial work. Natalie 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. --Gwern (contribs) 05:49 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not established, and blogs are not credible sources. Fundamental Dan 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This seems like a good article but it does fail WP:NN.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:57, 14 February 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 and move if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women2WinWales[edit]

I do not think the organization is notable. No ghits Alex Bakharev 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I believe that an organisation chaired by a Shadow Secretary of State is at least marginally notable.--Anthony.bradbury 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You find GHits if you adjust the spacing, which the author clearly should do.--Anthony.bradbury 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but should be changed/merged into a yet-to-be-created page about the parent organisation "Women 2 Win" (with or without spaces according to actual usage) which would appear to have greater merit than the Welsh branch / section does by itself. Other examples of Conservative Party groups having WP pages can be found at List of organisations associated with the British Conservative Party. Bencherlite 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if moved to women2win[7] and rewritten as such. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Dhartung. YechielMan 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs better sources, but it seems a legitimate topic. --Gwern (contribs) 05:50 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup and merge with women2win though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move, I agree with Bencherlite in the fact that it needs to be moved into a "Women 2 WIn" page.
Move per above. The subject is notable, but the article needs a bit of a rewrite. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:40, 15 February 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 deleting per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE GREAT MOCKINGBIRD[edit]

Unproven theory, not academically sourced. Philippe Beaudette 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like something some one WP:NFT. The sources are imdb and spark notes for To Kill a Mockingbird, which do not make any mention of this theory. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:06, 14 February 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 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinger McCloud[edit]

Unreferenced and probably a hoax Greenshed 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Also Dinger McCloud Museum should be deleted for same reason. Bencherlite 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I couldn't find any sources for either one except numerous mirror sites (many of which comically sported a notice of this AfD). And let's not forget to cleanup afterwards. Dar-Ape 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Gets a few mirror ghits, none on gbooks. found one link that looked like it might got to a news article but the news article did not open. Even if it passed WP:V (which it fails) it would also fail WP:N. I will drop a prod on the Dinger McCloud Museum just to cover the bases, it should be ripe when this is done. Jeepday 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Looks like a hoax at face value. A famous pilot no one has heard of??? Fundamental Dan 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. An extensive search of the Times Digital Archive fails to turn up any mentions. I would expect such a biography would at the very least contain a reference to the rank which he attained, the squadrons he flew with and the aircraft he flew; this one has none of the above. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source has been added to the bottom of the page, which clears up some of the factual inconsistancies in the article.IDontGetThatJoke, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Is the source also a hoax? The anon IP who added it has been warned for vandalism (User talk:69.181.252.181). The reference (http://randomkindaguy.googlepages.com/dingermccloud) is on Google Pages - a site for creating your own pages, not an aviation or military history site. The person in the blurred photograph is not wearing any recognizable RAF-pattern uniform. The WayBackMachine has not indexed it (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://randomkindaguy.googlepages.com/dingermccloud) suggesting the page was created recently. Greenshed 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJust because you've never heard of Dinger McCloud doesn't mean he doesn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.162.41 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 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. --Core desat 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal We (comedy)[edit]

Non-notable comedy troupe. Google doesn't seem to have much. The name itself is too common to simply seach that, so I googled "The Royal We" and the member "Becca Greene". I came up with less than 50 unique hits. Most of the hits are quick mentions like this and this. Nothing notable that I could find. The article author, Willzone, only made edits pertaining to this group and then never edited here again. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N Jeepday 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources except for its own website, and notability not established. Fundamental Dan 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any sources to establish sources as required by WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 00:09, 15 February 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. --Core desat 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Henry Cukierka[edit]

Not notable, Wikipedia is not obituary, creator removed prod note without comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N Jeepday 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unreferenced. If he was really popular, maybe, but not having any way to verifiy his life sinks it for me. --Gwern (contribs) 05:59 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. To the creator of the article, please accept my condolences - but please also note that Wikipedia is not an obituary page. --Dennisthe2 22:22, 14 February 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. No source for Durakor or even "Curse of Glyand", and no Google hits; in short, no evidence that this isn't just original research (fan fiction). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:25Z

Durakor[edit]

Original research - homebrew RPG material CNichols 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons. Dar-Ape 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worthy of a redirect. Nardman1 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:N but might get a search so redirect. Jeepday 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - redirects are cheap. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not redirect per lack of context. The article does not give enough information to choose the most appropriate redirect, or allow for cleanup. Delete so an appropriate article may be made at some time. Redirects discourage articles where they are sometimes needed. i kan reed 05:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An obvious target for merging and redirecting. Surely we have a List of D&D deities or something along those lines? --Gwern (contribs) 05:58 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:58, 14 February 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 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Wrestling Alliance[edit]

One of several fantasy e-feds on the internet. Several real promotions are not considered "notable" for Wikipedia, and there is no way in hell this one is.PepsiPlunge 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN per nom. --EazieCheeze 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless someone can find a third-party reference. - Geoffg 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete e-feds are non-notable, precendence set by the dozens of other e-fed articles that have been deleted on Wikipedia before. TJ Spyke 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Normy132 07:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, plenty of grammatical mistakes, it is just an advertisement. Kris Classic 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm the president of the real Global Wrestling Alliance and it looks like someone has pulled a rather stupid prank on myself and the rest of the guys who call the GWA home. I support the decision to delete this page. For reference, the real website to this company is www.fwrestling.com/host/globalwrestling We did not do this post, and, like I've said, support the decision to have it removed. --- Michael Calcutt... the handler of Marcus Helms.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caferati[edit]

No claims of notability. Seems to make no claims that would pass WP:WEB --Selket ^Talk 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. WjBscribe 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete reads like spam, hopefully the speedy will get it first. Jeepday 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure about CSD A7, but in the long run it shouldn't matter. YechielMan 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT WANT Koptor 12:40, 14 February 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, given the significant rewrite. It may be possible that some of those arguing to delete did not see the rewrite, but the concerns have been addressed and the initial nomination was withdrawn (though this is not a speedy keep). --Core desat 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia blunt ban[edit]

~~Appears to fail WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#IINFO _SUBWAYguy 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Comment I'm happy to withdraw the nomination after the rewrite. _SUBWAYguy 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Provides good information on what is clearly an ill thought out ban. Chris789 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is incredibly obvious POV. We might be able to have an article on the ban, but it's not this. --N Shar 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week Delete~~ Strong Keep Ghits pretty high, but a lot blog stuff, Has some WP:NPOV issue, but mostly just needs to pass WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, List a few major reliable, third-party sources (think local and national news to pass WP:N) and I would change my vote. Jeepday 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote. The article as been significantly improved, is well referenced, and seems to meet all Wikipedia Polices. (P.S. great job on the rewrite) Jeepday 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a severe NPOV violation. YechielMan 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lists condoms as a potential item of paraphanalia. How does one use a condom to ingest a controlled substance? Now there's an article topic! Deranged bulbasaur 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) - A condom could however be used to "pack, repack, store, contain, conceal" - hence making it illegal chris789[reply]
Keep: per a rewrite. I can even look into it if you want.A mcmurray 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go ahead and do a rewrite, the article does not look like it will survive without it (and maybe not then). Be sure to use solid references. Jeepday 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Probably only one of several laws that go way outside a reasonable scope. Why not create an article that tries to caputre them all under the name : Government overreaction to control drug use. Or something like that; there this ban would be a nice illustration, but on its own, seems not notable enough...... Arnoutf 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and pass the fruit. Fundamental Dan 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. this is notable. disclaimer i worked on this article - Stoph 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I especially like the pic of the apple. Nardman1 21:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation of a different article on the same topic - all of the tags at the top are accurate and they add up to an inappropriate article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as improperly referenced original research The only reference provided is a link to the actual bill itself. No independent references or articles about the bill are referenced, and the article goes on to list items it claims are covered by the bill without actually providing independent references to that pseudo-legal opinion. It might be possible to rewrite the article and find proper sources for it, but as is the current version should simply be removed as unreferenced, subjective original research. Dugwiki 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending significant article rewrite The event is important in terms of its precedent setting misdirection and ill-defined scope.--Sludge 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just OR/soap boxing. The subject seems notable enough, though wouldn't it make more sense to call the article Philadelphia Bill No. 060345? Koweja 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite. The subject is certainly notable. However, the article as it stands is sheer POV soap box, and it would be best to restart the article.-- danntm ^T _C 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try now. Uncle G 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - much better. Should probably be renamed though? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewrite. Good job Uncle G~~, though I still think it should be renamed to the actual title of the bill~~. Koweja 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually a part of the Philadelphia Code, now that the bill has passed into law. I've yet to find a source that gives an exact citation, though. They all call it the "blunt ban" (or minor variations thereof). Thus by our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) that is what the article's name should be. Uncle G 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Koweja 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as it has been rewritten. Wonderful work everyone. (jarbarf) 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ordinance itself is notable, and has recieved sufficient attention from third party sources. Before the rewrite, the article would've best been scrapped, but the new version is mostly acceptable. I've changed my mind. Deranged bulbasaur 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may also like to contribute to the discussion of Common items used as paraphernalia (AfD discussion). Uncle G 18:46, 17 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:29Z

Promisance[edit]

Looks to be a webgame with no reliable secondary sources for verification. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Google returns no reliable sources. Wafulz 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promisance is an open sourced web game with many different branches. It is a notable project that has been going on since 1999 which was based off the concepts of Earth 2025. The article may need clean up and a total revision but it does not deserve to be thrown away. What do you mean by reliable srouces? --69.22.3.213 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean stuff described at WP:RS. Namely, non-trivial sources that have had to go through an editorial process. --Wafulz 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact game administrators and source code developers to source this article better.--C4smok 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using them as sources would be original research. --Wafulz 06:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an advertisement and a list of links. Fundamental Dan 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not third party sources given. Using game admins and devs would also be a conflict of interest, by the way. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say I'd be really disapointed if this article is deleted. I heard of promisance through some other sites but I absolutely no knowledge of it. This article helped me out a lot, and it would be a shame to remove a useful resource.

What is with the wave of people trying to delete articles. I've noticed this many times before. Is wikipedia really that low on database resources? This deleting craze is getting out of hand. I believe people have lost the sight of the original intentions of the deletion system, I believe this delete request to be unwarranted. Does this article need to be cleaned up? Yes, definitely. Should it be removed? No. 71.10.6.16 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't in regards to the database or available resources- articles are reflected in the availability of reliable sources. If multiple such sources can't be found, then a subject can't have an article. --Wafulz 18:59, 16 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Walk Networking[edit]

Public awareness walk, tagged for COI; regardless there no evidence to suggest that anyone even noticed it going on; delete --Peta 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete currently a self-promotion showpiece. Without expansion and secondary sources I doubt it'd ever become anything more. -- Longhair\^talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has greatly improved since my comments above, changing to Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep however lack of context - is what concerns me, there was a context in which the original project began - and there is no mention of that or the other groups with which it evolved - the editor claims needs time to add material... bit concerned that the editor was a newbie - and no attempt was made to 'welcome' the new user or give a benefit of doubt... SatuSuro 11:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comment - as there is a lack of context that is not necessarily the editors fault - I have started Conservation Council of Western Australia but even this is short in providing adequate context for the phenomenon of conservation organisations in western australia between 1980 and 1996 when the above organisation had appeared to have stopped its regular printed publications....Satu Suro 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I suspect that if I dug deep enough, I would discover that SatuSuro is right: this is a small but not insignificant part of the historic fabric of conservation and biodiversity awareness in Western Australia. But even if notable, is it verifiable? Hesperian 12:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As a comparison, consider Folly Fellowship and its corresponding Afd. I would like to see more references, even if they are not online; local newspaper articles are acceptable. I agree with SatuSuro; please dont steamroll this one as it will take time to find offline references. John Vandenberg 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am aware that guidelines exist for Wiki articles and also that there are guidelines for nomination for deletion. At the risk of sounding as if I am taking this personally (I am not) I will say that I am disappointed by the off-hand manner in which this process has been conducted by certain individuals, noting in particular that the first request for deletion came within 24 hours of the article's first appearance, by an editor who also removed the the stub notice. I take it that I should have placed the article under 'conservation,' however I'll repeat that this is my first article at Wiki. Part of my learning curve has been to realise editors here bounce back and forth between their own discussion pages to 'talk'...and that more comments existed than those on the GWN talk page. (continued without indent)

Of the editors and administrators who've commented so far, I'd like to thank SatuSuro for following nomination guidelines by welcoming me as a newcomer, suggesting improvements and finally for looking for references himself to improve the Great Walk Networking page. Also, for his thoughtful commentary: SatuSuro appears to know what Great Walk Networking is. In addition, Jayvdb has added further references: both since the request AFD notice went up.

In addition, on the GWN Talk page I've clearly indicated that the Great Walk "does not seek new members, financial contribution, nor does it seek to self-promote: This is not a 'non-notable autobiography or advertising/promotional page.'" Reference to the COI page lists:

Self-promotion:
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

The Great Walk Networking article does not fit these criteria, especially with the addition of external references that would render the claims of the page verifiable. I believe this point has been fully addressed on the GWN Talk page. While I am a member of GWN, I am not on a membership drive or attempting to promote an event. My genuine belief is that, with the help of others as has occurred during the last couple of days, this single concern will be addressed when the documentary from 1990 on GWN is digitalised and made available online, early copies of "Bambaroo" are made available online, and members of the GWN and other people from Western Australia are able to edit and enhance this page.

The only other grounds that have been made for deletion are notability. Again, with references that are available, but offline and will take time to source, there is no ground for deletion on notability criteria. I am concerned, however, that some (judging by comments on talk pages) are already using biased language to discuss grounds for deletion: "greenies", "bunch of bushwalkers", "itching" for a deletion, "It really could be speedied, and I certainly wouldn't blink an eye if you went ahead and did it..." In addition, no reason has been associated for this AFD and the person who made the nomination hasn't entered into the debate at all (in any meaninful way), so I can't address her concern directly.

There is a regretable lack of history regarding this type of movement: State funds have not been made available for anything other than a statewide history of the environment movement, and no one has been willing to undertake that task because the topic is too broad to prepare a meaningful history. Great Walk Networking is a unique example of a group that has a 20 year history, starting off as a protest event but evolving into a grassroots conservation movement. It does not lobby, form direct action, petition or engage in activities normally associated with conservation groups. Instead it provides opportunity to literally 'Walk' the land...both pristine and damaged...to people of all age groups. It is more than a bushwalking association...and arguably more closely linked to the One Voice Movement in philosophy. It is notable and of historical significance to the conservation movement and would make a good entry to this encyclopedia.

Offline sources spread between Denmark and Perth have been difficult to source, but the process is underway. I also ask that the page not be steamrolled. It's under development, hence the stub notice

I also thank Hesperian for removing the COI and comments made on the GWN Talk page.

Kind regards, --Greatwalk 10:06, 9 February 2007 (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) 02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty verifiable and notable for me. I don't see a problem with this article staying on and improving further. As an aside, can I say how nice it is to come across an articulate and civil new editor who's first encounter with Wikipedia is having her first article AfD'd. Sadly we seem to be being overrun with editors of the other type lately. I hope User:Greatwalk stays on and contributes further as we need the help —Moondyne 10:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article shows both verifiablity and notability of the topic. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well written and sourced and demonstrates enough notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are you people seeing "verifiablity and notability". Please discuss the sources because no one has backed up anything. There are NO souces at all. Numbers 2 and 3 are merely lists of non profit organisations with this organisation being mentioned in the list, not nobitibility is shown at all here to meet the WP:ORG standard. The 1st reference does not mention the organisation at all. No other verifiability or assertion of notibility, so it fails WP:N and WP:V. Further reading is two newsletters, and the book is only published and distributed locally and does not show any notibility of its own. Is it bad luck for the author it is but Wikipedia has standards because small non notable organisations like this are not encylopedic. To be kept it should haven notable media coverage etc. I did not found any mention when searching QLD newspapers back to 1995.--Dacium 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that reference 1 does not mention GWN. That's because it is a reference for the Campaign to Save Native Forests and South West Forest Defence Foundation organisations are mentioned in the text of the article. It would be illogical for every reference having to mention the article name. —Moondyne 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your last comment says everything. QLD newspapers are not the location of source of western australian environmental organisations. By the citeria you are setting, notability of considerable numbers of articles thoughout wikipedia would be taken off - many Australian state based organisations and issues in between states are simply not reported - have a look in national library of australia - is it mentioned there? Also - I challenge you to find any reference to the west coast tasmania wilderness railway in a western australian newspaper - it consumed the daily press the examiner and hobart mercury weekly because of nefarious dealings all around - i bet that never hit qld or wa press once.... Please try to look beyond newspaper sources. And to go to 1995 shows the article has not been read properly 1988-1995 was the main period in which it was getting local coverage in WA.... Satu Suro 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By arguments presented here - Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland should be up for afd as well? I think not - but it has equally less qualifying issues re V and N - apart from sheer age and and a link to Judith Wright Satu Suro 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Satu and am also unsure why Dacium has chosen to do a limited search (eg limited to a peculiar choice of years) of a Queensland paper (or papers? which? btw) to search for a Western Australian conservation organisation. Nonetheless, to say there are "NO sources at all" is not correct. Bambooroo is not a book (as a cursory inspection of the link would have verified), but was a local conservation magazine published by the Great Walk and it represented an early and important contribution to the conservation movement in WA. Its editors, btw, are still significant figures in conservation to this day. In addition, a PhD thesis including information about the Great Walk and a magazine article focused exclusively on GWN have also been cited towards notability. The references are given to verify material presented within the article, one Dacium mentions is listed to verify the formation of organisations in 1975 that simply no longer exist. Of course it is correct to reference the mention of them. Please also note this stub is only an introduction: the subject is notable in terms of Western Australian history, and is most certainly verifiable. Bambooroo, in particular, deserves an entire section on its own (and will get it, provided this article is given adequate time to get itself off the ground). Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:12, 16 February 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 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Geniuses 3[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Outside of its listing at Crystal Sky's website, there is virtually no mention of actual production news -- no screenwriter, no director, no cast. The film cannot be guaranteed to be made, and if the film ever enters production, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the arrow of time. When and if the movie is released it can have an article. Until then it is speculation about a subject that is sure to not be the subject of non-trivial treatment in multiple, independent reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also, the fact that the entire article plagarizes the website that it cites doesn't help it any either. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Purely speculative. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure speculation. And Baby Geniuses 2 was "incredibly successful"? Thunderbunny 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal balling with no predjudice against recreation if and when such a film is announced (and since there were multiple Air Bud and Look Who's Talking films, it's not impossible to imagine). 23skidoo 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without predjudice toward recreation. Fundamental Dan 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I should clarify recreation with sources when it meets WP:NOTABILITY Fundamental Dan 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crystalballery. No prejudice at this time to recreation, provided proper references. --Dennisthe2 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrated to Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Text on the article is a duplicate of the Crystal Sky website's text. --Dennisthe2 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballism at this point.-- danntm ^T _C 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I've contacted Crystal Sky, asking to do a Wikinews article on the movie. If they provide enough indication this is in development, then it's keepable. -- Zanimum 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~First of all, don't remove the speedy delete tag. Follow the instructions in the tag.~~ (Struck out previous statement; was under impression that tag was not supposed to be removed.) There has been virtually no mention of this film's development in the press -- the "development" phase is not enough. Many films spend their time in what's called development hell, and being in development is not a guarantee that the film will be made. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 17 February 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 and rename to Dual wield (if some variation of this, such as dual wielding or dual-wield is more correct, please go ahead and re-rename it). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:37Z

Akimbo (firearms)[edit]

Article is uncited original research about holding a gun in each hand in a video game. I don't know what else to say about this. It's a mess, and it's entirely POV. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I admit that the article needs a massive improvement, but deleting it is going a bit overboard IMO. --Koveras ^☭ 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. One source in the article, a book that mentions the word's origins but apparently nothing else (although if it does, now would be a good time to cite some of the rest of the article). Recury 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references provided Looks like a really long article, but with no references for verification it could very well be original research. Delete unless some references provided. Dugwiki 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is notable and frequently mentioned, shouldn't be deleted simply because it doesn't currently have references. Rather it should be improved. Mathmo ^Talk 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, if it's "notable", then the article needs to include references to show that it's notable. It also needs to provide references to show it isn't original research. So go ahead an improve them, if you feel you have the sources. Dugwiki 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need work, but is mostly accurate. I agree with Koveras that deletion is too extreme. SirBob42 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is apparently a slang term. Nothing in the article supports notability. If the article is so bad that it needs a massive improvement, then maybe deleting is a good starting point. Keeping an article that bad would itself be a bad precedent. Being notable is not the same as frequently mentioned. Vegaswikian 01:35, 12 February 2007 (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) 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the most excellent comments above. Otto4711 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have played dozens of games with "Akimbo" gun modes, but I have never heard this term. I have heard of "dual wield" with the same meaning, in any case I do not see any reason to think that this is a notable slang term. The "dual wield" phenomenon however is a notable video game and movie concept but this article is not much of a starting point and the name is probably wrong. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename - I agree with the above poster, "Dual wield" is the more common term, and should therefore be the name of the article after some edit-copying. If "akimbo" then redirects to this main article it would be more accurate. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel J Leivick. This is a NN variation of dual wield, which we should have an article for. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move Move to dual-wielding. It's easier to source and is more general than 'akimbo' as far as I can see. --Gwern (contribs) 05:57 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting Comment, I agree with the idea of moving to "Dual wielding". Mathmo ^Talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand to real-life and move to Dual wield. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and incorrect use of the term "akimbo." Should be called "Yosemite Sam [8] position since he was famous for it before any of the games were introduced." Edison 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's true enough that the cartoon character predated the games, but calling it the "Yosemite Sam Position" would introduce both notability and OR issues, since nobody actually calls it that - at least, no one who's used that phrase on a website reachable from a search engine (images by themselves would not contribute to an article without introducing POV commentary). The term dual wield can be verified, and is more popular and current than even the article's present name. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but vastly expand. Akimbo is an actual term that's used (3DRealms used it when talking about Duke Nukem Forever), and I actually came to this article wanting to learn more about it. ShadowMan1od 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, provide the references you're talking about in the article. Dugwiki 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to wikt:Akimbo — MrDolomite • Talk 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's worth keeping, but if you need you can merge to "Dual wield". MrMacMan 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It's interesting, and it's definitely a verifiable phenomena. Is it notable? I'm not sure, but I think that given what wikipedia does encompass a referenced article may be valuable. That or merge with Dual Wield (gaming). CredoFromStart 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting games related article, seems verrifiable, could do with some improvement. Artw 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with references. » K i G O E | talk 05:29, 19 February 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 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fermin Fautsch[edit]

Appears to be a business-person of questionable notability. I recommend delete. Philippe Beaudette 03:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fermin Fautsch is a legitamite business man who has done many deals including the biggest merger in Brazilian history. He should at least get a small section devoted to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Difautsch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 February 2007.
I should point out that the previous comment was by the author of the article, whose username includes the article subject's last name. Philippe Beaudette 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he is not a member of the top management of Edinfor[9], he is "Brazil managing director"[10], one of several people on the board of a subsidiary. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity bio, personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:26, 14 February 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 and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre[edit]

This article is unsourced, horribly POV, and a target for IP vandals. Nardman1 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a literary commentary/response to the content/issues in the movie, not an encyclopediac article about the movie. DMacks 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article has notability, hence the IP vandalism. It needs to be edited for NPOV, but to delete it could be a POV act in itself. I have asked for this page to be protected.--Shakujo 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The article itself is pretty bad, but the subject is notable, and it can be rewritten. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rewrite The article isn't good, but the movie seems notable--except that I had trouble finding any independent reliable sources on the film--I was getting mostly blogs, indymedia, forum postings, etc. If reliable sources can't be found then the article probably should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this article, but give me some time to find better sources: the Movie itself was big news in Europe because of political intervention by the then PM of Italy to censor it and punish the directors.--Shakujo 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The movie is rather notable. Even if the article needs rewriting, it is not so bad as to merit burning with fire. --Gwern (contribs) 05:56 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Agree with Gwern. --Pokipsy76 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the article is POV, change it to NPOV. And we never ever delete article because they are a target for IP vandals. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A notable subject, however this needs to be rewritten to focus on the cultural impact of the documentary, not an essay based on the topics covered by the documentary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up the article. Alf photoman 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. - Article needs more sources and be cleaned-up. --Bryson 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup. The reasons offered by the nom are reasons for cleanup/improvement, not deletion (the article itself is not inherently POV as it is about an actual documentary. The page has a number of reliable news and non-news references and the subject matter is thus notable. -- Black Falcon 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and overhaul the article needs to be rewritten to conform with WP:NPOV and so it discusses the documentary itself instead of simply the content of the documentary, but there is no indication that the documentary is not notable.-- danntm ^T _C 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film is notable, it would be nice if there was a section on the impact of the film and responses to it, at the moment the only thing of this nature in the article are attacks on the accuracy of the film.

There are links to the film itself which could be considered as a reliable source as to what the film is about and what statements it makes. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 13:04, 16 February 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. It's either merge or delete (definitely not keep), and given the comments, I think delete is a stronger argument. Proto ► 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleister Crowley in popular culture[edit]

A meaningless collection of WP:TRIVIA about Aleister Crowley. This should be deleted as an article bound to be an indiscriminant collection of information per WP:NOT, and because it is not, and will never be, properly sourced and fact checked. The Aleister Crowley article already mentions that Crowley crops up here and there in music, film, and print, but none of the items in this list of trivia would bear mentioning in the article. (Yes, I read them all.) Many of them merely mention characters named "Crowley", or things rumored to take Crowley as inspiration. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles are a bad idea. Delete. Mango juice^talk 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of barely related items, almost uniformly lacking references and entirely lacking any real-world context. This list is so bad, it gathers items that aren't even related to Crowley because someone somewhere thought once that maybe Crowley was pictured when he wasn't. Otto4711 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is useless listcruft, with no criteria for inclusion on the list, and no way to maintain. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced list of apperances or possible appearances, most with only minmal ties to the subject. None of the entries appear to be externally verifiable through the use of reliable, fact-checked third-party sources. ~~Delete~~ -- saberwyn 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what can be verified with sources, and delete the rest. Sit back and watch as the section bloats, is split out, then is nominated for deletion again. -- saberwyn 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, sort of the point is to avoid that cycle, by at least having a community action that rejects lists of trivia. But if limited to verified items, at least that addresses one thing. Unless someone steps up and tries to verify these things, though, that's going to consist of about two items. Mango juice^talk 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge to main Aleister Crowley article, or move to that article namespace as a subpage. --Gwern (contribs) 05:55 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Crowley article as he is a legitimate figure in popular culture. I suggest to the nominator that if he/she has an issue with the "in popular culture" article that he/she seek policy change, as to my understanding they are not prohibited so that alone is an invalid rationale for deletion. In this case, however, a merge is a better idea. 23skidoo 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one strongly oppose merging. It is unencyclopedic trivia that would do nothing but detract from the main article. Otto4711 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Wickedest Man In The World but only after a substantial trim to a handful of meaningful and verifiable entries. Alternatively delete it and have the Crowley article build up a tightly controlled verifiable popular culture section. MLA 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alf photoman 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I strongly oppose the merge of this info. It would cause the trivia section to dominate the guy's article Fundamental Dan 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced material, delete the rest, as per the above. I share Mango's concern that we'll just see it again shortly, but I'm not sure that's avoidable with a topic of such notoriety. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These messy lists of references have no place in an encyclopedia, either as part of an article or as stand-alones. They are research notes rather than article sections and should be replaced with structured paragraphs (though in many cases outright deletion wouldn't be much of a loss). Cloachland 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single thing on the list that is notable enough (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). The fact that it is impossible to verify or properly maintain it just makes the decision even easier. Merging it wouldn't change anything, just make the main article worse. Pax:Vobiscum 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge. 66.91.214.167

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under criterion A7. Alphachimp deleted with deletion summary "Deleting page per CSD A7: Article about a non-notable person". James086 ^Talk 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew lapsa[edit]

Non-notable. Google searches for "Andrew Lapsa" and "Andy Lapsa" return 16 and 10 results, respectively. CrazyLegsKC 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. -- MarcoTolo 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close article has been speedy deleted. i kan reed 05:45, 14 February 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 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Christian Academy (Tulsa)[edit]

Article is unsourced, school is non-notable, and reads like an ad (as its been tagged for awhile Nardman1 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the advertisement style violates NPOV, and there's some OR in there too. YechielMan 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Maustrauser 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advo and nn Fundamental Dan 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Ad. Corporal Punishment 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, we need a claim of notability and supporting references. These are not present, so the article should go. WMMartin 14:50, 15 February 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 most of the keep is per IZAK but the fact that it is "part of a series" treasured by a special-interest wikiproject is neither here nor there. The whole thing is totally unsourced anyway. Delete case is far stronger. Case for deleting the sublists is overwhelming, and just maybe the main article could be recreated as a sourced article without redlinks at a later stage - I'm deleting without prejudice to that possibility. -Doc^g 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peruvian Jews[edit]

Huge unmaintainble article-less list, full of non-notables, just in existence to try to prove some type of point, who knows. Listcruft. Also for all its subdivisions:

List of Other Jewish Peruvians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian archaeologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian performance artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian playwrights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Peruvian entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Usedup 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are these fundamentally different than everything in Category:Lists of Jewish Americans? --- RockMFR 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists of Jewish Americans are populated by blue links; the ones of Jewish Peruvians, by redlinks. YechielMan 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of Peruvian Jews is clearly some attempt to make a point about Jews in Peru's society. Notice the amount of businessmen. Wikipedia's comment on overcategorization tells us that categories like LGBT literature are reasonable but LGBT nuclear physics is not. Therefore we can derive that LGBT writers is a category worth having but LGBT nuclear physicists isn't. This same idea can be applied to lists and "overlisting." While Jewish Americans is a valid division of people because America has the biggest Jewish population in the world, Jewish Peruvians is not because Jews probably have no more than 10,000 people of their ethnic group living there. If this were allowed to continue, we'd be inviting representatives of any Peruvian-BLANK ethnicity making lists for somewhat notable people form their community. This opens up the opportunity for List of Peruvian-Italians, Peruvian-Chinese, Peruvian-CanaryIslander and so on. This same idea could be applied to List of Mexican Jews another massive red-linked list with no ultimate purpose except to prove some type of point. A category for both Peruvian and Mexican Jews is perfectly sufficient for anyone who does happen to be both Mexican/Peruvian and Jewish. Filling up lists with as many Mexicans and Peruvians you can find who's names sound Jewish is not encyclopedic or helpful. It is the list version of "overcategorization." See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Usedup 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried last year to tidy up the unholy mess that had been created around here (there was once a "List of Jewish Peruvian Astronomer", which included a grand total of one name) and was hopeful that someone would be able to write useful articles on some of the names here. That obviously hasn't happened, so at absolute best a viable solution would be to replace the list with a category into which those with articles can go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I looked at them all, and there is nothing worth saving. We could assemble the blue links into Category:Peruvian Jews if they aren't already there. YechielMan 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unnecessary profusion of lists. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all... except perhaps List of Peruvian Jews (although I don't see what sort of purpose it serves since it has 90% redlinks and no references whatsoever).Pascal.Tesson 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The smaller lists are no different from the bigger one. It's just divisions. Usedup 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Abstain Koptor 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up. The point of redlinks in a list is to point to articles that potentially need creating. Jcuk 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jcuk, if you google those redlinks, you'll see about 75% don't even make it past 1 or 2 pages on google search. There's no way these people are EVER going to have articles made about them. This list is basically just a community list of non-notables, which shouldn't be surprising, there aren't very many Peruvian Jews period. You're saying to keep a list that will always be like it is now. Usedup 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I said redlinks point to articles that "potentially" need creating. If nobody bothers after they've been there for X amount of time, sure, get rid. 2) I don't accept I'm saying keep a list which will always be like it is, but, if I am, then I'm as entitled to that opinion, and to express it, as you are to the opposite opinion. Jcuk 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all It is list cruft that has not much of a chance of being anything other than a list of redlinks. I have not seen so much red since a final I took in college. Fundamental Dan 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I would support keeping the List of Peruvian Jews if sources were provided that the people are indeed Jews in the occupations for which they are noted or if they were all bluelinks which could serve as "soft" references. But as neither condition holds, they should all be deleted. -- Black Falcon 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per List of Jewish Peruvian activists - List cruft, this is what categories are for, and I can't imagine an encyclopedic use for these lists. ^Khukri 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Jewish Peruvian archeologists"? "Jewish Peruvian archeologists"!! JEWISH PERUVIAN ARCHEOLOGISTS. Just to read the name is to see the best argument against it. Maybe Jewish Peruvian authors, but not in English Wikipedia. Spanish maybe. Being a Peruvian Jew may, in theory, lend something to a book or poem, but ... to archeology?Noroton 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Peruvian Jews ONLY and clean it up by removing excess red-linked names because it's part of a series relating to Category:Lists of Jews. IZAK 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a page for Peruvian Jews on List of Latin American Jews. Do we really need a separate article for it? Usedup 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have copied the 8 blue-links present in all of these lists (combined) to List of Latin American Jews#Peru. Those articles which do not assert that the subject is of Jewish background have been tagged with ((fact)) and may be removed. -- Black Falcon 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into List of Latin American Jews.--Runcorn 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Peruvian Jews ONLY and clean it up per IZAK. It is much more difficult to verify Peruvian Jews than those from America or Britain due to language problems; please let's not delete any names until some Spanish-speaking editors have checked.--Brownlee 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article per IZAK; good comment from Brownlee about referencing problems.--Newport 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I randomly selected five red links from the list and googled them. *Abraham Levy: [11] *Dora Blitchstein Winicki: [12] *Eddie Fleichman [13] *Moises Barack [14] *Isaac Falkon [15] I'm not sure what more evidence someone needs to prove these are nns, and more importantly, completely unable to be fully referenced. The idea that we should wait for Spanish speakers to come and TRANSLATE articles into English is hard to fathom. If the only things written about any of these people are in Spanish than they belong on the wikipedia and not on the wikipedia. All names with articles have already been moved to List of Latin American Jews by User:Black Falcon Usedup 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main list per IZAK. I note that the American and (to a lesser extent) British lists have sub-lists, but not those of most countries, so this is consistent.--Holdenhurst 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a section for verified Peruvian Jews already. See List of Latin American Jews. Typically, a country with a small Jewish population is added to a bigger regional list. See List of North European Jews and List of South East European Jews. Why then should we keep two versions of a list of Peruvian Jews? It doesn't make sense and is itself pretty inconsistent. Usedup 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously, the List of Latin American Jews will just link to the Peruvian list, just as many other similar lists just link to sublists. All that's needed is tidying up.--Holdenhurst 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all articles under Lists of Jews#By country and List of North American Muslims etc.--Sefringle 00:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per for 2 reasons (1) if Wikipedia sees fit to classify people by race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., then this article should be kept as part of the series of Lists of Jews by country, etc., and (2) the nom. hasn't proved the unencyclopedic nature of the article: redlinks in and of themselves doesn't mean something ought to be tossed -- nearly all articles start that way, it's an invitation to create articles -- and as for the nomination itself: hypothesizing some impure motive (as in "just in existence to try to prove some type of point, who knows") and invoking the magic word "Listcruft" is a poor explanation of why otherwise encyclopedic content should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 01:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is so frustrating. The information on this list isn't encyclopedic in the least bit. Please see my bolded comments for evidence. Usedup 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep --Java7837 04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IZAK.--Osidge 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per IZAK.Baka man 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK.--Runcorn 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jcuk's excellent arguments.--R613vlu 22:52, 19 February 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 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction near you[edit]

A non-notable band made up of University of Michigan law students that fails WP:MUSIC. The only citation is to a University of Michigan website. It has one self-produced single and only rumors of an upcoming album. The article was prodded, but an anonymous editor deleted the prod and edited the page to describe the band as a "too-cool-for-Wikipedia-to-believe rock combo" and noted a forthcoming YouTube video. I do not see this as being a sufficient assertion of notability. FreeKresge 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a bright-line test. Failing to meet a subjective standard of notability is not grounds for immediate deletion, and WP:MUSIC's notability standard can be fulfilled by publication in student newspapers, given sufficient other content in the link. The anonymous author edit has been deleted- although it is noteworthy to mention that the anonymous author DID edit more substantively than this Article intially asserted, adding a reference to an outside source (a student newspaper). That reference has been incorporated into the body of the article. I believe this article is sufficiently noteworthy as to avoid deletion. Full disclosure: I am not the author of this article, but I am a member of the band. Parliamentofravens 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it should be noted that Wikipedia at large has given pretty wide berth to student bands, allowing this stub Springhill(band) to persist unedited since August 2nd, 2006, despite its dearth of information and citations. Parliamentofravens 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be shown, through the use of information taken from externally verifiable, third-party sources, where this band is the subject of said cited source, showing that the subject passes the key policies of verifiability and no original research, and the guideline on use of reliable sources? Does this cited information show that the band passes the notability inclusion guideline for musically related subjects, a long-standing guideline for inclusion used by contributors to the site? I believe that if you can dig up multiple sources independant of the band that can be used to substantiate the claims made in the article, then it will stand a better chance of inclusion. -- saberwyn 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "wide berth" given to the other article you indicated, Springhill (band), please note that there are over one and one half million articles on Wikipedia. Not everything can be checked at once, and unfortunately some articles can languish for months or years without the appropriate attention. Also, articles should be improved per the policies and guidelines if possible, or if not, deleted. -- saberwyn 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use of student newspapers to establish notability has been disputed in the past. See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 7#School newspapers. (My opinion is that students being written about by their classmates doesn't demonstrate notability). cab 07:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per previous: It should also be noted that in non-campusnewspapers in towns of similar size to a university community, or even in large cities, that articles about groups in the town may be influenced by friendships between members of the group and the reporter or publisher, and that a campus paper with an independent editorial board can in fact be as reliable a source as a paper in the town, so there is no policy that they are automatically excluded. Each source should be judged on its own merits. Edison 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the newspaper in question is not the Michigan Daily, the main student newspaper. It is the Res Gestae, a law school specific newspaper. It is the University of Michigan web site that I noted above, so I did acknowledge it.--FreeKresge 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This band has not yet even done a recording, the article appears to be OR, and is POV. Fundamental Dan 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the creative legalistic debate above - simply doesn't meet the guidelines for band notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has failed to state a claim upon which notability can be granted.-- danntm ^T _C 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability, OR and POV issues. Also note for irony value that the stub cited as precedent for keeping an article of this type is now a red link. ShaleZero 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault. I nominated it for PROD deletion as there was no externally verified information in the article. It was upgraded to Speedy A7 during this time. -- saberwyn 10:16, 18 February 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 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1942[edit]

There was no Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention in 1942. Conant was an interim leader and was chosen by his predecessor. The actual convention was the next year and Conant was not a candidate, see Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1943. See also Ontario Liberal leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect have the article be about its cancellation instead or have it as a redirect to the next year's convention. Just H 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't cancelled, there simply was not one scheduled until the next year and that one has an article. This article is a bit like having US Democratic Party convention, 1963. There's no need for a redirect as nothing links to this article and no one would look up an article under this name since the assertion made by its title is false. Sixth Estate 04:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. However, if someone was searching for a leadership convention in 1942, is there a way to send them over to the right year? Maybe redirect all years without a leadership convention to the general article on leadership conventions. Just H 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without a redirect. If it never happened, it clearly fails WP:V and WP:RS. We don't need redirects based on fictitious events on the off-chance someone would look up something that doesn't exist or never happened. Agent 86 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the convention, never existed. GoodDay 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to have an article on a nonexistent convention.-- danntm ^T _C 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly per Dantm. GreenJoe 22:41, 17 February 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 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1899[edit]

The Ontario Liberal Party did not have its first leadership convention until 1919. See Ontario Liberal leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. wikipedia is not a reverse super crystal ball? i kan reed 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't look it up in a paper encyclopedia, so I'll just have to trust you. YechielMan 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the article creator simply assumed that every leadership change occured via a convention. Resolute 06:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not, as you say, a reverse super crystal ball. This article is just nonsense. --N Shar 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this convention never occured. GoodDay 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete per nom. GreenJoe 22:40, 17 February 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 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1896[edit]

The first Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention was not until 1919. See Ontario Liberal leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clear cut case of going needlessly far with article titles and/or original research. i kan reed 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. YechielMan 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1899. --N Shar 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this convention didn't occur. GoodDay 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. GreenJoe 22:39, 17 February 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 redirect and protect, given that this information already exists on another article. --Core desat 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Votes[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Inadequate info for an article. Everything in it (all 3 sentences) is included at Wii Channels#Everybody Votes Channel. Creator of the article removed PROD, merge request, and redirect and refuses to discuss the issue. TJ Spyke 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - Article should redirect to Wii Channels, not be deleted, but deletion is better than its current status. -- Exitmoose 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep - Article has expanded considerably with information and sources. -- Exitmoose 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried redirecting it, but the article's creator kept reverting it and refused to discuss the issue. TJ Spyke 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I did too, but was chided on my own talk page when I tried to do so. Oh well, hopefully we can reach a quick consensus. -- Exitmoose 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. A separate article is not needed. --- RockMFR 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect and protect~~ The article itself states that the context is limited: little is known as to what its purpose is. Jerry lavoie 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to reconsider my !vote, in consideration of recent article development. I do agree that the basis for this AfD seems to no longer apply, however, I still fail to see the notability of the subject. Since I am unfamiliar with computer games, game consoles and the associated culture, I am choosing to abstain from !voting on this one. Please disregard my whole participation in this debate. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wii Channels. There doesn't exist any rationale for proving notability, other than the fact that it's a channel. As such, it should only be mentioned in the channels article. Bladestorm 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RockMFR. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. If the page is notable later on, then it should be an article. As of now: it doesn't need a page. --RobJ1981 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectper RockMFR. Mausy5043 07:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. But why on earth would it a redirect need protection if the topic is covered in the target article? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

Protected redirects are used when one or more editor(s) believes it should be an article and keeps changing a redirect into a full article on the subject. The redirect is protected to prevent the article being recreated on that page. - X201 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I might support redirecting it, aren't we having this discussion just too soon.. This type of market research is kind of new, although the playstation 3 has according to Tim Rogers' article in games TM 51 something similar.. Maybe this could be interesting in a few weeks..
- That's kind of the point, there's no reason to assume that there's going to be an entire article's worth of information yet. At the moment the article is stubbly. Sockatume 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
~~Redirect and Protect~~. Keep, as the article has been improved. Ixistant 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems that somebody's removed the deletion notice. However, they've also added some significant content to the article. (At least, something that might warrant it having its own article) Is it still necessary to go through this procedure? Or would it be better to just leave it be? (Actual question; not rhetorical) Bladestorm 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The added content is basically a game guide. --- RockMFR 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. TheCoffee 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Take it to Wii Channels and shorten it. That one individual channel does not really need an article. SuperSonic 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Already covered in the Wii Channels article, reads like a press release. Fin©™ 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect Same as others have said. Not notable enough at the moment to have it's own article, everything that needs to be covered is in the Wii channels article. Protect because of the recreation of the page after a valid redirect. - X201 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There have been new sentences added since it was added to the other page. Why is there a Delete tag and not a Merge one? TheListUpdater 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was at one time, but it was deleted by article creator. -- Exitmoose 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now much, much longer than it was when this discussion started, and the nominator's reasons for deleting it are no longer valid. TheCoffee 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not very much bigger. The whole article is about a few paragraphs (which can easily be described in the Channels section still.) If the channel grows alot, and becomes more notable: the article can always be re-created. RobJ1981 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. As everybody has said, a separate article is not needed. If it becomes more notable in the future, things can always be changed later. --Captain Cornflake 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has some good info now. nuff said.Purplepurplepurple 14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was first going to comment and say redirect and protect but now it really looks like it's starting to flesh out. I say keep it. Give the page a chance.Neo Samus 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo Samus (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC).— Neo Samus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The current status of the article is more than acceptable, and provides plenty of room for expansion as more information becomes available. Jbanes 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect There's no reason to assume that more information than what we know now about the Everybody Votes Channel will ever become available. It's a simple idea, with a simple execution, and fits much better as a subentry on the Wii Channels page than as its own page. Klondike 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is Iwouldnt have found this page otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinfan23 (talk • contribs)
- That is not a valid reason. TJ Spyke 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is going to be more info. I have just added a Results part which is going to tell the winning votes in a poll.Pendo 4 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect as the nominator. The results section is just cruft. Remove all the other cruft and the instuctions on how to use the channel (which is not allowed) and you have info that can be (and already is) covered at Wii Channels. Also, this is a discussion and not a vote. So votes like Purplepurplepurple won't carry much (if any) weight when deciding what to do with this. TJ Spyke 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If all the Wii Channels simply have all their information on the Wii Channels page, then eventually that page will be crowded and hard to read and manage, very un encycolpedic (if that's a word). Also, information will have to be limited due to space constraints, and this will result in poor quality information. All in all, every Wii Channel that has some significance (Minus Virtual Console channels and built in wii channels, and any trivial channels) deserves it's own article, as this is the mission of wikipedia, to be a global knowledge repository, to provide the masses with an easy to use, and reliable encyclopedia, to give the gift of information, even on something so trivial as a ballot. That's my take anyways. Leif902 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It isn't. - Vague | Rant 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another short comment (Sorry)... If This article deserves to remain undeleted, then the Everybody Votes article surely does, just give it stub status and people will respond and fix it up. Already it's been given references, etc. This discussion is rather out of date. Information is comming.Leif902 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't deserve an article, and that's why I just prodded it. Also ,the "so and so article exists, so this one should too" argument doesn't work on Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd actually like to vote "postpone the AFD for 2 weeks", but Keep means the same thing. Deletion is always very drastic. Let's see how it evolves, then vote again. Peter S. 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are forfeiting your vote? Because you have not given a reason for your keep vote (so your vote probably won't be counted). Also, I am proposing to turn it into a redirect, not deletion. TJ Spyke 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My my my, aren't we aggressive today? :-) What I'm saying: 1 day after something has come out, the implications on society, life, gaming history and the legacy of the Wii cannot be seriously addressed, and therefore it is too early to give a definite answer whether to delete or keep the article. Since I do not wish for somebody to create the article again in a few weeks when we can address this question more clearly, I want to preserve the article now. And since we cannot foster a proper article by killing it prematurely, my vote here is keep. Cheers. Peter S. 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't about votes, it's about the best statements for and against the article. RobJ1981 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i'm jus trying to remind people of that since it seems like most of the people saying "Keep" aren't actually providing a reason. TJ Spyke 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Protect if neccesary. I really would like to say keep, but I don't see how this couldn't be covered in a paragraph or two in the Wii Channels article. Also, its just simple opinion polls. If they had some serious voting, like on characters to add to Super Smash Brother Brawl or anything else that could affect future development, then it would probably warrant its own article. And I don't see how it would start cluttering the main channel's article. We do have something known as a table of contents with jump-to-here links. -TwilightPhoenix 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just look at the article, damnit. There's nothing wrong with it at all. Deleting it because 'it could also just be written in one paragraph on the Wii Channels page' is dumb. We could also just write one paragraph of the Internet Channel on the Wii Channels page, and delete that article. Why don't we? Because Wikipedia is meant to provide information. Why can't Wikipedia provide more than just one paragraph of information on the Everybody Votes channel? VDZ 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Channel has potential to be expanded since the current version is a trial and its very likely many more features, and thus more information, when the final product is released. This channel is pretty much in its final form and, unless we start listing polls or something significant is polled, very little, if any, more information will become available. Most of the information not found in the Wii Channels article is about how to use the channel. The two or three lines could easy be merged to the Wii Channels article. If any of the articless channels deserve one, it would be the Mii channel in my opinion. -TwilightPhoenix 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that this article was nominated for deletion far too quickly! Good information on the page and a worthwhile expansion of the Wii Channels article. Tim 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion may not carry much weight since I just registered, but there doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an article yet. The Wii Channels page seems to say all that is needed about the channel. Lrrr IV 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This provides information, and will quickly become a very good article. I think maybe every Official Nintendo channel (excluding the default channels such as the News and Weather and Photo channels) merits its own article just as every individual piece of software in a series merits its own article. You wouldn't just make one article for every game in the Legend of Zelda series would you? No. So don't just make one article for all of the Wii Channels. They are individual items, and information on them will be needed and easier to find if they have their own articles. Leif902 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Haha. I guess this page did kick off! This is what I was talking about when I said more information would be added! I now think this article has enough info to have its own page. Oh, and for the interested (and if you didn't realize it), I wasn't entirely serious about all my revisions last night (Check my userpage for proof). Late night boredom is a terrible thing. I am glad to see the page got more information, though! Steve HP 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is my third time that I say to keep and I am continuing. This boat load info is to big to not be an article. Even though it started small it grew massive.65.10.162.29 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the arguement against it and none are legimet. For example "not every channel needs its own article" this is true, they don't NEED an article but WHY would it hurt to have one. I think it would increase the amount of information o wikipedia and therefor be helpful. Penubag 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such A Strong Keep I Am Not Being Funny: Hey everyone. If you want to keep this go to the article debating on it.Pendo 4 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far there has not been any reason why this article should exist. All the RELEVANT info (i.e. not cruft or instructions) is already covered at Wii Channels, so there is no reason this should not just be a redirect. TJ Spyke 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Sure, the article may be limited in information, and I suppose it could be merged with another article...however, there are no articles I can think of that would be a good merging-platform other than the Wii Channels Article. If you must move it, merge it there. Otherwise, let it grow. Introbulus 15:10, 17 February 2007 (EST)
Question When is the decision on this discussion supposed to be made? -TwilightPhoenix 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" 05:18, 14 February 2007 TJ Spyke (Talk | contribs) (nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)". An AfD discussion lasts for 5 days. It will end on 19 February 2007 at 05:18. I have no idea in what time zone that is, but I do know that it will end the 19th of February. VDZ 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I read the arguement against it and none are legimet. For example "not every channel needs its own article" this is true, they don't NEED an article but WHY would it hurt to have one. I think it would increase the amount of information o wikipedia and therefor be helpful. Penubag 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2: Celebration Stuff[edit]

speculation right in the text. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The game hasn't been announced and speculation based on whats in an online store isn't the basis for an article. Until this is announced there is no reason for article. Same with all the previous expansions/stuff packs/add ons that have occured in this series. If people want to speculate there are endless fan site forums to do so.Crossmr 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article even says that the game has NOT been announced by Maxis (develope of The Sims franchise) or EA (publisher and owner of the Sims IP). TJ Spyke 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Future project + No reliable source(no sources at all) + No announcement from publisher = No more page. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added _SUBWAYguy 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save there is now a pre-order bonus from Gamestop, they only put pre-order bonuses for games that will come out—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markintellect (talk • contribs) 15:33, February 15, 2007.
Until EA confirms it, its speculation. I've never seen in the past a game store advertising its pre-order bonus before EA even announced the game. Game stores have speculated in the past about what something is going to be called.--Crossmr 15:40, 15 February 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 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What'sBest! Excel Spreadsheet Solver, LINGO Modeling Language[edit]

Non-notable products and free advertisement for the software, as far as I can tell. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The only reason the tag is off is because the author has repeatedly removed it. The author was warned once, but that was it. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the speedy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete barring rewrite and verifiable sources don't bite the newbies by speedy deleting instead of stating how article could be improved. i kan reed 05:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Leebo nailed it on the pin - it's a blatant ad in both cases. YechielMan 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too bad young people who develop software so often run into a brick wall when they want to advertise their accomplishments to the world. Can we develop a procedure for redirecting them to an online shareware forum, or something like that? DavidCBryant 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. i kan reed is wrong to say that we shouldn't bite the newbies: we shouldn't bite "honest" newbies. People who are simply posting adverts should fall between our jaws immediately. By the way, note that the LINGO Modeling Language is nothing to do with the more well-known LINGO, or the one invented in the 1970s. WMMartin 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened the entry to more closely follow the style for other mathematical modeling system wikipedia entries, namely those for: AIMMS, AMPL, CPLEX, GAUSS (software), General Algebraic Modeling System(GAMS), IPOPT, KNITRO, Mathematica, Matlab, and SNOPT. Any suggestions on how to make this entry more comparable to these other entries would be appreciated.--Srinnath 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "notability", or "popularity" LINGO and What'sBest! are well known in Operations Research departments, e.g., the classic text, "Introduction to Operations Research", 8th edition, by Hillier and Lieberman, McGraw-Hill, makes numerous references to LINGO and What'sBest! and devotes Appendix 3.1 (10 pages) entirely to LINGO Modeling Language.--Srinnath 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Hillier & Lieberman text is the first book of two textbooks listed as a reference in the Operations research Wikipedia entry. The Table of Contents of Hillier & Lieberman can be viewed at: Amazon --Srinnath 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. WP:NOT an instruction manual. The articles are too spammy, and the What'sBest article is a how-to guide, not a description. If someone, even Srinnath, is willing to start from the groud up and create articles which are not press releases or instruction books, with proper references, they should be able to. Αργυριου (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that WP is not an Instruction manual. I've just added an example to the description which is just to show the working of What'sBest! and defintely not as a How to guide. There was a similar example on one of the Wikipedia entries at : General Algebraic Modeling SystemHowever, since you consider my example as a how to guide, i've deleted that part. I don't think there's any part in the articles that's spammy. If you believe there's any part that's spammy, could you please let me know, so that I can alter it? --Srinnath 20:12, 15 February 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 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carniphobe[edit]

I cannot verify the supposed originator of this word. Is it a neologism? Cybergoth 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism; google searches for "carniphobe" and "carnophobe" turn up few results and no good sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neoglism that is plainly not in common usage. i kan reed 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. If deletion doesn't meet consensu, merge to author's page. --Gwern (contribs) 05:53 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the School rule Fundamental Dan 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki isn't a dictionary. At best it would need to be "Carniphobia", as you don't have articles about a "Vegetarian", but "Vegitarianism". Such trivial information would better be served, if at all, on the "trademarker's" article. Is Jeremy Eckhart even a real writer? I searched out on Amazon and turned up nothing. It could be the editor is the individual who "coined" the term. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undocumented neologism. WMMartin 15:05, 15 February 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 Merge to Half-Life 2. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:45Z

Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms[edit]

What makes this list encyclopedic or of value? The sole reference is a forum thread, which last I checked wasn't considered a reliable source. If the article is only a rehashing of whats in that thread I don't see the value or benefit of it being on wikipedia. I realize that HL2 is a big important franchise in the gaming world, but every little detail and piece of minutia surrounding it are not necessarily important or needed coverage. To nip it in the bud, arguments from WP:ILIKEIT aren't good reasons to keep this article.Crossmr 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Some of the stuff the article covers is notable--the source code leak, for instance, was a big deal at the time, and reliable sources could be found for it--see here and [16], for instance, assuming that The Register is a RS. There's also this on cnnmoney.com. The forum post might be a reliable source as well, since it was made by the president of Valve. However, I think anything that can be sourced will probably fit in Half-Life 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The post on sciforums links to a non-existent steam thread. At the most the original post made by an identifiable company individual can be considered reliable (one of the only things a forum post can be used for) but none of the resulting comments from Joe User can be used as a source for anything. So really we have no sources in the article. I know the source code leak was big, and it would make sense to merge that one item with the parent article, but if nothing else can be properly source it should be removed.--Crossmr 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article is of value; I'm not convinced deleting it is the best way to deal with the genuine controversies and criticisms aired about HL2. --Gwern (contribs) 05:53 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article without proper sources is inherently without value on wikipedia. Unless sources can be provided, regardless of is "value" it doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. I don't believe any so-called criticisms of the game are widespread enough to justify a separate article which by its very existence comes off as a bit of a POV fork. If merging adds too much content to the HL2 article, there may be items here that could be instead merged with the article on Valve Software. To reply to the comment by Crossmr, lack of sources is not an immediate cause for deletion; even the current guideline/policy (whatever you call it) allows for time for sources to be added and this can be done as part of the merge. There are plenty of "of value" articles on Wikipedia that either lack sources (and are awaiting addition of same upon request) or have sources but in the POV of some editors the sources aren't valid. 23skidoo 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a primary source. So the truest piece of information in the world really doesn't add to an article if you can't prove it. The article has been around long enough that someone should have provided sources. I asked 8 days ago, and none have been provided or even discussed as on the way. I'm not saying there aren't sources, but if this article goes through an AfD, and all we end up with is some sources on the source code leak, I don't feel comfortable merging anything else until sources are provided for the information. WP:V places the burden of evidence on the editor who wants the material kept. There is no requirement to keep the material indefinitely or move it around until someone can be bothered to look to see if there is actually a source for it.--Crossmr 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim down to the things verifiable from reliable sources (like the source code leak). The main HL2 article is already big and this was probably a split off from that, so merging back might not be a good idea. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any non-OR into Half-Life 2. Just H 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Half-Life 2 if possible, otherwise keep. There's all sorts of articles about some of this stuff at BBC News, such as the source code leak, the Vivendi dispute, and the lag-tastic launch day. Steam's own tech support pages can cover technical faults, and i've got an old PC Gamer somewhere with an article about the stuttering bug. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Half-Life 2 page or keep. Its just some random facts that are cool and interesting I never knew about most of that stuff. --Actown ^Talk 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Wiki doesn't collect info. A comprehensive page of every criticism is hardly encyclopedic. It should be merged with the main article, and trimmed of less reliable sources. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has information which is bot interesting and useful to people having problems with the game or Merge to the Half Life 2 page- though the HL2 page is pretty bulky without this page added onto it. I think that the link to this page that already exists on the HL2 page is the best idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.11.206 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Interesting and useful are not valid reasons for keeping something on wikipedia, again read WP:ILIKEIT.--Crossmr 15:54, 17 February 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 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RG Properties[edit]

Cunning advert: company notability assertion comprises list of celebs who have performed in their facilities. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Doesn't assert how WP:CORP is met. --Gwern (contribs) 05:52 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. Not a listed company, google hits are mostly about other companies. It is well known and in the press in British Columbia, owns a hockey team and is in construction but those things don't reach the standard. Although I did some of the editing, (linking) I think it should go. --KenWalker | Talk 06:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does assert notability, but fails. --Selket ^Talk 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per KenWalker.--Keefer4 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not so sure about this; I don't like the overblown list of people who've played facilities operated by or through hosting services by this company (whichever; I should read it more closely but it seems to be somewhat both), but it still seems to have an important profile in the local entertainment-services infrastructure sector. The Washington Group, another holding company and also Orca Bay Entertainment (hmm, maybe I don't have those names right?...I wonder hmmm about Perryscope, which should have an article), are the same kind of fish; not notable in the public eye, but very much so within the economic infrastructure. I think it needs paring-down, and a less press-release kind of sound, but the ownership of the Victoria hockey team and certain other items in its list of assets/enterprises make it notable, if only on a BC/Victoria level basis.Skookum1 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references; appears to fail WP:CORP. WMMartin 15:04, 15 February 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 merge to Max Payne. --Core desat 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Valhalla[edit]

Somebody contested this as a speedy deletion, and I'm not quite sure why. It makes no sense to me, nor does it assert notability. YechielMan 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Max Payne - assuming this is genuinely a part of the Max Payne fictional universe. --Gwern (contribs) 05:51 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: yes it is. Fiction confuses me, but I think that since it's a major part of the plot it's verifiable through the work of fiction itself. i kan reed 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to Max Payne. A fairly notable game, but there won't be any more information about it than is presently in the article. It would also help a reader grasp that the article is discussing a fictional project. i kan reed 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. In addition, there was some misunderstanding about the speedy deletion request. The article was redirect to a now deleted target article[17] and it was this version that was nominated for speedy deletion [18]. Naturally, someone reverted back to the original article, wihout CSD tag, as that version was never nominated for deletion [19]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If it's a part of the game then it needs to be addressed there. Sources would be nice also, but it doesn't deserve its own page. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:30, 14 February 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 Keep. At best, this is a mistakenly created AfD. Informing the editor of their honest mistake now... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Juris Civilis[edit]

does not deserve wikipedia article because the main article Justinian I already mentions and describes the code.

User:dddkki 6:36 UTC.

Speedy keep. I'll try to say this kindly, because it seems that the nominator (from now on, "you") is new to AFD and isn't yet familiar with how it works. The number one rule for deleting articles is that there needs to be something wrong with that particular article. For example, if you write an article that says, "I played baseball with my friend and we made a youtube video and we will sell you the video for $3.14," that's bad for multiple reasons: it's not verifiable (how does anyone else know it happened?), it's not notable (why should we care), and it violates "neutral point of view" (it's an advertisement). The article that was nominated has none of those problems - it's totally fine. It contains some material that's not in Justinian I. However, if you think that Corpus Juris Civilis should not have its own article, you should suggest a merge with Justinian. If you want to know how to do this, leave me a message on my talk page. YechielMan 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. So much for assuming good faith: the nominator has no edits on Wikipedia except this AFD. YechielMan 06:08, 14 February 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 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Ubriaco[edit]

Non-notable. Biggest claim to fame was that she was a city counsellor. Djsasso 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable writer & politician. Only reference provided has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Caknuck 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one source [20] which is the minutes of a meeting recording what she said, she is not the primary subject. Other sources are mirrors of this article. No reliable sources and not verifiable. James086 ^Talk 08:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:55, 14 February 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 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahony[edit]

Delete: No reliable sources to back up assertions of notability, few google results [21]. Heimstern Läufer 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert notability. Caknuck 07:28, 14 February 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 Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Anderson[edit]

nn model, failed WWE Diva Search contestant, and no one who isn't full-time employed by WWE has an article, and many have been deleted, including, but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The movie roles are bit parts/cameos at best. Prod was kept for a few days but removed by anon vandal. The 2nd nomination had just 3 users voting keep, but the arguments were very weak. She should not have a page. Booshakla 06:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If at all possible, I'd like to point out that the previous AFDs were complete a long time ago, with little activity or hard evidence to keep the article and it was kept by default. So please read the previous AFDs and try to use evidence related to the subject and not the previous discussions. Booshakla 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete reason G4. -Selket ^Talk 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Caution, this is not G4, which is only used for AfDs resulting in delete. The last nomination (2nd) was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I clicked on the big link that said "2nd nomination" above, and saw the result was delete. I posted "speedy delete" not realizing that that link was to a different article. I'll be more careful in the future. --Selket ^Talk 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been through two recent AfD processes --Kevin Murray 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Keep I object to this shop for a jury AfD. If it was notable in the past two processes it should be left alone. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a reason to vote that way. I have given links to 7 of these contestants, who have equal notability to Camille, and they have all been deleted. The 2 AFD processes (which are not recent, at least 5-6 months old) had very few users commenting, and the evidence was pretty poor, along the lines of "we don't need to delete everyone" or "she seems notable". The first one was a no consensus, and the other was posted far too soon compared to the first one. This article should be deleted like the others, no questions asked. Booshakla 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfD is all about asking questions and following procedures. Technically we don't "vote" at AfD we form consensus. You seem to perceive your judgement to be better than all of the AfD participants who suggested "Keep" and the admins who evaluated the consensus. Isn't that a bit arrogant?
At my age 6 years is recent, 6 months is a blink.
First AfD was 3 keeps and 1 delete.
Second AfD was 3 keeps and 0 delete.

--Kevin Murray 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been improved with references and more text. Far from perfect, but it now makes the standards for notability and verifiability (ESPN and Austin Chronicle), with more than Diva to her credit: Ms Austin USA & minor appearances in major films; collectively she is noticed which is all that is required per primary notability standards. Also note that BIO is under dispute now. --Kevin Murray 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with any of your opinions. The reworking of the article just affirms that she isn't notable under WP:BIO. Her part in Wedding Crashers was a bit part, she isn't listed on the first page of the IMDB profile page. The 7 AFDs I have listed are equally or even more notable than her, and they were all deleted. The sources you give don't pass WP:RS, and you need far more than those (and can't just be mentions in passing) to pass WP:BIO. And 6 months is a long time between AFDs, I don't care how you view time, that's not the issue here. A vast majority of users here would agree with me that 6 months is a long, proper time to wait before relisting. Booshakla 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are also clairvoyant and read the minds of the vast majority. Stop trolling the discussion in micro detail. --Kevin Murray 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to go, your arguments are laughable and crap. Booshakla 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note User Booshakla has been warned and blocked before, and is approaching the fine-edge again. --Kevin Murray 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Booshakla. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should have be relisted to generate more dicussion both times instead of closing off as keep. Should relist list the past votes and get an even bigger dicussion. 3 or 4 passing comments is not enough.--Dacium 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand, for sure, but keep. Did the subject suddenly become unnotable since surviving two previous AfDs? Jeff Silvers 04:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't survive 2 AFDs, no one commented on them, and they defaulted. Very faulty reasoning above, the 2 afds were total bunk. This article needs to go pronto, not notable, no RS, just total trash and should not be on WP. Booshakla 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two AfDs. After each one, the article remained. How is that not surviving two AfDs? Anyway, I'm not an obsessive inclusionist nor am I a fan of Anderson's; I'd just rather see this expanded than deleted outright. Jeff Silvers 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn model, the past AFDs are not convincing (should have been extended), plenty of other diva search losers have had articles deleted, and a bit part in a movie and a bunch of non-reliable sources in passing don't merit an article. Biggspowd 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on why you feel that ESPN and the Austin Chronicle are "non-reliable sources." Thanks! --Kevin Murray 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the argument that "other diva search losers have had articles deleted" isn't valid enough on its own to justify deleting this article. Jeff Silvers 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biggspowd has made nine contributions during his three weeks at WP, four of which have been to AfD's proposed by Booshakla. We shouldn't be too harsh here, but I wonder why he is invloved with AfD so soon? --Kevin Murray 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kevin Murray. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:17, 18 February 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 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 71[edit]

Subject is a rumored event that has not been reliably reported on yet. All information about this event that is known and confirmed is generic, it does not deserve (yet) an article per WP:NOT. Prod was removed without reason, and by the same anon user who unprodded UFC 70. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 67. hateless 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal-balling and an unsourced article. On a side note, the removal of prods doesn't require a reason -- the text says that "if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason" you can remove it. Dylan 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UFC 70 hasn't even been confirmed, yet alone 71. Also, it's usually just anon IP's that remove a PROD for no reason, I think a reason should be given in order for it to be removed (otherwise it can be put back up). TJ Spyke 08:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced "crystal ball" article with nothing except generic information and rumors. Thesaddestday 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everything else said above. Lewis 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this event will almost certainly occur, these kind of events should not have pages created for them until a reliable source confirms them. We can recreate the article when that happens. VegaDark 07:24, 18 February 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 Merge to Woolco. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:47Z

List of former Woolco locations[edit]

Do I really have to explain this one? A list of places where a defunct store used to be is hardly notable or encyclopedic. Dylan 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably unverifiable, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --N Shar 07:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco as of interest to indicate how widespread a chain this was, although in fact a good chunk of this could easily be retitled "List of Wal-Mart locations in Canada" because that's what happened. 23skidoo 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the chain was still operating, this article would be contrary to Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Agent 86 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Woolco and its "$1.44 day" were notable when the company operated, and even though the company is defunct, it retains its notability. There's another interesting aspect to the list. When Wal-Mart acquired the Canadian Woolco chain (Woolco stores in the U.S. having previously gone out of business), it closed at least one Woolco store where the workers had voted to join a union. The list of locations is useful for understanding the regional strengths and weaknesses of the American and Canadian chains. --Eastmain 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one is suggesting deletion of Woolco. Just because Woolco may be notable does not make this list encyclopedic. Wal-Mart's actions upon purchasing the company can be succinctly stated in either the Woolco or Wal-mart article. Whether one can draw the conclusions you imply from a simple directory is questionable, and whether or not something is "useful" (like a phone book) does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Agent 86 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp is not a directory. All this is is a list of locations for the now defunct stores. And it is missing many countries outside of the USA. meshach 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fundamental Dan 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco, which is a pretty short article. A list of Woolworth stores might be notable, since that company was a real landmark in the 20th century, but Woolco? I see no harm in sticking the list below the Woolco article. Noroton 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco. I created the list of former Woolco locations article, and I wouldn't mind if it were merged with the main Woolco article. As Noroton above stated, the Woolco article is rather short. TenPoundHammer 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too long to merge into Woolco article --Caldorwards4 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to vote a second time, but another idea just came to my mind, and I hope that it will be considered. If the list is merged into the main Woolco article, why not make it a collapsible list like on the page for Dillard's? That would solve the length issue. TenPoundHammer 16:52, 17 February 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 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

103.5[edit]

This article is badly misnamed and does not provide enough information to be verifiable. I'd be open to keeping the article if someone can find a call sign for the station, though -- I couldn't on Google. N Shar 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. -Selket ^Talk 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the FCC, no radio stations in the area broadcast on that frequency. I couldn't find anything on Google to substantiate the article. Caknuck 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:HOAX --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hundreds of stations broadcasting on 103.5 FM in the world. If they want to keep it, they can recreate this article under the call letters like everyone else. --UsaSatsui 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. As UsaSatsui says there are many 103.5 stations (there is another in my home). meshach 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This number represents a high fever if you're a human, a PL tone for amateur radio use, and a frequency on the FM broadcast band for the United States. It is not suitable for the denotation for one radio station in Nebraska, because there are other radio stations that use this frequency. Strong Delete. --Dennisthe2 22:27, 14 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Paul Humphries[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Claim to fame was being executed. Is that a notable criteria for inclusion here? Vegaswikian 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way I read WP:BIO, The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person this is a keeper from the references in the article. Maybe WP:BIO needs some updating, but as I read it, this stays. --Selket ^Talk 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is the central criteria. But which of the criteria below that which establish notability does he meet? Having reliable sources is not the only criteria. Vegaswikian 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas, I'm shocked. The list below the primary criterion are only special cases for automaic inclusion. The guideline reads: "The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." --Kevin Murray 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

Keep, the criteria on WP:BIO don't all have to be satisfied, one is enough – Qxz 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to really understand that the special situations are for inclusion not exclusion. This is a big problem with instruction creep. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bad joke, right? This guy was the subject of a successful death penalty murder prosecution leading to his execution. On what planet is that not notable? It's not just the WP:BIO notability guideline that gets turned on its head and used to AfD articles because they do not meet the no-brainer criteria, even when the notability should be a no-brainer anyway. The whole body of notability criteria are in need of a serious rethink. Dhaluza 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So of the thousands of people who have been executed for a crime they committed, all merit article? Vegaswikian 03:32, 15 February 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. --Core desat 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYUHome Dinosaur[edit]

Prod was rejected, so now it is in AfD... Seems to be on an "Easter Egg" on the the school's website. On closer inspection it is not really a hidden egg, ONLY A PICTURE that comes up from time to time. The article cites no sources, and therefore does not meet any notability criteria under WP:WEB, nor is it verifiable. If we could get published references there might be a slim chance of keeping it, but otherwise this should go. Also fails Google Test... Danski14 07:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable: no sources, no independent coverage. --N Shar 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An image that randomly pops up on a Web site, no matter how many people join its Facebook group, is not encyclopedic. Caknuck 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random image in a non-notable website.Has no notability whatsoever. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not and unlikely to ever be the subject of multiple independent reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been noted in NYU's campus paper, Washington Square News and seems to have a loyal following at NYU BrotherSulayman12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mention in campus newspaper does not satisfy criteria #1 in WP:WEB. It isn't even a clever Easter egg with unique encyclopedic value - just a cute picture on the website. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Noetic Sage 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Square News and seems to have a loyal following at NYU snoops12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.229 (talk • contribs).[reply]

Comment Is this meant to be a vote? And please login and sign with 4 tildes rather than hard coding a user name (which we have no way of knowing if is really yours) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since most of you have voted, the article has been cited by a local newspaper. Furthermore, it was deemed noteworthy enough to get the front-page spread. Erikdidriksen 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : did you even read WP:WEB??. Sources related to the subject of the article do not count. Furthermore, there is a violation of WP:SELF here as the article talks about the wikipedia article itself. The wiki article, was a probably a stimulus for this "craze" among NYU students. I put craze in quotes because the article does not actually explain the importance of the subject, or the relative size of the facebook group to similar groups or the student body as a whole (not that facebook size in an indication of importance anyways)). Danski14 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Yes, I have read it; and in no way is the NYU tech department, a group of computer professionals, dependent or directly connected to the staff of the Washington Square News. That'd be like saying a journalist investigating Wal-Mart is connected to them because they frequently shop there -- the tech people who brought about the dinosaur's existence have merely created a service that NYU students (and, by association, the WSP staff) use. I can't say much regarding the inclusion of Wikipedia article; however, I can assure you its inclusion on Wikipedia had little to no effect on the spread of the 'craze;' that anyone is aware that it is on Wikipedia is a direct result of direct linking from the Facebook group, which is the start of much of the hype. Finally, what reasoning do you use for not having the "importance of the subject" directly given in the article? It is something that has captured the imagination and interest of students across one of the largest universities in America; how is this any less relevant than, say, another article in the In-jokes category? Erikdidriksen 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 'nuff said. ~MDD 46 96 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with some other NYU related article. While it might not seem totally relevant to everyone, NYU is the nation's largest private University and this is on par with the other In-Jokes as a previous poster stated. This happens a lot when an article has an eye-catching name for those who patrol the newly created pages and is more relevant than a completely irrelevant article with an innocuous name. JesseRafe 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't have a problem with a merge, although I don't know where it can be merged. I looked over the NYU main page, and the page is already seems very list-heavy on "jargon", "trivia", and "traditions". Therefore, I would like to propose that we create a page "NYU traditions" or "Student life and culture at NYU", (simliar to Student life and culture at MIT). This is just a suggestion... I'm not sure how much should be merged into any new article. Obviously you would want to keep the most notable traditions on the main page... so it might not be a good idea right now. Danski14 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Its just one (of many) images that randomly appear on one (of thousands) of NYU-related web pages. The fact the campus paper wrote a cute little story about it (recursively citing the wiki page) doesn't establish notability even for mention in a different article. It is much too trivial and ephemeral. I bet fewer than 50 students would even know what it is come Monday. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats exactly the way I feel. I just thought I might have been a little too hard on it before... but I still hold it is non-notable. Danski14 03:51, 18 February 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 03:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary artificial intelligence[edit]

Delete Contested PROD. The article appears to be written by the proponent WP:COI. The article seems to be about original research. It is doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:Notability with fewer than eight Google hits. Reason given by editor on the talk page indicates its current lack of acceptance by the scientific community. Once accepted and written about by third parties it could then be written up in WP Maustrauser 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, vanity piece, google throws it up a couple of times in a Greek resume. ^Khukri 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a vanity article. The primary author is the sole source of this material. Dr. Submillimeter 17:48, 14 February 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 03:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primarius[edit]

Simple definition, transwiki'd to wikidict Joe Decker 08:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - transwikied. ^Khukri 09:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with ((wi)); I can imagine people searching for this and expecting to find something. Failing that, delete – Qxz 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is no dictionary, that's why we have a Wictionary. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:32, 14 February 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 per WP:CSD#G12. Nishkid 64 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosecross Cellars[edit]

Non-notable winery that fails WP:CORP and reads like an advertisements. The article also fails WP:V with no sources (outside its own website). The Wine Project is tinkering with notability guidelines with the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide but this is still currently just an essay. However, Goosecross Cellars have very little write ups about them apart from a purely advertising aspect ghits. In the wine world, these are very trivial writes up and does nothing to distinguish the winery from any other run of the mill winery. Just about any wine can get a review. In major wine publications like Wine Spectator and Wine Advocate and Decanter there is virtually nothing. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winery fails WP:CORP in addition, according to their own fact sheet, 98% of their revenue is direct to consumer sales, which means that very few consumers are ever going to see a bottle of the wine outside of their winery. If their wines were on shelves coast to coast, I could look past the lack of press. However, without significant media mentions, it's not particularly notable. --- The Bethling (pronounced The Bethling) ^(Talk) 09:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, hello copyvio[22]. We could put the whole copyvio template on it, but I think it would be easier to suggest that an admin just delete it now. --Limegreen 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with both User:Bethling and User:Limegreen. --DrGaellon 22:30, 18 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Karate Association[edit]

No case made for notability - a look at the web site has a small clustering of schools. Peter Rehse 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; "the PKA was the major professional kickboxing organization in the United States" seems to me to be enough (admittedly 'was' not 'is', and sources would be nice) – Qxz 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of sources mentioning this association. yandman 12:42, 16 February 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 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1808 poker gang[edit]

Vanity page for totally un-notable website and group. Nonsensical writing style as well. 2005 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, maybe worth an article if they all have bracelets ^Khukri 09:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's the word we're supposed to use now instead of vanity? I forget, so vanity it is. Otto4711 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase we use now is conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is about a trivial subject and doesn't belong here. Rray 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN _SUBWAYguy 06:33, 18 February 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. --Core desat 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu University High School (second nomination)[edit]

This article features no reliable independent sources, and I'm unable to find any. In the absence of such sources, there's nothing to base an article upon. I withdrew a previous AfD since it was suggested that sources exist but were simply difficult to find. Since then -- over three months ago -- there has been no significant change to the article, suggesting none of its previous supporters were able to discover sources either. Shimeru 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - as it stands does not meet WP:SCHOOL (proposed guideline) or WP:N. ^Khukri 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my vote as per discussions with bduke below. I don't feel that as a school that it asserts notability and I can't find any reason for it being notable. Can we leave it as a stub, of course we can, but for how long? Cheers ^Khukri 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is excessive deletionism. As far as I know we do not have editors from Nepal. If we did, I am sure they would find press reports. The links are from the School's own web site, but nobody has suggested they are a hoax. They suggest it is one of the most notable Schools in Nepal. WP has plenty of articles that only have internal links. OK, what I am suggesting is not rigorously supported by the rules, but common sense suggests it be left, unless you have reasons to suppose it is a hoax or not notable. On notability, it clearly is, unless it is all a hoax. I do not think it is a hoax. Let it be for a while. I say, Strong Keep. A stub will do for now. The article will come later, probably when we get Wikipedians from Nepal. Nepal is not the US or Europe. Give it a break. --Bduke 10:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's doesn't seem to be a hint of a hoax as verifiable links exist, but why is it clearly notable, notable in Nepal for what reason? Until this is asserted in the article then I will leave my vote as is. About the article will come later the exact same was stated in the previous AfD, and it has not developed. A quick google look shows that it is not the only university in Nepal, Tribhuvan University seems like it was first, which would be the only thing I would think of it being notable. Cheers ^Khukri 10:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't a university. All universities are notable. It is a High School run by the university. Many High Schools are generally considered notable and one run by the university in the capital seems so. Google is not likely to be a good source for Nepal. This is a developing country. Yes, it will take time for us to get editors in Nepal to write a decent article. What is wrong with the stub? It is usefull and makes no crazy claims. What do we really gain by deleting this? Does it help getting better information from Nepal? I do not think so. --Bduke 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is wrong with the stub is a lack of reliable sources. We do not encourage articles about people or businesses whose only reference is their own website, and we should not encourage articles about schools whose only reference is their own website. That isn't reliable, because it isn't independent -- and a lack of sources is an indicator of a lack of notability. (And of course they suggest it's one of the best schools in Nepal -- what else would they say about themselves?) When and if we do get editors from Nepal who can provide such sources, the article can be rewritten. Shimeru 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons established in the previous debate. Wikipedia is not operating on any kind of deadline, and the current sources are reliable enough to back what little information is currently presented in this article. (jarbarf) 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this may one day be notable, it is not notable now. The guideline (WP:NOTABILITY) is there for a reason. If and when it becomes notable, with verified sources, I have no doubt it will be created again. Are we to include every single school that has the possibility of becoming notable? Fundamental Dan 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep why do we keep having to debate the same articles over and over? It's been debated once, let it rest at that. Jcuk 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to encourage development of Wikipedia's coverage of the Third World. Cloachland 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, per basic Wikipedia principles, we need a claim of notability, and supporting references. These are neither provided nor apparent, so the article fails our guidelines and must go. No objection to re-creation if our criteria can be met, of course. I also wish to say that I deplore Cloachland's attempt to cast this discussion as one of cultural diversity, which looks to me like a deliberate attempt to muddy a straightforward debate: no-one here, least of all I, is objecting to the article on the grounds of the school's location and culture, we are objecting to it because it ( like many many other school articles ) fails our basic criteria for retention. WMMartin 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point as I see it that it is more difficult to find sources in Third World countries and that the School's own site is adequate for the small amount of information that it is contained. The fact that a national university of Nepal (see the University's web site) runs a School make it notable. If we could access more information we would likely find they use it to train teachers in their Faculty of Education. --Bduke 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and noteworthy. The remote location makes it so. Fred Bauder 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cloachland and Fred Bauder. Maybe there are some sources in Nepalese languages and maybe something about this school on new:Main Page or ne:Main Page? --Aude (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bduke. There are only seven articles in Category:Schools in Nepal. When there are 100s in the category, I could appreciate an attempt to reduce the list down to the most notable, but at this stage the fact that someone has bothered to write an article about the school in itself demonstrates that it is a notable part of the countries infrastructure. I have just created the Dhulikhel article, and could only find WP articles relating to Kathmandu University for this township. I've found references to another high school in the region. As far as I can tell from some initial research, this is one of two high schools for a very large region. John Vandenberg 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that the article would benefit greatly from additional information. I've checked for Nepalese newspapers at my local newsstand, but had little luck. But the affiliation with the country's national university confers notability. Alansohn 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The KUHS website is now up. John Vandenberg 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the connections with university confer notability we would be at a loss to remove this yuckfoo 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find Brian's arguments quite convincing. The article does need some verifiable, reliable sources but I don't think that is a reason to delete an article on a subject from a region where online sources are understandably spotty. Perhaps someone will a get a chance to run it through Factiva. In the meanwhile, we seem to have sufficient to verify the school exists and I think that is enough to keep it for now. Sarah 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg. --Oakshade 04:45, 18 February 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 議論の結果、削除に決定しました。 - Mailer Diablo 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko (japanese word)[edit]

Dictionary definition of a Japanese word. Prod removed by creator. —Cel ithemis 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^Khukri 10:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
デリート per nom. JuJube 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - someone seems to have mistaken this English encyclopedia for a Japanese dictionary. --Hyperbole 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yoko, which is about the given name, but could accommodate the information in the article. "Yoko" (the topic of the article) is a common component of Japanese place names such as Yokohama, and probably deserves mention in the Yoko article. Fg2 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko already mentions that meaning in the lead, and there's nothing else in this article but a listing of two other Japanese words that can mean beside, which is extraneous. So I don't see anything to merge here. —Cel ithemis

Delete No need to merge. The relevant information is already covered in the main Yoko article. Just kill this one. MightyAtom 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per MightyAtom. Neier 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, no need to merge. Dekimasu が... 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing salvageable. - grubber 17:01, 15 February 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 and redirect to deaf-mute. --Core desat 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf/mute[edit]

Non-notable; unreferenced; fails WP:BAND; possible WP:COI Chris Item 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. International man of mystery, so many vague statements in this article - believed to, presumed to, not sure, possibly this musician does not exist? ^Khukri 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently unverifiable. Only mentions I could find is about one song called "leaving for cali" on lyrics sites [23], but that song is not mentioned in the article, so might be unrelated. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can anyone prove his so called existence? Amazon and Ebay apparently cannot prove that there is a singer called "Deaf/Mute" or an album called "Almost Eleven Songs for the Finder". Possibly a hoax by the creator. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to deafness, I can see this being a search term, even if it's a term no longer in vogue. Jcuk 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deaf-mute. Just about the entire article violates WP:WEASEL. ShadowHalo 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although I agree with redirecting the article, in this case a delete and redirect would be appropriate, since we are explicitly not merging the contents. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Instead warn; This article or section does not cite its references or sources. And ask memembers to help improve. --Tomkeough1 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Gwimporini[edit]

Probable hoax, unfortunately one that's been with us for months. No Google results for gwimporini -wikipedia or for "Skipsey Animation Studios" (the alleged producers). FreplySpang 10:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, couldn't find any verification. ^Khukri 11:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the character wasn't listed on Google, you'd expect the show itself to have a listing, but the only hits are to this article. Agree that it's likely a hoax, and even if real, appears to fail WP:N, i.e., no non-trivial treatment in multiple independent reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Article creator's contribution history [24] is mostly vandalism. Reliable sources non-existant regardless. -- Bailey ^(talk) 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears fake. Can't believe this has been here this long. --Nehrams2020 03:53, 15 February 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 04:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeterDale shopping mall[edit]

Article is unreferenced, and google turns up nothing promising. The creator of this article has previously created nonsense pages. The details are fishy, so I suspect a hoax. I can't find any evidence that k-mart owns any British shopping malls. Spared from speedy by the fact that the article says it was one of the first shopping malls in Britain. Deranged bulbasaur 11:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Kmart is part of Sears Holdings and not a "big company" in its own right. Deranged bulbasaur 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether a hoax or not appears unverifiable. Nothing on Google via web, news or books, checked using the name as presented and with a space in the name, as well as with and without "shopping" in the title, as the title is listed inconsistently in the article's text.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability is the main issue, as the article doesn't seem to add up from a factual standpoint. The author's possible ignorance can't be ruled out, but if one isn't sure of the details it goes without saying that the article shouldn't be started. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:09, 14 February 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 Redirect or merge to Hebrew calendar (Calendar reform would be okay too). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:54Z

Rectified Hebrew calendar[edit]

I have tried using Prod, but it was deleted. My contention is that this particular calendar is just one man's opinion and is not notable. The idea that there are faults with the Hebrew calendar is certainly notable, and is or should be discussed in Hebrew calendar. The different proposal to improve the calendar, made decades ago by Dr. Feldman, may be notable, but that has no bearing on whether this proposal is notable.--R613vlu 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry about deleting Prod, the mistake of an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. If Feldman's proposal "may be notable" (keeping in mind that he published it on a single page out of 239 in 1931 with hardly any arithmetic to back up his proposal), then why wouldn't a demonstrably superior reform that is comprehensively documented not be at least as "notable"? The Wikipedia Hebrew calendar entry is long enough, and most people who go there would not be interested in any reform proposal, nevertheless links from there to reform proposals would be appropriate. Kalendis 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-verifiable --Pak21 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On non-verifiable: A calendar reform surely should be regard as in a special category with regard to verifiability, as it is essentially a calculation algorithm for determining the labelling of chronological dates. The arithmetic of the Rectified Hebrew calendar is fully documented in the public domain, so anybody can use the published formulae to verify its performance against their preferred trusted source of astronomical moments. -- Kalendis 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is the second !vote by Kalendis --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there others? We might move this to Hebrew calendar reform if there are. —Ashley Y 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On non-notable: the traditional Hebrew calendar does have its problems and this reform proposal is probably the best I've seen. On non-verifiable or original research: the article has references to a detailed website with further references. The proposal has been discussed repeatedly in a specialized forum. Tom Peters 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability: your personal views on the quality of this are irrelevant.

Waddayamean?? This is a vote, by definition personal, so mine is relevant. How do you decide notability? Tom Peters 13:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability: which reliable source has this information been published in? --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As many others I consider the interpretation of the Wikipolicy that only printed matter can be reliable, ludicrous in the Internet age. And in this case, mathematics and algorithms are ALWAYS verifiable and don't need a prophet to proclaim their veracity. Tom Peters 13:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is a discussion, not a vote.

Interesting. Why then does everybody in this and other deletion sections say "keep" or "delete"? (yes I now the end result is not just a tally of the "keeps" or "deletes"). And if this is a discussion then why is my expressed opinion irrelevant? - TP

Keep or delete (or merge or whatever) is a recommendation for what should happen to the article, not a vote. Please read WP:AFD; Your personal opinion on whether a proposal is any good or not is irrelevant because Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not editor's personal opinions. --Pak21 08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, please re-read the non-negotiable policy on verifiability: it doesn't matter if something is true. If it isn't verified, it has no place on Wikipedia.

So even a mathematical derivation is considered "not verified"? What weird universe does this come from??? - TP

The Wikipedia universe. A question for you: is Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct or not? Your argument would appear to be saying "it's a mathematical derivation, therefore it's automatically verified". I also ask you to consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Thirdly, the reliable sources guideline, while not a policy, is still something which has broad consensus amongst Wikipedia editors; it is possible that the closing administrator will discount any arguments which ignore it without good reason. --Pak21 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On non-notable: Remy Landau, an expert on the traditional Hebrew calendar with an extensive web site devoted to that at <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/> had high praise for the Rectified Hebrew calendar, see: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/luachmail.html#071 -- Kalendis 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is the third !vote by Kalendis --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, my inexperience in how this works. -- Kalendis 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently original research, no reliable sources. Author removed name of person primarily identified with idea, leaving the article even more poorly sourced than before. Αργυριου (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So in summary, the only evidence that Kalendis can bring is a personal web site created by Dr. Irv Bromberg (named as the originator in earler versions of the article), who by coincidence also uses the name Kalendis,[25] and Remy Landau's courteous reply to a message from Irv Bromberg to view his site. When I said that Dr. Feldman's proposal may be notable, I meant that I don't know whether it is or not. As it is in a published and well-regarded book, I think it is, but that has no bearing on the notability of this different proposal.--R613vlu 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Wikipedia only publishes articles on topics that are notable. Articles have to be notable because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose job is to summarize ideas that have already been published and accepted elsewhere, not to publish new ideas that have never been publicly tested. Notability means, at a minimum, that they have been published in multiple reliable sources subject to peer review, so a Wikipedia editor doesn't have to personally vouch for a statement or the credentials of a person endorsing it. This simply hasn't been done here. It doesn't matter whether proponents can convince me (or anyone else here) that the proposal has mathematical or religious merit. What has to happen is it has to be shown that these ideas have already been disseminated elsewhere and received substantial outside comment. Without this, an article on the subject doesn't belong here. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Comment It's worth noting that the Hebrew calendar has religious as well as mathematical implications. The claim that such a proposal can be considered solely as a piece of mathematics strikes me as evidence of a lack of familiarity with the subject-matter's context. This tends to give me additional doubt that it actually ever has received serious external consideration or comment. --Shirahadasha 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hebrew calendar. Kolindigo 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that I could come up with a simpler proposal that is at least as accurate given the uncertainty in predicting the length of the day. Would that entitle me to write an article about it on Wikipedia?--Holdenhurst 23:02, 18 February 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. -Doc^g 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cove (webcomic)[edit]

Prod removed a long time ago, so taking this to AfD. Non notable webcomic, no claims to notability in article, no indications of notability found through a Google search (looking for Pirate Cove alone gives many false positives, looking for pirate cove plus joe d'angelo gives only 21 distinct google hits[26], only one of them from WP:RS: Wired news mentions the comic in passing when speaking shortkly with the author as an example of a webcomics creator[27]. Fails WP:NOTE. Fram 13:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--R613vlu 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability is asserted due to longevity of the 'daily' comic (6 years). Notability is asserted in that it's in it's second print volume.
Comment As is usual for Fram's webcomic AFD nominations, a deceptively low Google search value is given based on a rare search term combination. Even "pirate cove"+Angelo gives 656 hits. "Pirate Cove"+webcomic gives 3450 hits, and "Pirate Cove"+comic gives 74,600 hits, about half of which seem to be about other things. Top two hits for "pirate cove"+comic+wired give you Wired news and also (oddly enough) Buffetnews.com, which mentions it several times. At this point I'm not sure about notability of the article, but I am disappointed at Fram not having improved the AFD habits which I have criticized already. Balancer 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parking Lot is Full, your extended searches are good for boosting the numbers, but not for retrieving more reliable sources. Why would I change my search habits when they seem to return all the hits that could possible be non-trivial mentions from reliable sources, while excluding passing mentions and irrelevant hits, mostly about unrelated things? Take e.g. your buffettnews.com: this is a fan site for a musician, not a reliable source at all. So again, it looks to me like you can't find any reliable sources beyond those I already provided, but still you feel the need to attack me. Please stop doing this and defend the comic with good sources instead. Fram 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you numerous times to engage in more than a cursory effort to find sources before putting up an AFD, but you clearly haven't. In this case, for example, you searched for Joe D'Angelo rather than simply D'Angelo as would have been standard. As has been demonstrated in the case of The Parking Lot is Full and other AFDs, your searches are (a) inadequate and (b) do not establish a lack of notability. I cannot in good conscience vote to delete the article until an adequate argument has been offered for lack of notability, not simply "I searched using a poorly chosen combination of terms and managed to get a low hit-count." Balancer 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As I've mentioned, I feel quite uncertain as to whether or not this webcomic will turn out to meet WP:N standards if well investigated... so don't misrepresent what I'm saying. Balancer 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To start with your last comment: what have I misrepresented? Further: I cannot prove a negative (i.e. "establish a lack of notability"), it is up to you to show the opposite, that there indeed is some notability. As for the rest of your comments: search for "Pirate Cove" "d'Angelo" -"Joe d'Angelo" (i.e. all the links my search didn't have, but your "standard" search finds):[28] you get 31 additional distinct hits, but none of them are about the comic. Conclusion: all your "standard" search has done when compared to my "inadequate" and "cursory" one "using a poorly chosen combination of terms" is increase the raw numbers to make the return look more impressive, without even adding one single relevant hit, nevermind it being from a reliable source or being more than a passing mention. For the final time: please refrain from making these completely baseless attacks on me and my search methods: you haven't given in any of these webcomics AfD's a relevant and even slightly reliable source that was not included in my original search. Fram 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. A relatively long run has not helped it get attention from any non-trivial independent reliables, and a quick Q&A in passing at Alternative Press Expo by Wired, isn't it. ..Furthermore the previous commentator ought to cool it with getting personal as his criticsims stands some criticism themselves. —MURGH ^disc. 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as WP:V is met by the Silverbullet and Sequential Tart coverage, per Balancer's intrepid probe. MURGH ^disc. 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fram's nomination. No sign of sources or importance. Googling for the name of the comic plus the name of author is a great search when looking for nontrivial sources, since only a trivial source won't bother to at least mention the author's name. --Dragonfiend 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as the 600 hits Fram excludes by asking for an exact search on "Joe D'Angelo" rather than simply "D'Angelo"? I stand by my criticism that Fram has not been making sufficient effort to verify webcomic articles' notability or lack thereof before putting up AFDs, and the arguments set forth in the AFD title almost universally invoke Google hit-counts based on poorly-selected search terms in order to claim greater obscurity than is actually present. Search engine hits are not a measure of notability, after all. Balancer 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, so why are you pursuing this? Googling is a means to find valid sources, and a notable article may very well get only 3 hits. Noone is misled by this. MURGH ^disc. 13:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my reply to Balancer's similar complaint above, and note the irony of complaining that my search gives lower numbers than his, and then saying that "Search engine hits are not a measure of notability". Let me add that even relevant search engine hits are not a measure of notability, never mind completely unrelated hits...Fram 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why you mention the hits in every AFD you make? Balancer 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:WEB now that I've reviewed the actual content of the Wired article (non-trivial, and precisely matching the examples used in WP:WEB) and also a similarly non-trivial article in Silver Bullet Comics[29]. Also strong rebuke to Fram for misrepresenting the Wired article as trivial. Balancer 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There must be some confusion. Balancer is referring to a different Wired article than this? [30] —MURGH ^disc. 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There surely must be some confusion indeed. This article[31], also by Wired, also discussing a webcomic in a very similar fashion, is used as a textbook example in WP:WEB of The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Precedent is perfectly clear, and it is unclear what standard of "non-trivial" is in use by Fram in order to claim triviality. The standard outlined in WP:N is to disinclude directory listings and similar such non-selective batch mentions. The comic is mentioned multiple times in the article, and the author is being interviewed specifically as the author of the comic. Ergo, it is a non-trivial mention; ergo, between that and the Silver Bullet article, we have multiple non-trivial mentions from published sources independent of the Pirate Cove webcomic; ergo, it is notable by the standards of Wikipedia. Remember, notability is not subjective. Balancer 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet somehow it is. This webcomic is nowhere near the subject of that Wired article. Its author is one of several briefly quizzed about how tough it is to get webcomics noticed. On the other hand, pending how Silverbullet fares as RS, that is one source. MURGH ^disc. 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to begin to get into the notability debate, but I'd like to see some evidence of notability. However, this article in its current form is made of of two parts, a lead that is entirely original research and an overly long plot summery with no real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, per WP:NOT#IINFO. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the links then. That provides firm evidence of notability. As far as the quality of the article... well... I recommend {cleanup} myself. Balancer 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On non-trivial article by a publisher who's reliability I can't assess. One trivial mention in one Wired article, and not mention at all in the second you provided. Even if I did give Silver Bullet the benefit of the doubt, I don't see the evidence of notability yet. --Farix (Talk) 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the sources you'll find unfamiliar, although WP:WEB seems to speak fairly highly of webzines. Clearly you and I disagree on what's trivial, so if I may, I think I'll try to sell you on this comic's notability without trying to convince you that the Wired article is non-trivial.

Silver Bullet bills themselves as the "most diverse" comic zine on the web. By "comic" they don't mean webcomic, actually. They're talking about comic books" - the printed kind - but apparently they occasionally decide to review a webcomic for the heck of it. It's apparently won an "Eagle Award"[32], which looks neat to me, and is described as "popular" and has been around publishing regular columns for a couple years.

I also just found a couple Sequential Tart reviews.[33] (review of one of the books) [34] (review of the comic strip). Sequential Tart is a webzine published monthly since 1999, with a couple bimonthly issues in 1998. It's about the comics industry and claims that it's out to raise awareness of women's influence within the comics industry. Looks fairly established. Balancer 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the comic is non-notable, not sourced, and has no assertion of notability. It also reads like spam, and may very well be, given that the article was created by a single purpose account. Furthermore, the vast majority of the article is fancruft, which suggests that it was not created or maintained by editors applying encyclopedic standards. NetOracle 07:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy delete is not interchangable with tag for cleanup. And is anybody going to actually read the argument for notability I presented above for Farix's sake (I know NetOracle has, in his one week here, never voted against a webcomics-related AFD, so it's wasted on him), or did I waste the time it took for me to investigate and establish the reliability of multiple independent sources discussing this comic in a clearly non-trivial fashion? Balancer 08:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors generally add AFDs they've commented on to their watch lists. If your comment is persuasive, early commentators will edit to reflect their change of mind. --Dragonfiend 10:14, 17 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:55Z

Matt Pellman[edit]

Subject not notable enough for inclusion Burghboy80 13:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of those cases where you don't know where to start, it has no reliable sources cited, therefore fails WP:V, without sources we cannot establish notability, therefore it fails WP:BIO and so on .... Alf photoman 17:01, 14 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:56Z

Jamie Apody[edit]

Subject not notable enough for inclusion Burghboy80 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, Ass. Press Award not notable? The problem I see is with a total lack of references and sources. If they are included by end of this AfD I could change my mind Alf photoman 17:04, 14 February 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 04:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Caldwell[edit]

Has not achieved proper notoriety. How does a substitute traffic reporter merit inclusion in Wikipedia? Burghboy80 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing meeting the criteria in WP:BIO. Agent 86 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because I didn't like her substitution for the traffic reporting....and because she fails Wiki's Notability. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:38, 14 February 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 04:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Cuellar[edit]

Subject has not acheieved proper notoriety to be included in Wikipedia. Burghboy80 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "notability", not "notoriety", but yes, delete – Qxz 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inevitably, local reporters will cover highly notable stories. That notability does not extend to them personally. --Hyperbole 23:44, 14 February 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 (CSD A7) by Alphachimp. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nydia Han[edit]

Subject not notable enough for Wikipedia, and article is non-informative and non-encyclopedic. Burghboy80 13:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no assertion of notability. Tagged as such. --Pak21 14:09, 14 February 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 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahlan Luciano Momo[edit]

The Prod was removed from this article that fails WP:N and WP:V ghits = Results 1 - 7 of about 17 for "Sahlan Luciano Momo", the single Reference[35] is the source of the copy and paste article. The article also has issues with WP:COI, WP:NPOV, etc. It does not seem to qualify as WP:Copyvio as it has "Cited with permission" listed near the reference Jeepday 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the original prod – Qxz 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article stands, subject does not appear to be notable enough. The low number of ghits makes it unlikely that sources will be found. --Danaman5 23:36, 17 February 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 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Shepherd[edit]

Vanity Page edited by subject; subject looks non-notable Pfunkbalr 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:AUTO Arnoutf 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, essentially a vanity article and as above doesn't comply with WP:AUTO Robin99 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:AUTO. The references provided don't establish notability; they're pieces in which he's been quoted but not pieces actually about him. -- Bailey ^(talk) 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lee Bailey. Montco 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable politico. —An gr 15:43, 18 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:56Z

Villa Roma[edit]

Villa Roma is a hotel/resort in upstate New York. The article doesn't seem to make a case for notability. It also names no sources and reads like an ad. "Villa Roma" gets a fair number of google hits, but it isn't the only hotel by that name, and most of the google hits appear to be hotel booking services and the like. Although a few articles were apparently printed in local newspapers about their dining room fire, this still probably falls short of WP:CORP's primary criterion of being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. -- Bailey ^(talk) 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) -- Bailey ^(talk) 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; reads somewhat like promotional material, no independent sources, not particularly important or significant (as compared to the thousands of similar hotels out there) – Qxz 21:14, 14 February 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 Redirect to Inquisitor (game), whose External links section already lists it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:57Z

The Conclave[edit]

No sign this meets WP:WEB therefore non-notable. Delete --Pak21 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-trivial treatment in multiple reliable sources is provided. The references present are not independent. While there are unsurprisingly many Google web hits, there are none for news [36] or books [37]. A short Perusal of the web hits does not reveal anything meeting WP:WEB.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:41, 14 February 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 Redirect to Human penis size. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:00Z

Penis size statistics[edit]

Wiki is NOT an anatomy textbook. This is indiscriminate listcruft with various studies of penis length, half of which seem very unscientific delete Cornell Rockey 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously? This "article" contradicts itself several times throughout the article, and all the sources appear to be non-scientific surveys or unreliable sources. Some of it appears to be Original Research, too. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's not a place for this kind of inconclusive, contradictory information. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also find it pretty interesting that the user who created this page has been pretty active in trying to delete articles on books related to Racial Intelligence would post something like this less than a month later. Might be he's trying to prove a point. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo Cheers. Your information is uncorrect. The user have nominate articles on books for "articles for deletion". That is NOT "trying to delete". Do not give false information about others!!!! An another information: Suganthini is a femalename. Kavita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitafrommadurai (talk • contribs)

It's pretty interesting that you're only real quibbling here is that I messed up on the gender pronoun (which I apologize for) and the way I worded my highlight of the article creator's actions (which, I will note, is technically correct. Nominating an article for deletion IS trying to delete it). Oh, and it's pretty interesting that your username follows the same pattern as Suganthini's and this is your only edit to Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not think to much....that you mixed gender is a very, very, very small matter. I did not mean to make a point out of it at all. The reason why I was reacting was that you used the words: "trying to delete". It sounded like the user tried to vandalise, which she didn't. I understand now that you did not meant it that way. Sorry.Kavitafrommadurai

Delete, problems with sources, unsustainable statistics and non-representative analysis make me feel that it should go the same way as the song Mine is bigger than yours : to the trashcan Alf photoman 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is already adequately covered at Human penis size, new material (if cited, accurate, and useful) should be added there rather than creating a new article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary as it's already covered elsewhere. A similar article comparing sizes of different species would work as this is a topic that has actually been covered in numerous media (The Book of Lists comes immediately to mind). 23skidoo 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't want to know about anyone's wang, and I think there are others out there who would agree with me. Going with listcruft. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you don't want to know about anyone's wang, don't read; I suppose if you didn't want to know about Abraham Lincoln, Mercedes Benz or Tennis, you'd vote to delete them too. Carlossuarez46 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need one AfD like this every day just for the chuckle. - grubber 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not the best, but could be improved a lot, if someone had get the time and chance to do it. It seems to be a article about internet-statistics. The most of the statistics are useful and scientific surveys, as for example Kinsey, but this.. Dr.Nicks survey is not a useful and scientific survey. To say that ALL this surveys are "unreliable" is not totally the truth. The article Human penis size contains information about SELECTED scientific and non-scientific surveys (for example one from Mumbai). The problem with merging is that some of this statistics would be merge for probably just a shorter time. Kavitafrommadurai

Comment Actually, a survey like this IS inherently unreliable as far as the statistics are concerned. Just asking is not a scientific method, because lies can be told and there's no verification of the facts. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. User:Helenparis444
Keep it is soucred including Kinsey who apparently conducted research on this, not the author's original research like "In measuring my football teammates – or boyfriends – here are the numbers". Some of the deletionist comments are not more than basically "Ughs"; not a good reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. True enough, there is an article in this. But the article already exists: human penis size. This one is miserably referenced, probably original research, not a likely search term, and contains nothing worth merging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 19 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:00Z

Grant Gordon[edit]

Non-verified apparent music and television producer. I can't find anything on google and there are no links here to verify. Doesn't appear to have made a significant cultural impact that I can find. MLA 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went a-googlin' and didn't find any independent sources to verify notability, and no sources are provided in the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:58, 14 February 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. --Core desat 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Against Climate Change[edit]

The article does not fit the notability status defined for organisations in Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). The only verifiable sources is the articles own website of which this seems to be an extension of, with much of the information 'mirrored' onto Wikipedia. Either a total rewrite with verifiable sources is required, or a delete Khuskan 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doubtless a worthy organization, but I can't find any independent sources that would verify notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above worthy, but unfortunately 62 people supporting does not make it notable....yet. ^Khukri 18:03, 14 February 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 per WP:SNOW and my bad judgment in removing the speedy tag and prodding it in the first place. It was an attack page to begin with and I simply didn't catch on because I wasn't familar with the band. I know it's kind of unorthodox to close my own nominated AfD, but if anyone has an issue with this close, feel free to contact me and I will undelete and relist. IronGargoyle 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clown suit[edit]

((Prod)) was removed by anon without explanation. Some references have been added to the article, but it still has no reliable sources. Non-notable feature associated with a notable band. Only 31 unique google hits when searching for "Black Label Society" and "Clown suit" IronGargoyle 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing vote to Speedy Delete per Action Jackson IV. I think it was an attack page all along, I just didn't happen to be familiar enough with the band to recognize it at first. IronGargoyle 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase appears to be a derogatory one used on some web forums, but I don't see any evidence of notability for it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Derogatory & slanderous. ^Khukri 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Latest seven edits have all been evolutions of vandalism. The current revision is nearly incomprehensible. --Action Jackson IV 05:16, 15 February 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 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Bye[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that this person exists; I believe this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person exists, but wasn't an actor. Threemillion 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedily – whether the person exists or not, the article is nonsensical, contains a phone number and has no sources – Qxz 21:12, 14 February 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, afterwhich let's go for lunch together. ;) - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch bunch[edit]

This is my first time doing this, but I think I have a good reason. This article seems to be a definition of a word. Being switched to the dictionary version of Wikipedia is a great idea, but what's the need for it anymore on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Threemillion 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. ^Khukri 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or expand. I think a page with a list of lunch bunches would be helpful. (A lunch bunch is a group of people who commonly eat together) The info on this page would be included, but it would definately have to be expanded. 11kowrom 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. Oh god no. In other words, delete per WP:NEO and because if kept this will turn into an unrferenced indiscriminate mess of a list of supposed "lunch bunches" who have nothing in common. Otto4711 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for deletion, but to prove my point further, this seems like a phrase only used in certain communities. see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Threemillion 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominationJulia 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rapidly Terminate with Extreme Prejudice. As per above. --Action Jackson IV 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no transwiki. Wiktionary isn't intended for slangy stuff like this (nor is Wikipedia), that's what urbandictionary.com is for. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 15 February 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, merging can be discussed on article's talk page. --Core desat 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mapleton Middle School[edit]

I prodded this article and tag was removed. Small, non-notable middle school. Generally high schools are acceptable under the "it exists" idea. I can't believe that to be true for middle schools. Soltak | Talk 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I share your views. YechielMan 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SCHOOLS (I know it's a proposal but it fits quite well). ^Khukri 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominationJulia 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with local education area (sorry if thats the wrong term) Jcuk 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ashland, Ohio until an article for Mapleton Local Schools is created. (jarbarf) 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor evidenced, and is certainly not automatic. WMMartin 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mapleton High School (Ashland, Ohio). Alansohn 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to redirect with ashalnd ohio makes the most sense to me too yuckfoo 02:01, 17 February 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 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Writers (Scotland)[edit]

Nonnotable organization; article reads like an ad. YechielMan 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Publicity piece, their website has only had 260 visitors. ^Khukri 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

271 now... delete as promotional material – Qxz 21:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than 2 pages of ghits, none in a reliable source. JulesH 18:20, 16 February 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, copyvio. Kusma (討論) 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federico mahjong conti[edit]

Nonnotable wannabe. Fails WP:MUSIC. YechielMan 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; appears to be autobiography, unsourced – Qxz 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Words completely "borrowed" Ohconfucius 10:02, 16 February 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 G12^[38]. - Daniel.Bryant 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felix (FELO) Lugo[edit]

Some of the claims in the article are very suspicious, given that the subject has less than 1000 ghits. The user has no other significant contributions. I am also nominating the fellow's userpage, which contains the same info for WP:MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Artcrictics. YechielMan 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; quite possible autobiographical self-promotion, and unsourced – Qxz 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio from [39]. So tagged. MER-C 07:52, 15 February 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, per vote stacking and proposed "nonsensical votes". Cbrown1023 talk 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad as a diplomat[edit]

I am nominating this page for deletion because it is unencyclopedic and I feel the content is too biased to ever be redeemable. The writing of the article is done so as to make Mohammed to look like a saint, in propaganda form, and editors on the page have routinely and abusively edit warred to keep out any factual information that is not flattering to their "prophet." This is not a good thing for the encyclopedia and therefore should be deleted. Particularly problematic are a lack of reference to groups with which Mohammed later broke treaties, a lack of information on problems within the various documents themselves, and a continual claim that Muhammad was solely responsible for changes in the region which is not backed up by fact. The whole article is the same sort of rampant whitewashing of the military expansion of the Islamic lands and conversion by the sword which were Mohammed's primary methods. RunedChozo 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:POINT nomination. user tagged this article with ((totallydisputed)) but has refused to ever substantiate why he did so, despite repeated requests. similarly, there has been very little rationale given in the nom as to why it should be deleted. ITAQALLAH 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The user posting this continues to refuse to promise to follow the rules of Wikipedia, a necessary promise I have asked for due to his edit warring and abusive false edit summaries in the past. RunedChozo 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: As for WP:POINT claim, I did not nominate this for any reason other than that I think it is a horrid, unencyclopedic article that should be deleted. RunedChozo 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Firstly, any one is welcome to change the article which I believe is already very good written with many references. Secondly the topic is encyclopedic and Muhammad article is tooo long to have all those things there. Lastly, the user who had nominated for deletion is confirmed socket puppet. --- ALM 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Attacking the messenger is not a valid response. Please desist in using debate tactics that aren't even valid in first grade, especially since you were part of a lynch mob last time. Secondly, the article is beyond redemption and needs deleting. RunedChozo 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know you but your page has a big banner on it. I just said what the banner was saying. However, saying part of mob certainly not an attack? huh --- ALM 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My page has a lying banner put there by people trying to harass me, nothing more. RunedChozo 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Big problems with Runed Chozo's justification.Bless sins 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...to make Mohammed to look like a saint..." Diplomacy has nothing to do with "saint"hood. three is no such thing as "good dipomacy" and "evil diplomacy".
"editors ... have ... edit warred to keep out any factual information". Then file RFCs, take your case to mediation, and actively debate with the users on the talk page. This article has not seen debate since almost a month (19 Jan - 14 Feb).
"conversion by the sword which were Mohammed's primary methods". Seems like you have a very POV agenda of your own, one that is no less than the POV you accuse others of.

Lastly, you shouldn't say "abusively edit warred" when it has been shown on your talk page that you have used sockpuppetry for ill purpose.

Three editors, all members of the Muslim Guild, are the first posters. Coincidence? I do not know. I see coincidence every day. I don't TRUST coincidence one bit. Backroom vote stacking seems likely. I've not contacted anyone for this outside of the proper notice on the page and the AFD page.RunedChozo 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "Muslim Guild," and i'm not a member of any "Muslim Guild." ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirects from "Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild" So you renamed yourselves to hide your POV grouping better, big fat hairy deal. RunedChozo 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Muhammad, Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. The title of the page causes POV issues, as every event described on the page carries with it an accompanying debate about whether Muhammad was behaving "as a diplomat" in the given situation. By its title, the page asserts the POV that many of Muhammad's actions were fundamentally aspects of diplomacy-- contradicting the opposing POV that Muhammads actions were, say, military conquests or religious conversions. Merging into the other pages will allow us to present all POVs without asserting one over the other. --Alecmconroy 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content per Alecmconroy. Description of the events discussed in this article as diplomacy is problematic for POV reasons and in most cases constitutes original research. For instance, Constitution of Medina found a place in the article on the basis that one source says Muhammad showed great "diplomatic skill" in that instance. Editors have pointed out that one can show diplomatic skill without being a diplomat, for example, in setting a family quarrel. There are similar issues with other events included in that article. Beit Or 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Constitution of Medina is described by Lewis as an act of "skillful diplomacy" (The Arabs in History p. 39), the Encyclopedia of Islam describes it as an example of Muhammad's "diplomatic skill." other academics tend to describe it similarly, using words synonymous to diplomacy. ITAQALLAH 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, no good reason to delete has been presented, and the article is intresting in it self. --Striver - talk 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Beit Or. The article is hagiography and the title is offensive. Arrow740 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject is too important not to have its own article. The name of the article only indicates the subject, not the conclusion that must be drawn about whatever diplomacy Muhammad may or may not have engaged in. POV problems alone aren't enough reason for deletion, and there's a different solution for that and for lack of sourcing. (Even if the article only had the Koran as a source, it would still be useful and it could always be improved.) We're going to have disputes over Islam no matter how we organize the articles about Muhammad. In a religion with Jihad, the topic of Muhammad and diplomacy has got to deserve it's own article. Noroton 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Muhammad had ever engaged in diplomacy instead of his preferred methods then the article would be warranted. The POV that he was a diplomat is merely that. Arrow740 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muhammad as a diplomat" might be construed by some as making him seem diplomatic when that seems to be in dispute. Even though I think the title shouldn't be seen that way, if enough people do see it that way it's a problem. Would "Muhammad's foreign relations" work better?Noroton 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All he did was tell people to obey him and kill the ones that didn't. Seriously. Arrow740 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most academics concur that there are numerous episodes where he assumed the role of diplomacy, whether that was with other rulers, other tribes, or even his own followers. your opinion seemingly remains unsupported by respected academics. ITAQALLAH 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is not supported by sources. As already pointed out, the description of the article's events as diplomacy is original research; POV at best. Beit Or 12:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet you yourself have conceded previously that a number of the events described in the article are indeed examples of diplomacy. academics consider things like the Constitution of Medina and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya as examples of Muhammad's diplomacy/political aptitude. if there is a particular academic POV you think is missing, you have yet to specify (and have not done so for a number of months). ITAQALLAH 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrepresentation of my views. In particular, I've always insited that the passage from one source talking about his "diplomatic skill" supposedly showed in the Constitution of Medina was not about diplomacy as conducting international negotiations. That was a figurative passage taken out of context. You seem to admit, though, the rest of the article does not have even such a flimsy basis. Beit Or 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution was unilateral lawgiving, the other treaty was after a loss and he evenually broke it. Arrow740 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>well, as far as i can remember, there were a few sections you considered valid examples of diplomacy (as per your GA comments). i suppose that Lewis' statement that i provided above concerning the constitution is another "figurative passage taken out of context"? i believe that all the events cited in the article are appropriate examples of diplomacy. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - what's next? Christ as a Masseuse? This would be very appropriate and thought-provoking on an Islamic or Theologic wiki, but I can't really justify it on Wikipedia without justifying a lot of other esoterica. --Action Jackson IV 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) After review, I'm going to go with Delete or substantially rewrite - the primary sources / documentary evidence should definitely be elaborated upon. I'm still not wholly convinced that this is not Original Research, nor am I convinced in the factual accuracy. As such, the tone of the article should strive to present this as a school of thought (as opposed to historic fact) until convincing documentary evidence can prove otherwise. I still think the article would do better in a theology-themed wiki, though. --Action Jackson IV 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep However much I disagree with much of this article, it has substantial content to at least merit a re-write. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : If a person is looking good in an article then is it necessary to add some trash to the article to make that person look good+bad ??? Is this a peroblem why people look good? If you are beautiful then is it necessary you put some mud on your face to make it NPOV? I wonder if NPOV has become the babbling disease of some wikipedians? (and would you take my argument to be at least partially true?) VirtualEye 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "trash" is necessary. In your eyes Muhammad may be perfect; however, others see him as quite the opposite. Both must be expressed in the form of opinion in order to make the article neutral. --Hojimachong^talk _con 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and request immediate close per WP:SNOW. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per Kirbytime. (really per Alecmconroy). Αργυριου (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Alecmcconroy, Beit Or. There is some useful material here, but the thematic organization of the article is unencyclopedic and inherently POV. For example, while the Constitution of Medina is presented as a triumph of diplomacy, the fact that the Jews of Medina were exiled or slain soon after it is said to have been proclaimed was excluded on the basis that this didn't count as him acting "as a diplomat."Proabivouac 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:do you also thus believe that similar thematic organisations in terms of Muhammad as a general, Muhammad's slaves, Muhammad and the Jews, are "unencyclopedic and inherently POV"? it's quite clear that academics agree upon certain instances where Muhammad engaged as a diplomat and used political discourse as opposed to military action. i see nothing wrong with a topical organization on an intricate subject. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speady keep The topic of the article is encyclopedic. --Aminz 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - Arrow740 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in attempted votestacking by informing editors of a known and specific viewpoint.[40][41][42][43] ITAQALLAH 14:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate itaqallah's report, but the reason I did so was because of the request to end debate citing WP:SNOW. Arrow740 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely you must know that that's not a valid justification. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, informing a relatively small number of people (especially if they've edited the article in the past -- and I'm not going to bother to find out) is not against policy and is only "controversial" to a degree. Keep in mind there's no demonstrable consensus here for delete, so relax. I know it's easier said than done, but turn the heat down, keep cool, and you might find you like the ultimate results: likely an improved article. Noroton 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

informing a partisan audience of an AfD is regarded as votestacking (see WP:CANVASS). these are all editors whom Arrow740 shares a specific viewpoint with, as is evident to anyone who frequents the disputes on Islam-related articles. regardless, thank you for your comments and advice. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is serious question as to whether you in the Muslim groups have done the same thing in your own back channels. This seems routine behavior for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge or Keep While your initial point may be true, I'm relunctant to vote to remove an entire article because of POV. It is sourced and has a good deal of material that should be included in some form. If there is a difficulty in the POV area and your edits are being locked out through numbers, a NPOV tag should be applied instead of deletion and hopefully over time a balanced presentation can be achieved. 66.75.8.138 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or seriously rewrite: Very pro-Muhammad point of view, with very little criticism. I doubt it can be rewriten neutrally. --Boris 1991 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- can you specify which academic opinions have been neglected, apparently making it biased? ITAQALLAH 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extermely POV pushing article. This article is the same thing as praise to Muhammad in disguise.--Sefringle 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- putting this to one side, could you please explain what about the article is "extremely POV pushing"? as i have asked throughout this whole AfD, which academic opinions here have been neglected? and are apparent neutrality issues justification for deleting an article? ITAQALLAH 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets see- the opening sentence, for example. The mention of verse 48:18, the giving excessive weight to the "convert to Islam" letters Muhammad sent (which has little to do with diplomacy). The article also depicts Muhammad's enemies as evil, which is very POV pushing. Anything relevant in the other sections has already been mentioned in the Muhammad article. The article is very POV pushing indeed. --Sefringle 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i see nothing wrong with the opening sentence.
communicating with other heads of state is diplomacy, plain and simple.
the relevance of 48:18 is mentioned by the Encyclopedia of Islam.
"The article also depicts Muhammad's enemies as evil" that's a very general statement. please be more specific.
you haven't argued what academic opinions have been neglected, you have simply outlined issues where the article is not in conformity with your viewpoint. as you may understand, that is subjective judgement. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by muhammads enemies are depicted as evil is this article gives the impression muhammads enemies were violent, war starters who treated the muslims like dirt, while saying Muhammad tried to work with the muslims. That claim is very POV pushing, as it is trying to instill sympathy for muslims. The opening sentence further helps push foreward that POV. Reguarding 48:18, I said it was POV pushing, not irrevelant. --Sefringle 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting the feeling that when you say "POV pushing", you actually mean "not in conformity with my POV". i didn't know an academic publication, perhaps the most comprehensive and scholarly on this subject, would be regarded as "POV pushing" also. ITAQALLAH 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't care if there's a POV problem, the subject is notable. Everyking 07:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think we should keep this articles for the following reasons:
- The subject is notable and written well.
- The Article is written with many references.
- The subject and format of the article is encyclopaedic.
- Muhammad article is too long to be merged with this article.

Also i think that fact that the nomination was made by a socket puppet make this whole discussion strangePalestine48 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outside comment: Taking count, the tally was 8 "keep", 4 "delete", with substantial and not unjustified questions of vote-stacking given that EVERY keep vote just "happened" to be a Muslim editor at that point, at the time when a Muslim editor filed a very bad-faith "SNOW" justification to try to quick close it. This continues to present time: 90% of the "keep" votes are former members of the supposedly disbanded Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild. These users are now trying to attack those who are voting the other way. Wikipedia has serious bias problems with organize POV gangs and this is turning into a classic example of how they work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: per this IP's contributions and general behaviour, he seems to be related to the indef-banned RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ITAQALLAH 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: from your contributions, you seem to accuse anyone you can of this. It must be nice to have such an easy accusation to throw around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Alecmconroy above. Whilst neutrality concerns on their own are not enough to delete an article, there does seem to be significant problems over what constitutes 'diplomacy'. And I do think that the participants in this discussion need to calm down a little. Hut 8.5 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Muhammad's article is too long and because there are numerous issues about Muhammad, there should be separate article in each case and we can't delete or merge them. But on the other hand originally Muhammad was a prophet and not diplomat. Thus I prefer to move this article to "Diplomatic affairs of Muhammad".--Sa.vakilian 20:08, 19 February 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 Merge to Dalhousie University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:03Z

Howe Hall[edit]

Contested prod. University residence built in the 1960's. Article makes no claim to notability and offers no reliable sources to back up the no claims. Nuttah68 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The largest residence hall of a university with 15,000 students is indeed notable. Nardman1 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though I don't agree that all large residence halls are inherently notable – Qxz 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't notable. If it were, then would all buildings on all college campuses be notable? It does not seem to me that that is the case. -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious notability. Big university or not, it's just a dorm. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the university article. If it were architecturally significant, or if some historic event happened there, it would merit its own article. Noroton 01:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete with Dalhousie University article. I tried looking up news articles that mention Howe Hall, finding approximately 20 articles from the Halifax Daily News. However, these articles tend to be trivial mentions like police looking for a flasher seen outside Howe Hall. Nothing notable enough that this residence needs an article beyond mention in the main university article. --Aude (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone interested in this discussion may want to see the similar deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renfield Hall (a dormatory at Brandeis University). Noroton 23:39, 15 February 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 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEWS[edit]

The article describes an event that will take place this coming July. It thus fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. YechielMan 18:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not for crystal ballism, as an announcement of an upcoming scheduled event is not crystal ballism, but because there's no credible assertion of notbility. Nardman1 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unsourced, and reads like promotional material – Qxz 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Simple advert. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:10, 16 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:05Z

PShaw comics[edit]

Suspected autobiography. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, he's notable, and the notability assertion is right there in the article. He's regularly published in Arthur (magazine), which is easily verified by a quick google check of their site.[44] — coelacan talk — 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity article. Too much stuff in the article is controversial and uncited, and given that the source was User:Pshazma, I would rather wipe the slate clean. No reason not to allow recreation later, though. Mango juice^talk 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I have nothing against a sourced article by a neutral contributor (i.e. not the comic's author) at a later date – Qxz 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangojuice. --Aude (talk) 16:25, 15 February 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 Merge with Sheriff Stadium. Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya Sportivnaya Arena[edit]

Small sports stadium has no refs to show it is notable. Only 275 Google hits, primarily Wikipedia and its mirror sites. Does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. Inkpaduta 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated, and no references. WMMartin 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to pictures, the Malaya Arena [45] is the same as handled in this article. Apparently it is the same as Sheriff Stadium, or at least located in the same complex. Julius Sahara 18:35, 5 February 2007 (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) 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sheriff Stadium article says it is the only modern stadium in town. But the Malaya Sportivnaya article give a capacity of 14,200 while the Sheriff article gives a capacity of 14,300. How about redirecting to the Sheriff Stadium article, which seems more credible, since it has references. Inkpaduta 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the stadium isn't in Malaysia, it's in eastern Europe. --Holderca1 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason they gave it a name which could mislead. (There is in the U.S. "Indiana University of Pennsylvania" which is unrelated to the state of Indiana, but is in the town of Indiana, Pennsylvania.) Maybe someone could add to the article why something in Eastern Europe is called Malaya.Inkpaduta 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misleading in the slavic languages. 'Malaya' here is small - as opposed to 'Bolshaya' which is 'large'. In fact there does appear to be a Bolshaya Sportivnaya Arena in Tiraspol - which from the link may be the one described here. Very confusing... -- BPMullins | Talk 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two references, and I am now convinced of its notability. YechielMan 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But do the references indicate it is physically different from Sheriff Stadium? Should this article be merged into that one? Inkpaduta 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. No, the refs don't say that. They might indeed be the same thing. YechielMan 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sheriff Stadium; as far as I can tell they're the same thing. If they're not, just redirect there, as all the sources pertain to Sheriff Stadium – Qxz 20:46, 14 February 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. -Doc^g 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Beth Casey[edit]

~~Merge or~~ Delete Thought not necessarily completely unnotable, this character is nowhere notable to have its own article ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want it merged, you can do that without an AFD nomination after finding an appropriate merge target (just withdraw the nomination). If you want it deleted, you've come to the right place.--Kchase T 21:11, 5 February 2007 (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) 08:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FICT this sort of fictional character should be housed in a list article. As there appears to be no list article for TimeSplitters characters, delete this. Otto4711 09:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create new article and merge - create Minor characters in TimeSplitters series and move it there, along with any other minor-character articles you can find. Walton monarchist89 11:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; if information for this character and others is desired, create a "minor characters" article and put them all there (and leave a redirect in place of this article, obviously) – Qxz 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create new article and merge - Agreed that a "Minor Characters in TimeSplitters" article is the best way to go. Its notable information.......just not worthy of an article of it's own.

Delete for now per comments expressed above. If someone wants to create this list of video game characters, then more power to them, but it hasn't happened since this discussion has been relisted twice. If it happens in the future, we can restore the article without a trip to DRV, if the closing admin finds that was the consensus decision here. I'd be happy with merging then, too.--Kchase T 11:55, 15 February 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 Redirect to Comparison of media players. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:07Z

List of video players (software)[edit]

Reason Commilito 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC) The article Comparison_of_media_players has all the players in this list included (at least all the "blue" ones ) and many more. Also the comparison gives you much more information and a better overview. So I don't think we need two articles for a summary of media player, especially not an incomplete one like that.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of media players, as that page is much more useful and includes all the relevant info already. JulesH 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not important list. --MaNeMeBasat 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good linkspam free list (internal links only). So instead of deleting this fine list why don't you guys me help out with the cleaning up of the linkspam entrenched List of video editing software. I need help with that list since everytime I clean it up the spammers come back and out number me. Also redirecting to Comparison of media players isn't a great idea since it is a monster of a table that will likely be deleted in the future. (Requestion 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of media players. Article appears to have been split off from there in the first place; it's not really big enough to need a separate article – Qxz 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Requestion. Mathmo ^Talk 08:58, 15 February 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 Dante Alighieri, author blanked page. BryanG^(talk) 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybertaxonomy[edit]

Article is either a dictionary definition or an ad for a non-notable project, I really can't tell. Also the author has blanked the page. Nardman1 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If the author blanks the page, you can tag it for speedy deletion by typing in ((db-blank)). I'll take care of it. Admin, please close. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 February 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 redirect to Random access memory. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:09Z

V_ram[edit]

This article does not make any sense, and is covered in the articles about RAM and video cards Pkrecker 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate article (Video RAM redirects to Dynamic random access memory) – Qxz 20:32, 14 February 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. --Core desat 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stallion[edit]

I love the music of Ween, and this article is funny, but it's far from encyclopedic. It seems to consist entirely of original research. I suggest we delete it unless sources can be found. Maybe there's another wiki we can move it to? GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR. Edeans 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Need sources and cleaned up. Could be OR, could be notable. It's a tossup in my mind. It was created two years ago and seems to have just become more of a mess in that time. - grubber 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be OR. Will change my opinion if a reliable source is provided. Shimeru 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless reliable sources can be found – Qxz 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After about 20 minutes googling, and searching various sites, I didn't turn up anything that looked like a reliable, non-trivial source for the article. The current article looks a lot like OR, and isn't exactly pretty-K@ngi e ^meep! 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save!- this article is about an opinionated topic in the first place and it offers interesting ideas that can't be found anywhere else. There is no one set meaning to these songs, probably not even to the weens themselves. If the topic were highly dependent on facts and black and white, I would say definately delete it, but have some creativity my friends :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.174.96 (talk • contribs) 03:19, February 16, 2007 (UTC).
That's just the trouble, though. We have this no original research policy, so the very fact that it can't be found anywhere else is sufficient reason to delete it, because it's not "verifiable" in any outside source. In this case, it pains me to say it, but them's the rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 16 February 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 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers[edit]

VfD
AfD

I don't see any claim to notability in this article. Alexa rank of 185,932. It seems to fail every criterion of WP:WEB, no non-trivial coverage in verifiable and reliable sources. Previous keep arguments seemed to consist mostly of WP:ILIKEIT. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it certainly asserts notability, but the only external link is to the site itself. More independent sources are needed to demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Only listings in Google News Archive are from Vive Le Canada, which has some sort of affiliation, so not independent. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; doesn't seem to meet the criteria – Qxz 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB and does not seem notable enough to merit a Wiki article, for it to be notable it needs more secondary sources other than it's webpage, anybody can have a webpage. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article appears to have some merit. It could also benefit from improvements. I have noted that the editors of this article have not received notice of the AfD. User:Jayden54Bot provides notice for article 4 weeks old or less. Of course, if anything articles of greater duration, with multiple editors deserve greater process. I will manually provide notice to all editors of this article with the following neutral notice: "You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally favour keeping this, the only real concern I'm going to reiterate is that it needs to be treated the same way as Blogging Tories, as it constitutes bias by inclusion to deem one notable and the other not. So they both need to be considered here. I'm personally in favour of keeping both, but can reluctantly accept deletion as long as its ideological counterpoint is treated equivalently. Bearcat 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for pointing out that article, it is now nominated for deletion as well.--RWR8189 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hey, I tried to clean up this article and that one. But might I suggest nominating Liblogs, which is worse than both of these? Also, is the Blogging Tories AFD properly listed? Watchsmart 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has had more than enough time to mature, and still has no sources. Friday (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in the two or three earlier AFDs/VFDs. Bucketsofg 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here we go again. Progressive Bloggers has been mentioned by Canada's top TV network [[46]] and major newspapers [[47]].
I should also note that those Alexa rankings are suspect, because the Progressive Bloggers entry is not about www.progressivebloggers.ca, it's about all 230 sites that comprise the group. If we wanted to accurately reflect this entry's Alexa ranking, we'd have to combine the ratings of all the member blogs.
--The Invisible Hand 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mention of Progessive Bloggers on both of the above sources is trivial and does not satisfy WP:WEB.--RWR8189 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the previous two nominations. CJCurrie 19:13, 15 February 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. Yuser31415 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relate[edit]

Seems to me like it might meet CSD:SPAM, but wanted a wider consensus on the article. Leuko 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the talk page

I didn't create this page but it is a large organisation and should be represented in wikipedia. SuzanneKn 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently someone changed the link and made it look like spam. Leuko 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, please keep. It's a major organisation well known in the UK. --Auximines 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) But actually, after looking at the correct website, it is a fee-for-service provider of counseling. Still seems like WP:SPAM to me. Leuko 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(end of talk page bit)

Speedy keep Obviously notable, but the current one-sentence article is shite. Improve, please. Totnesmartin 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while it's only a one line stub, I'm not sure a charity can spam. Anyway, despite this being a nothing stub, Relate is definitely notable, it's the largest relationship counselling and sex therapy group in the UK, with about 600 offices around the country, and saw 150,000 people last year alone - it was formed in 1938 as the Marriage Guidance Council, changing its name to Relate in the early 1990s. Princess Diana was a patron. I can't believe this article is so bad, when you consider offshoots of Relate (such as British Association for Counselling and equivalent charities in other countries (such as Relationships Australia) have decent articles. The stub just fails to assert any notability, at all. Should be easy enough to flesh out before the close of this AFD, I'll take a look tomorrow. Couple of references: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], and [55]. Proto::► 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple? :) Totnesmartin 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight isn't a couple? (innocent) Proto::► 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topics is notable, just isn't a very good article... yet. WjBscribe 05:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add a suitable maintenance tag; it needs expansion. (Needs a more specific stub tag, too; I'm not well-versed in the options for that, so I don't want to go and add the wrong one) – Qxz 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Needs expansion, and per Qxz needs tagging for improvement, however certainly notable. ^Khukri 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's been listed for six days, I'm not sure "speedy keep" is really an option :) – Qxz 21:02, 14 February 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 Redirect to Alea iacta est and otheruse to the band, WarCry (band). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:11Z

Alea Jacta Est‎[edit]

This album listing has no context, no claim of notability. Cybergoth 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't even specify the artist or link anywhere – Qxz 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Alea iacta est. The current page is a directory entry and has to go per WP:NOT, but as a search term this might be useful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 19 February 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. Yuser31415 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking if a coin is fair[edit]

Violates WP:NOT as Wikipedia is not a How-to. Recommend transwiki and then delete this article. SocratesJedi | Talk 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is somewhat how-to-like, but I think some of the information could be useful, if merged into a suitable article (perhaps coin flipping or a probability article). So merge and/or transwiki (where would it be transwikied to, Wikibooks?) – Qxz 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks sounds reasonable. Other suggestions? -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that this is a "how-to" article. It's explaining how to apply statistical testing procedures to answer a question. But that doesn't make it a "how-to" article. On the basis of the reasoning that underlies this nomination, every single Wikipedia article on mathematical and statistical subjects ought to be deleted, since math is always about "how to" use logic in some context or another. Oh -- does anybody read the History pages in these debates? This article originated back in 2005 by being split out of coin flipping. DavidCBryant 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhhh, not... really... This is an application of a set of well-known statistical concepts to a "real world" problem. Another article of this kind would be What are the chances that the light bulb lights up the next time you flip the switch. That's very different from an article on Bayesian inference or hypothesis testing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This is not a how-to article, any more than the articles on (say) Euclid's algorithm or Float glass are. -- Dominus 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the reasons given by David. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs sources though to not be original research. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It lacks sources for one really simple reason. It is mathematically nonsense. (Igny 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep for reasons given by David. This article is entirely in our domain. I can't believe the Wikibooks readers would want it. Kla'quot 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note the coin flipping article references a scientific and mathematical investigation by Persi Diaconis (which perhaps should be directly cited in this article as well). Or do we need to clear out more article space for Pokémon characters?! --KSmrq^T 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But, please, can someone add one of the zillion available references to this, even some college probabilities textbook handily on your shelf? People who have not studied probabilities don't realize the obsession with this fair coin, fair die, fair bet that statisticians and mathematicians have, and how prevalent the literature is on the topic. References would forestall a lot of these discussions. PS It is, indeed, written like a how-to, and this, too, needs changed. KP Botany 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more appropriate, e.g. Statistical bias detection and rewrite from the perspective of that subject, keeping current text as an example. Only the title of this article is problematic; the content is perfectly reasonable. JulesH 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "fair coin" would be ok. It already redirects to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've rewritten the "preamble" section (I probably ought to retitle it, also, but didn't think of anything appropriate while I was at it). I've also added one reference, and I'll tie that in to the rest of it with <ref> tags in the next day or so. Someone else should have a look at the section I've rewritten to be sure I didn't make any misstatements. This article is very poorly written. The examples are reasonable, and the math is OK, but the prose is truly horrid. DavidCBryant 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is silly to construe the title literally and call this a how-to article. Anyone familiar with statistics knows that when one talks about "coin-tossing" one is usually talking about something more general. Michael Hardy 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But right now the article isn't being described in generality; it's a specific application. Specific applications and examples are fine in textbooks or even our sister project, Wikibooks, but it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Examples should be given only when they are absolutely required to clarify the meaning of an article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Think of it as an article on the posterior probability density function, but with a a more prosaic name, just as "coin-tossing" is prosaic for Bernoulli process. linas 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but why not then just title it posterior prob density function and then write it in generality rather than on this particular example. It's not the idea that I'm objecting to; it's the style in which it's written that makes me believe it ought to be on wikibooks unless it undergoes a substantial rewrite. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful as an entry-level article. Charles Matthews 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to fair coin. ~ trialsanderrors 21:29, 18 February 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 Dante Alighieri – Qxz 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuds[edit]

Article makes no claims to notability, unsourced. Dwiki 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily (it doesn't seem to assert importance or significance in any tangible way) – Qxz 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tagged for speedy deletion – Qxz 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per-nom. -Selket ^Talk 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delort this nonsense. Nardman1 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and excellent concise summation per Nardman. ^Khukri 20:33, 14 February 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 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pithy quips[edit]

I do not think local quiz champions are notable Alex Bakharev 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't appear to be notable, no sources to suggest otherwise – Qxz 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - no assertion of notability. YechielMan 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. ^Khukri 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for tenure of reign; page used as tool at PubQuiz to introduce attendees to wikipedia; avg weekly attendance >180; page edited to include local links.--Pithy quip

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 talk 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence[edit]

Significant support for deletion on article's discussion page, un-Wiki nature of article, unscientific. Organ123 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; reasonably coherent article with plenty of references, but the article is inherently un-neutral in nature – Qxz 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you explain what is inherently un-neutral about it? Intelligence is just an objective measure of something, not an opinion. Joshdboz 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article is inherently POV, but perhaps some of the sourced content could be merged into Ashkenazi Jews. -- Black Falcon 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject matter aside, a well referenced article even though it's a fringe theory, it's still well documented on t'interweb. Would suggest instead of deleting article out of hand find referenced counterpoint arguments, if editors do not like the subject matter. ^Khukri 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well it is well-documented that African Americans have a higher crime rate than other Americans. Would you then say equivalently that its ok to make an article called African American predisposition to crime with all the well-sourced statistics proving this? Usedup 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD is about an actual article not about an hypothetical article, if such an article came up then I would again vote on it's actual content. ^Khukri 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't really answered if you would vote to keep that article too. After all, both would be very well sourced. Usedup 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course I've not answered, your strawman article doesn't exist. But there's a way round that, write the article, put an AfD tag on it and I might vote on it. ^Khukri 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that would violate WP:POINT. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are other places some of the info here could go to, but most of it is about the calibre of flat-worlder logic. If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty anecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is. It would be quite the learning experience, surely.Ernham 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been a fair bit of discussion about how many of the problems in the Ashkenazi gene pool (like Tay-Sachs) stem from inbreeding. If you have enough material to start an article on the subject using reliable sources and can make a decent stub, then go ahead. JoshuaZ 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, race and intelligence (and subarticles) covers this subject without the implied racism. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a good point. This information is already covered elsewhere. Deleting this article wouldn't erase its presence from the encyclopedia. Usedup 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Perhaps Redirect to Ashkenazi Jews because all the citations are good. The creator of this article [56] placed it in an unenviable out-of-context situation that casts doubt on it, but it definitely has something to say as many in science, politics and religion (Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Leon Trotsky, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov and see List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners etc etc) are all proof that this article is 100% correct. IZAK 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it has diffs supporting it really isn't the point though. Things can be 100% true and that still doesn't necessitate a stand-alone lenghty article. Would you support the creation of a Sub-Saharan African Intelligence page with the many IQ studies proving that Sub-Saharan Africans have IQs in the low 70s just because it is well-documented and there are many examples supporting this claim (violence, backwardness)? Or would that be considered racist to highlight it with its very own article and give it such strong credence? Usedup 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However the page is very POV, and needs to be improved. I am the one that started this page. I actually started it in order to move this material off the Ashkenazi Jews page, and to drive away all the crackpots that beat the drum for this material. In other words, I actually started this page not because I believe in this dreck, but because I didn't like the way the Cochranites had taken over the Ashekenazi Jews page with their somewhat fringy ideas. The Ashkenazi Jews article is already too long. This is material that has been in the news a lot. I would call the Cochrane stuff just slightly better than fringe theory. It has actually been published in a so-called peer-reviewed academic journal, although that doesn't mean much, and the journal is only borderline in respectability. It is a coherent idea, but it just happens to be wrong. --Metzenberg 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't like to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I would rather see a much better article written that would be balanced and inclusive. Barring that, I would like to see the Cochran material moved onto the page about Gregory Cochran himself, not back onto the Ashkenazi Jews page. --Metzenberg 11:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metzenberg. Whether or not these ideas are correct they are notable ideas that has been discussed in many reliable sources and the main article on Ashkenazi Jews is way too long. Agree that this needs to be NPOVed though. JoshuaZ 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, this afd isn't on completely deleting the material - it is on deleting the article. What reason is there behind having a separate unprecedented article when this information can nicely trimmed and merged into Ashkenazi Jews? Usedup 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Metzenberg's motivation (see above) was reasonable in creating the article. But in my opinion, "Ashkenazi intelligence" is an inappropriate (and POV if not racism-begging) premise for an article, and perhaps as a result, the article is beyond repair. I think that the facts of this article should be applied in a different context (for instance, in the Gregory Cochran entry and others). But the fact that Ashkenazim have a high average IQ score and do disproportionately well in academia -- while interesting -- is not worthy of its own encyclopedia entry. Organ123 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Organ123 - There actually is much better material written on this subject than what is written here. It's too bad that somebody like the neuropsychologist Miles David Storfer can't take a crack at this material. --Metzenberg 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is appropriate as perhaps a minor side note on a Ashkenazic Jewish page, but by itself it is basically an article for a study and since there is no precedent for this type of thing, I'm gonna say delete. There are many studies in all reaches of race and intelligence but they don't have their separate article. Equivalently an article called The European and American domination of Arts and Sciences probably wouldn't pass very well although it could be VERY VERY WELL sourced and just as User:Izak up there gave us great examples of famous Jewish personalities who exhibited high intelligence we could fill up that article with many similar examples. If there was a famous study conducted proving that the Jewish people have a genetic tendency to be frugal and it was equally well-sourced, I have a feeling there wouldn't be as many keeps; it would just be called "anti-semitic." Usedup 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just seaching for ashkenzai iq on google gets you 53,000 hits. While this article needs to be expanded and cleaned up, it is certainly notable, verifiable, and not junk-pov. A title change would be fine, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Joshdboz 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be well sourced, is notable, and is exactly what I expected to find at this article. MLA 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Race and intelligence. Encyclopedic, well-supported, but not necessary as a separate article. Αργυριου (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...merge if you gotta...but don't delete. --Lukobe 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The main argument in favor of deletion seems to be a presumption that the topic in question has an overwhelmingly obvious correct answer and additionally that discussing the topic is politically unpalatable, hence, the article and discussion should be quashed as the article has no substantial merits and significant de-merits. What's wrong with this argument? (1) This is a common point of view, that Ashkenazi Jews on average are more intelligent than other groups, and it is legitimate to discuss this body of thought and opinion regardless of whether one agrees with it, (2) In fact, those who argue for deletion would do better to expand the body of knowledge available on this page regarding the topic in question by posting information regarding how this commonly held body of opinion regarding Ashkenazi Jews is flawed, rather than attempting to quash discussion about it. (3) My personal opinion - it is glaringly obvious that Ashkenazi Jews are on average more intelligent in certain ways than other groups. Those with a political axe to grind are actually those who don't like the conclusion and want to enforce mandatory adherence to the dogma that intelligence is not heritable. Sharpening and using such political axes is not the point of Wikipedia. There is a body of research, thought, and opinion regarding the question of Jewish intelligence; the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly points to conclusions that some find politically offensive does not mean that information regarding this widespread body of thought and opinion should be blocked from Wikipedia. -Me 02:16 am 16 February 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.64.46 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think you forgot to sign on. Though the "me" part is throwing me off. Usedup 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is thoroughly sourced using material that is fully-compliant with WP:RS and WP:V and meets WP:N. I'm sure that the concept raises political correctness issues with many, but the theory that improved intelligence conferred advantages to Ashkenazi Jews is no different from the claim that sickle cell anemia confers advantages in Africa by providing resistance to malaria or that Northern Europeans are more likely to be lactose tolerant assisted in their survival. The claim that the article is inherently "unscientific" is ludicrous on teh face of the scholarly research provided. Alansohn 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So African American genetic predisposition to crime would be a fine article to keep if it existed because there's boatloads of research proving it? I'm finding it hard to believe if this article had a negative connotation you would still wish to keep it with the same reasonings. Why is it so necessary to make an entirely separate article about this? Most of the article is about a study that isn't even that famous. Usedup 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only address the article that has been proposed here for deletion. This article discusses a theory that increased intelligence conferred adaptive advantages to Ashkenazi Jews, so that this trait was enhanced and selected for through evolutionary and cultural changes. The claim that the "article is about a study that isn't even that famous" is utterly irrelevant to notability. Alansohn 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not true. The fact that there are many other studies on intelligence more famous than this one that DON'T have separate articles highlighting them makes it seem as if wikipedia gives more worth to this one over others. On the other hand, if this was just a segment of the Ashkenazic Jew article, it wouldn't seem as if the encyclopedia is trying to hold it above all others. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well if as you say there are more famous cases, that's not the fault of this article, and I believe not relevant to this AfD. If I understand you correctly you are not arguing against this article in most of your commentaries, but the fact there are not similar articles for different ethnicities. Well the simple suggestion would be to create them, as you say there are more famous cases than this one, so with 53,000 Ghit this one has already demonstrated basic notability let alone it's verifibility etc. So if they are more famous it will not be difficult for you to start these articles, or I you don't have the time, you may go to WP:AFC with the basic premise and I'm sure they wil be started for you. To quote you ...makes it seem as if wikipedia gives more worth... it might make is semm but it could be just an editor who loves all things Jewish has created this article, but no-one has bothered to do the others. But the lack of other articles is not a problem of this article, and I will say again is a strawman argument. Oh and just for the record I think the theory is bunkum, but although the subject matter is controversial I'm voting on the article, it's notability, verifibility, and not whether I believe it or not. ^Khukri 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the word "intelligence" is throwing you off. It is merely a measure, not a value judgement. So if the sources were available, an article entitled African Americans and crime would be appropriate because it recognizes that there is a notable issue, but does not make a judgement on it. Joshdboz 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What difference does it make if the article title makes a judgement or the article itself does? This article is making a judgement immediately at the header. The judgement is backed up by a thorough study but so are many other judgements and we don't have separate articles for each one of them. Why is it so necessary to report this one so directly? Nobody seems to find the dozens of studies on the average IQ of Japanese being significantly higher on visuospatial tests so important as to make an article about it. The importance of that study is well rooted and has many of the same explanations as this (cultural and historical changes). I think the fact that so many people actually vote keep on this article shows the inherent bias of wikipedia. Most wikipedia editors are white males, and I'm sure almost everyone on this AFD is one too. (Please don't chime in and say you're not...there's a reason I put "almost.") So naturally, we're going to feel more strongly about keeping an article on Ashkenazic Intelligence than one on Japanese Intelligence or Aborigine Intelligence. But this is problematic, because the fact that we HAVE an article on Ashkenazic Intelligence and not on the main other well-studied researches equivalent to it shows that we are lending more worth to that study than others. I'm not against reporting these studies, I'm against highlighting them as is being done now. Why not just add this to the Ashkenazic Jewish article in a couple of sentences? It can be done and has before. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that you have to resort to claims of alleged bias as the sole basis for deleting this article demonstrates a failure to understand what Wikipedia is about. As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Unless you are challenging the fact that the statements provided to back up the article do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, it would seem that your sole objection is based on your own personal bias. Alansohn 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kolindigo 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I soon give up the whole Wikipedia. Should this not be a lexika??? It seems like this is a advertising-"lexika" for some special ethnic groups on this earth. Wikipedia seems NOT like a serious lexika. Should it be written an aricle about "German intelligence"?? Some will say an article like this sounds stupid, but it is in the same street as "Ashkenazi intelligence". The biggest survey on Ashkenazi intelligence is done among 1300 diasporic jews (All other inquiries was a done on a very small number of diasporic jews), the average IQ here was was 107. Germans and the Dutch have scored higher average IQ in two different inquries. STOP this "look how much more intelligent and better we are than other"-thing. Have we not have enough of it in our history on this earth?? Wikipedia seems simply as a kind of propaganda-"lexika" for some ethnic groups.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.209.194.178 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per Above. Molo5
Delete. Bulldog123 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While it might be possible to have an article like this one, as it stands this article is mostly OR. Merged the good sourced info (if there is any) into Ashkenazi Jews Also, are we going to have an article like this one for every race and ethnic group?futurebird 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not needed with boasting-"talk big"-pages in Wikipedia, where all the most positive statistic is refered to and all the not so good hidden/not mentioned. Shall Wikipedia be a talk-big-lexika for some ethnic groups?? The person who started this page is obviously not neutral. Mannfredmannfred
Delete per nom. Kavitafrommadurai
- — Kavitafrommadurai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only 7 edits other than this vote, six of which relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Usedup. Helenparis444
- — Helenparis444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only 9 edits other than this vote, six of which also relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ernham. Suganthini
- — SuganthinifromJaffna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Limited number of edits other than this vote, eight of which also relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my problem being we could end up having an article for every ethnic group or societal class based on intelligence.Muntuwandi 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that there are many people who are of ashkenazi jewish descent who are not ashkenazi jews(intermarriage etc). How are they going to be accounted for.Muntuwandi 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above Feydakin 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, criteria for inclusion are met, ie WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. To the extent it's felt there's WP:NPOV deficiency, in and of itself that isn't cause for deletion but there should be good faith edits to attain neutrality. Whether people agree or not with the propositions of Ashkenazi intelligence, it's a well known meme, and to the extent there are verifiable and reputable sources that this idea shouldn't be believed, that should be added to educate readers and debunk the idea rather than censoring out a topic. Reasons for deletion aren't convincing. Merging it with Ashkenazi Jews is also sensible to me. Beyazid 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ernham. nykosher
- — nykosher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only one other article edited other than this AfD. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is devoted to a perfectly legitimate and scientific topic, see for example, Race and intelligence, of which this article is merely an offshoot. In addition, all the content is sourced to reliable sources; neutrality disputes do not constitute a basis for deletion. Beit Or 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Race and Intelligence has already gone berserk, giving rise to

Race and intelligence (Controversies)

Race and intelligence (Explanations)

Race and intelligence (Research)

Race and intelligence (Public controversy)

Race and intelligence (References)

Race and intelligence (history)

Race and intelligence research

Race and intelligence (test data)

Race and intelligence (Research)

Race and intelligence (practical importance)

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Race and intelligence (average gaps among races)

Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias)

Race and intelligence (utility of research)

etc., without even bringing into it Inheritance_of_intelligence and other relevancies. Fact is, the whole general topic needs a serious rewrite. Gzuckier 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without agreeing with nominator. The article content is ok, should be improved, but as part of Ashkenazi Jews. Merge the content there. Jd2718 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Merge to Ashkenazi Jews or Weak Delete. This sort of article is a problem as an article; topic as a topic is not encylcopediac. But the content would be of value in the aforementioned article. This article, one way or another, should not remain. Jd2718 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (clarifying self)[reply]
Strong Delete All is said by others who want this article deleted without merging. I do not support merging at all.Cangbush
- I notice that yours is a brand new account with only activity on wikipedia being this AfD vote, which to me detracts from the force of your "strong delete" / "no merge" / destroy-this-information sentiment. It even leads to an amount of suspicion about WP:SOCK. Beyazid 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. At the very least, it should get a better title, because intelligence itself is such a tricky concept. Doubtless there is potential for a valid article on the topic (which should also include the early 20th-century U.S. studies claiming to show that Ashkenazi Jews were of below average intelligence, part of the whole weird history of measuring intelligence). Seems to me that the topic is going to come up one way or another, so it might be best to take it on frontally. However, I am not sure whether Wikipedia is currently capable of producing a good article on such a fraught subject, which is why I cannot simply say "keep". - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is apage on Race and intelligence.Baka man 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into any articles dealing with those prtclr Psychometrics that undertook this research! frummer 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Ashkenazi Jews. Isn't it odd that Gregory Cochran's paper has still not been published, and is probably taking a beating at peer review? JFW | T@lk 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't see a strong reason for deletion of this article. It could probably use a better title. Elizmr 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not see that this article is especially scientific or neutral. The biggest on this field do not seems to be mentioned. Also: This voting seems to go for overtime: time:20.42 19.Febr: 18 delete-13 keep SriKorange. Now 19-14.
Merge the main points into Ashkenazi Jews. The research should be and is also mentioned in the race and intelligence series. I see no need (yet) to spread this over so many articles. gidonb 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sourced and relevant, don't see any strong argument for deleting it. Amoruso 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it would be surprising if there were no article on this subject. --Shamir1 04:45, 21 February 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. --Core desat 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Dark[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:NOTE. No claims to notability made in the article, none found via a Google search. 151 distinct google hits[57] looks reasonable, but when you browse through them, they are almost all linked to the author (davidcsimon.com), the host (nightgig, the gigcast), the advertising site project wonderful, and / or comixpedia. No independent reliable sources showing any notability where found in this search. Fram 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unsourced and unencyclopedic in its current form – Qxz 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; If its unencylopedic, it can be fixed. We can source it too. Zaphael 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is fixed and sourced, feel free to consider my "delete" retracted, but I don't think it should be kept in its current state – Qxz 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not a substitute for {cleanup} and {source} tags. Balancer 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, how can you say it needs cleanup as justification for deletion? Zaphael 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you can't simply say the article needs cleanup as a justification for deletion. Balancer 12:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per nom, it's on the web but mostly promotional blogs. Currently article does not assert notability, but if the above editor who is a contributor to this article can demonstrate notability, or how it stand out from any number of other web comics, then I'm willing to change my vote. ^Khukri 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been nominated for "Outstanding Sci-Fi Webcomic" in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (with only three others). It has reviews on Spacesuits and Sixguns [58] and the creator has been interviewed by Fleen ([59], and currently ranks 47 on Top Webcomics List [60]. I'm just throwing everything I can find out there. I'm not really sure what makes an article "notable", so I'll leave that to someone else. Also, why is the article unencylopedic? I'll fix it if you tell me.Zaphael 08:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an article notable is explained in WP:NOTE (WP:V and WP:RS may come in handy as well). A blog (like Fleen) does not count, a new webzine like Spacesuits and Sixguns does in my opinion not count in most cases either. The WCCA awards have recently been deleted from Wikipedia as being non notable on their own (but this may well be overturned at deletion review), but a nomination is not enough to make a comic notable anyway. The Top Webcomics list is a popularity contest, not a notability contest. Many popular websites, online games, ... have been deleted because they lacked the necessary reliable sources. Basically, while it is clear that the webcomic exists, has a following, has admirers, ..., it isn't notable yet (in the Wikipedia sense). It may become notable, but it can only have an article after that happens. For an idea of what would indicate notability, take a look at this New York Times article, the main reason the WCCA article may be kept after all[61]. A comic that gets a paragraph in such an article (be it favourable or not), like Narbonic and The Perry Bible Fellowship, has a clear indication of notability. This is the kind of thing we are looking for, not blogs, fansites, fora, ... Of course, the problem lies with the borderline cases, sources which may be reliable and independent enough for one person, but too much like a fanzine for someone else. I haven't seen any sources yet which are good enough for my interpretation of WP:NOTE, but other editors and the closing admin may of course disagree. Fram 09:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, WP:NOTE doesn't apply to web-only content. WP:WEB does. But you're probably right anyway. And what about getting nominated for WCCA? Zaphael 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a few nominations, or actually winning a WCCA, would qualify under (2) Awards. Also, "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" would work. Alternatively, being "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Balancer 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of reputable sources or importance. -- Dragonfiend 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Fails to adhere to policies governing notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. The only source is the author, and the vast majority of the article is cruft anyway. Google shows little recognition out of blogs and other social spaces. NetOracle 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete based on current available evidence. Note for the record that this comic may easily meet WP:N in the fairly near future, and that as current WCCA nominee, it may in fact meet WP:WEB's awards clause in a couple days, so this AFD should not be taken as a bar to re-creating the article, and also should be kept open until after the WCCA results come in (and extended by several days if necessary should this comic win) to avoid an immediate DRV. Balancer 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you've changed your mind since you wrote, "Speculation as to whether or not a topic may be written about in the future is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not the topic is notable."[62] --Dragonfiend 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but am I supposed to leave the article be whilst this debate is going on? Because I realise it is mostly fancruft, and I plan to change it should it survive. It might help the case if it were in a better form. Zaphael 14:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might. You might stick a copy on your userpage, too, so you can save your work for later and just re-post it once the comic has become notable (as seems likely to happen in the not-too-distant future). Fram, I haven't changed my mind as to whether or not speculation about the future is relevant to notability. IMO, it isn't notable now, but the timing of the AFD is such that without an extension, there's something like a 1 in 4 shot of an immediate DRV based on it having suddenly become notable per [[WP:WEB]. I suppose that's not too bad of a hassle. If we are all in agreement here that this comic is (a) not notable now and (b) becomes notable if it wins the WCCA, we can express that. Can I have a straw poll on that if..then statement to see if it's agreeable? Just say aye or nay. I say aye. Balancer 06:22, 18 February 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 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vale[edit]

When I first saw this article, I thought I was looking at a vandalized version. Going through the history, though, it seems every version is like that. – Qxz 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity article. ^Khukri 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really an article about "the Vale" but about the student residence buildings surrounding it, which themselves are not (that I can see) notable. We generally delete articles about dormitories that do not demonstrate exceptional notability (e.g. historic designation). --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 14 February 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 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retired First-Scotrail Services[edit]

Something's wrong with this list. I'm guessing that the templates it was based on got deleted; at any rate, there is no notability rationale at present. YechielMan 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; broken page with no encyclopedic content – Qxz 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No assertion of notability and insufficient information to improve it. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 15 February 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 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Philips[edit]

Senior Finance director for a state political party? Does not rise to notability levels, IMHO. TexasAndroid 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; I agree, the position alone isn't really significant enough to merit an article – Qxz 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Currently does not assert notability, relatively new article. By the the end of AfD unless referenced, should be minimum stubbed or deleted. ^Khukri 21:50, 14 February 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 Merge to The Simpsons DVD boxsets. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:17Z

The Simpsons DVD commentaries[edit]

I think this article is unneeded, the information could be included as an extra parameter for ((Infobox Simpsons episode)) or included on the List of The Simpsons episodes. The article has numerous links to the same article (especially Matt Groening, who is present for a lot of the commentaries) and my first suggestion would eliminate this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurama DVD commentaries, of which the result was delete. Will Mak 050389 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - listcruft, superflous information which just seems to list every Simpsons/Futurama DVD, maybe add a category but sure that would get deleted as well. Will's template idea make's sense. ^Khukri 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable information Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support addition of entry for commentaries to the Simpsons episode infobox, then thransplanting this information into the articles. Following that , delete or redirect as appropriate. -- saberwyn 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional. I would like to state that I do not support the merging or datadumping of this information into the DVD boxset article. Each commentary is only relevant in the context of the episode the commentary is associated with. -- saberwyn 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable list. Stardust8212 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was actually discussed here in which the discussion pointed towards merging it with The Simpsons DVD boxsets. --Maitch 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we're working on merging the two pages and also adding info in individual episode pages. -- Scorpion 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cruft through and through. JuJube 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Trans-wiki - this is useful information for a fanwiki. I'm sure one should exist for the Simpsons, somewhere. --Action Jackson IV 04:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Simpsons DVD boxsets. --Maitch 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-noteable information that doesn't have have any relevance to why it is neccessary to keep. -Adv193 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Simpsons DVD boxsets. -- Scorpion 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Because the Futurama one was ... Jigsy 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Simpsons DVD boxsets. I find this info quite useful, and I suppose notable, but it does seem there could be a better way of integrating it. Gfloner 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Simpsons DVD boxsets, as per above. Rhino131 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone think that merging the Commentary information to the Dvd Boxset might damage that pages quality and raise the chances of that page being proposed for deletion. -Adv193 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think so. It doesn't matter where you put this information on Wikipedia, it's still going to be fancruft. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree, that page looks a bit overstuffed as it is and adding this info to it would make the page worse without value added. Stardust8212 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. -- Wikipedical 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and move It is notable, but would be better under a better title.--Sefringle 05:13, 19 February 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. -Doc^g 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Peruvian activists[edit]

This list consists almost entirely of redlinks. Moreoever, as User:Usedup has noted in the AfD for "List of Peruvian Jews", this essentially is the list version of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference -- Black Falcon 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all List cruft, this is what categories are for, and I can't imagine an encyclopedic use for these lists. ^Khukri 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- actually, I would support merging them to a general List of Peruvian Jews if sources were provided that the people are indeed Jews in the occupations for which they are noted or if they were all bluelinks which could serve as "soft" references. But as neither condition holds, I think they should all be deleted. -- Black Falcon 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them; barely a blue link in sight – Qxz 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Pretty much all red-list with no sources so no verifiability and useless anyway.--Dacium 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Peruvian Jews and list them there. IZAK 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge all to List of Peruvian Jews. These are mainly too short to have as separate lists, but a single list for all Peruvian Jewry seems fine. JoshuaZ 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Per Falcon's actions and Usedup's comments, go with just redirection to the general list of Latin American Jews. Redirects need to stay since Falcon moved content from this article elsewhere and so GFDL is active. JoshuaZ 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, all of the names were in the List of Latin American Jews in a previous version dated November 27 2006. The "Lists of Peruvian Jews" initially existed as a section of "List of Latin American Jews". It was easier to copy the 8 blue-links back in than selectively rever to and cleanup the old versions. However, that said, I don't necessarily oppose leaving them as redirects (I really have no opinion on that). Cheers, Black Falcon 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, that's headachy for GFDL purposes. I don't think it will matter then if we delete it but IANAL. JoshuaZ 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify: all of the names in the individual "occupation" lists were replicated in the main List of Peruvian Jews. So perhaps only the main list needs to be kept (in any case, that one should most definitely be a redirect). -- Black Falcon 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Peruvian Jews, which sounds like the best suggestion here. — coelacan talk — 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point isn't that there are many article divisions its that the list itself is full of non-notables. There is nothing to merge. The smaller lists are just divions of the big list, which is filled with names that don't show up on more than one page of google. Keeping the list really makes no sense. Any articled names of Peruvian Jews can fit fine on List of Latin American Jews. Usedup 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my nomination of the big list itself. Usedup 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have copied the 8 blue-links present in all of these lists to List of Latin American Jews#Peru. Those articles which do not assert that the subject is of Jewish background have been tagged with ((fact)) and may be removed. -- Black Falcon 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shirahadasha 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely expunge wikipedia of such directory entries. Ohconfucius 10:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can everyone here who hasn't already comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews. We seem to be getting a series of "keeps" from people who haven't read why we are deleting these lists in the first place. Usedup 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all too specific for notability--Sefringle 05:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - A random intersection of facts (Peruvian, Jewish, etc.) does not add up to notability.Glendoremus 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a list of Peruvian Jews. These lists together would make up for a good resource. I assume that while these red links may linger on a long time, many of these people are probably notable. The existing links should be included in the list of Latin American Jews. gidonb 00:13, 20 February 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. Yuser31415 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clif Bar[edit]

Nom - almost entirely unverifiable information from unreliable sources Keithkml 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to a lack substantial encyclopedic information; most of the article consists of a quote and a list of products – Qxz 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - publicity piece, certainly exists but not notable amongst health bars. ^Khukri 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems as though references shouldn't be too hard to find? Is there a guideline for product notability?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in terrible shape, but they do sell millions of these things. I can go downstairs and get one from my cafeteria right now. I think it is certainly notable and verifiable. As for unreliable sources, the article needs cleanup. --Selket ^Talk 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be notable, but needs cleanup. Mishatx *разговор* 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Notable commercial product. --Dennisthe2 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Inc. (magazine) story is a good source, and there's certainly more out there ([63], [64], ISBN 1-591-84093-7, for a start). Needs cleanup, though —Cel ithemis 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up; it's a notable and easily verifiable product. Let's let the editorial process do its job. --Hyperbole 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and even stronger cleanup. Article is a mess, but Clif Bars, though NE (non - edible), are not NN (non - notable). --Action Jackson IV 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, they sure beat the heck out of a MetRX bar. --Dennisthe2 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable product/company, with plenty of reliable sources available, as Celithemis pointed out above. Just needs a major cleanup, which is not a reason to delete. schi ^talk 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see more in the way of third-party references, but the product is clearly notable. --El on ka 03:42, 17 February 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 Redirect to IUSTV in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:18Z

Destructo Box[edit]

Googling this term gets an amazing 185 hits. None of them are of mulitple, independent, non-trivial works that are required per WP:WEB. This looks to me like a very small production that does not meet the WP:WEB requirements. Hbdragon88 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mishatx *разговор* 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The page in question is a page for a televised program that is aired not only to the 40,000 students of Indiana University Bloomington on IUSTV, but also to the entire city of Bloomington (population of 70,000) on a nightly basis on CATV Insight Ch. 7. I created this page out of interest in expanding the knowledge of the programming on IUSTV that reaches over 100,000 people daily. Currently, more than one episode of the show in the article in question airs on a rotational basis, and this article would provide necessary background information on the show's creation, production, and eventually an episode list (which I've not yet had the time to create). The intention of this article is the same has having an article that is a brief blurb about a song that is part of a greater project (an album). Likewise, the intentions of myself and the creators of the show is to allow the public to read the necessary information about this part of IUSTV's lineup. In addition, this production is intended to be continued in the creators' post-graduate careers in the form of a web-based cartoon, for which there are many, many articles currently found on Wikipedia. Rhardiii 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were notable at all, it would be mentioned somewhere by the news media. A Lexis-Nexis search (of news articles) for this term returns zero results. --Aude (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article has been fleshed out to a larger degree. Rhardiii 09:55, 19 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:18Z

Dicta License[edit]

Procedural listing without prejudice following deletion review of speedy delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is at this time a proposed rewrite at Talk:Dicta License#Dicta License (revised). I haven't looked to see if it is a better article. The band is from the Phillipines, so systemic bias and sources in other languages could be issues. GRBerry 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no published sales figures ANYWHERE and they don't even have their own website. Theirs expired and was snapped up by a landing site company. There can be no proper assertion of notability without sales or chart figures. Nardman1 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really hard to find published album sales figures in the Philippines, especially if you're not one of those major bands/artists that sell that much. The band, Dicta License, is a non-mainstream act, but they are under a major record label (Warner Music Philippines), which I think suffices for their notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenvidanes (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Notable, signed in a major label (Warner Music). --Howard the Duck 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Howard and that Dicta License has music videos show in MYX, has been featured in different newspapers and magazines here in the Philippines. Dicta License is one of the many bands in the Philippines that Filipino Wikipedians have a hard time finding references to assert notability because the Internet presence of Filipino media is scarce (Inq7.net is the only primary and most visible resource we have, and most of the news there are from politics). Berserkerz Crit 10:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. nominations from NU Rock Awards and MTV Philippines assert notability. 202.138.180.33 05:12, 19 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:19Z

Patty Shwartz[edit]

Delete, non-notable individual. U.S. Magistrate Judges are attorneys appointed by United States district court judges to either four or eight year terms to handle routine matters. They accordingly do not get the publicity or scrutiny of a Senate confirmation hearing like every full-fledged federal judge does. Also, their opinions do not establish precedents and aren't typically studied or even cited to—their orders are usually in the form of recommendations to the district court judge, unless the parties had expressly consented to have the USMJ issue a binding order. They just don't typically get any attention as individuals beyond those who have to deal with them in the court, and so I do not believe that the position necessarily confers notability. Because this article has no other claims for its subject other than her position as a USMJ, it should be deleted. Postdlf 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I accept the nominator's argument; magistrate judges are essentially court employees, even though a Wikipedia search finds them occasionally making significant decisions. Important, but basically bureaucratic, positions. See also the description under United States district court#United States district judge. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 14 February 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. --Core desat 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1080p display equipment[edit]

Per talk page, it will inevitably grow too large to be maintainable. In addition, it could easily result in a page that includes every device on the market. (The page was prodded for this reason, but was contested without commentary.) Sigma 7 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes about as much sense as a List of things using electricity page, as 1080p will soon be the standard (then, probably surpassed). Mishatx *разговор* 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather pointless to list such a thing as video displays based on a single resolution. I don't see how this can be encyclopedic. --Wildnox (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, it will grow too long, doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia, and there are bound to be consumer review sites that can list available 1080p TVs (and update them ongoing as they come to market). SynergyBlades 14:29, 16 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:20Z

List of The Daily Show guests[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT#INFO. Specifically, this article is essentailly a plot summary of of every episode (#7), only a plot summary, without any real-world significance or analysis on why it is so important. It also fails WP:NOT#SOAP in that it lists what each guest was promoting when they appeared on this show. This is purely unencyclopedic info that better belongs on a fanpage instead of on Wikipedia. Please note that "well, it's a well-mantained article" and "well, there are worse articles than this" are not valid reasons for keeping this article.

This AFD also encompasses the 11 other articles that have split the guests year by year. Hbdragon88 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Contains useful info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.57.241.67 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom-K@ngi e ^meep! 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - talk show guests isn't the same as plot. I'm sure there are all sorts of independant refs to back this up. Let the page live, and we can add that info. - Peregrine Fisher 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as directories that bring together trivial lists of people with little or nothing in common beyond having appeared on different episodes of the same television program. Next up will be a year-by-year List of The Today Show guests (really hoping that's a redlink). Otto4711 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia ain't paper, dood. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not paper" is not an excuse for allowing every article, otherwise there would be no AFDs at all. If the list fails policy, WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't save it. Otto4711 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not argue with me, you will not change my mind. WP:NOT#IINFO is not a valid deletion reason either. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe my arguments will reach someone who isn't so proud of being closed-minded. Hope does spring eternal. BTW, I didn't cite WP:NOT#IINFO. I cited WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. And I know I may be accused of making the "there are worse articles than this" argument, but there's plenty of precedent for maintaining lists of appearances in a notable broadcast or publication; see, e.g., List of people in Playboy 2000-present --Hyperbole 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you'll definitely be accused of making the "there are worse articles than this" argument. Look, it's happening right now! While I agree that these do not fall under the plot summary provision of WP:NOT they do fall under the directory provision, which bars "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." Otto4711 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference is that while a truly indiscriminate list, such as Actors who have blue eyes, would give no useful encyclopedic information about either category ("actors" or "blue eyes"), the List of people in Playboy 2000-present does give useful encyclopedic information about Playboy, and the List of The Daily Show guests does give useful encyclopedic information about The Daily Show. --Hyperbole 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the List of Playboy people articles do offer "useful and encyclopedic information." The simple fact that someone was interviewed for a publication is not in and of itself notable or encyclopedic. I also think it sets a bad precedent for the establishment of other equally poor lists of people who are connected only by the happenstance of being booked on the same talk show, regardless of how many months or years apart those appearances were. Otto4711 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing gives more information about the content of a broadcast or publication than an objective listing of its contents (as opposed to a plot summary, which is an inherently subjective listing). The encyclopedic point of looking at such lists isn't to suggest a connection between the people involved; it's to give information about the contents of the broadcast or publication. It may say nothing about John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf that they both appeared on The Daily Show, but it most definitely says something about The Daily Show itself. --Hyperbole 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says that TDS booked a particular guest on a particular day. To which my response is a politely stifled yawn. Talk shows book guests. This fact is not encyclopedic information. Otto4711 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gives information about what kind of guests The Daily Show books--information which any hypothetical future scholar researching The Daily Show would want to know. The only sense in which it is "not encyclopedic" is that the information could theoretically be condensed - which is why the policy that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so perfectly applies. --Hyperbole 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peregrine Fisher above. This is far from a plot summary. Also, merely mentioning the relevance/"newsworthiness" of the guest's appearance (that is, what they're promoting) doesn't make it a soapbox. schi ^talk 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, been here, done that, same argument. For anyone that cares the last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests and failed 0 to 11.

Re: WP:NOT#IINFO: this is not an indiscriminate list and absolute not a plot summary list (why did you say "essentially"?) because I don't see anything about the plot. Additionally, it is a list of facts and no different than, say, List of rivers of the Americas. Just because it happened on a TV show doesn't make it less of a fact than a list of occurances of a geographical feature?
Re: WP:NOT#SOAP: I see no reason why this is a soapbox. There is no POV advocacy, certainly no self-promotion, and hardly advertising.
Re: WP:NOT#DIR: A list of guests on a highly viewed and critically acclaimed show is being compared to a phone book?

I fail to see how the policies cited hold unless you start interpreting words very liberally ("essentially a plot summary" => "plot summary"; reason why the guest was on the show => "soapbox" = "phone book"). This nomination is reaching and probably trying to make a WP:POINT. Cburnett 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like a phonebook, a listing of names with no context, no attempt to connect to a larger idea or analysis, and nothing in common other than the vaguest relationship -- in this case, sitting and chatting with a comedian for five minutes on a basic-cable TV show. And this doesn't even rise to the "plot summary" level, so it's even worse. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I don't see anything in WP:SK that indicates that this should be speedily kept. Other people have also voiced deletion, the nomination was not done purely to be disruptive, I am not banned, and this page is not a policy or guideline. Hbdragon88 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it like a hyperbole: I was making a point. Cburnett 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There was a !vote to delete. As for the !votes in favor, most of them were along the lines of "other bad articles and lists exist so this one should too" and "why pick on this list out of all the lists out there" and "people like it." Nothing of which should have been taken into consideration by the closing admin. As for the indiscriminate and directory-like aspects, I'd like to see someone explain what John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf have in common other than appearing on TDS (nine years apart and under different hosts). Otto4711 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to explain what Uganda's presidental election result and the coup d'etat in the philipines have in common except they happened in February of 2006? All of the year pages are even more indiscriminate and have even less tying them together. Cburnett 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The year articles are not nominated for deletion at this time. Their existence is irrelevant to this nomination. If the best you can do to defend keeping this article is to point to another article you think is just as bad, that's really not a very compelling argument. Otto4711 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does to the extent that I know of no AFD nominations for them which implies greater community support for the existence of such articles. It is implicit consensus for their encyclopedic value. This is not just an example of "another article is here so this one should stay" because of the prevalence of these year articles. If the community did not have an implicit consensus (read: no nominations for literally thousands of articles) that they have encyclopedic value then they would have been deleted long ago. It goes to show that the larger community does not agree that these types of lists are unencyclopedic. Cburnett 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep...went down last time, as it should this time. Cool idea. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still a context-free directory, just as context-free as speedy keep !votes based on "But it was kept before!". How's about an actual rationale? --Calton | Talk 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the burden is on the nominator. Second: how do any of the year in lists or day or year lists not fall in the same category of this? The only thing that binds them together is temporal coincidence? There is no theme to bind them together. Period. It's merely a list of facts that have no relation other than "the vaguest relationship." Cburnett 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The day and year lists are not up for deletion and the existence of any other article is irrelevant to the existence of these. If you feel the day and year articles violate policy you are free to nominate them, although my feeling is they'd be kept. Otto4711 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline with your interpretation of policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007. I'm interested to hear how you think 2007 is not an indiscriminate list of events but this is. Cburnett 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, kept per WP:SNOW. Otto4711 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I predicted: no one (not even you) agreed that the list of facts which were bound to each other by no stronger of a relationship than the list of daily show guests was vehemently kept. Cburnett 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to imagine what "vehemently kept" might mean. I can't think what the keeping of 2007 on the basis of WP:SNOW has to do with this nomination. Otto4711 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to be your dictionary and critical thinker for you. Cburnett 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, why would you try to be those things for me when you're not willing to be them for yourself? Otto4711 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**First, the burden is on the nominator. Noooo, the burden is on the article creator to justify its existence and adherence to Wikipedia inclusion standards. And "other crap exists" -- even granting the premise of something being crap, which I don't -- is not an actual argument. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden on the creator implies ownership. (Besides, the creator is not always the only editor.) Additionally, the nominator has to justify why they are listing it (step two requires a reason). It would be absurd for a nominator to just list an article without a reason. To get philosophical, if the burden is not on the nominator then every article should be up for AFD the second it's created and, ultimately, every article should have an AFD. And to that extent there is no box for a user to justify why the article was created. And, you know, if the burden really was on the creator then creation of an AFD SHOULD require the creator be both notified and given first chance to respond to the AFD. All things considered: nothing plays to put the burden on the creator. Cburnett 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most other shows on the 'pedia have episode lists/guides. Maybe rename the pages to "episodes" instead of "guests" and list the episodes' numbers (if there are any - I haven't a clue) with the guest that appeared that night. There have certainly been some notable guests on The Daily Show for it being a comedy program. I'm just not a big proponent for deleting articles. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important information that would not make sense to create individual categories for. I would like to see notable information next to each guest (topics covered, any notable reactions, etc.) --Ozgod 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ozgod. Actually, I found this page today while searching for a name of a Daily Show guest, because I couldn't find the guest's name on the TDS's home website. Podbay 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What's the point? Why would anybody find this useful or interesting? I can't think of a serious purpose for this list, and I can't even think of an unserious reason why anyone would want to know who appeared on the show in the past. I just don't get it. This perfectly fits the "Wikipedia is not a directory" rule. I don't see much in the Keep side of the debate above other than, Hey, it fits the criteria" and "Other shows do it, why can't we?" My mind's open: What am I missing here? Noroton 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't see why anyone would find 1735 in poetry interesting or see that it has a purpose. (Note: Noroton created this article.) As Antepenultimate says: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cburnett 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hey, that's easy, Cburnett: People studying poets or who enjoy poetry(a) will want to know what was going on in poetry at the same time as the poet or poem they're reading because they may want to read those other poets or poems; it will eventually be a great tool for serious research and long before that it will be a great tool for browsing. Now what's your answer to my question?Noroton 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I admit there is some level of being a TV guide. "Oh, Jimmy Carter will be on next week...I can't miss that one." Second, there's the opposite issue: "Last month or two there was some woman on about stem cells. Who was that? And what book? Oh, Eve Herold and Stem Cell Wars." Third, by topic: "What was that one joke about Donald Rumsfeld resigning? Hmm, it was announced on 11/8/06 so...yup, it was probably on 11/9/06." Fourth: "When the heck was John Kerry on the show? 8/24/04." With tivos and DVR's catching on as well as TDS being on iTunes then it's not unimaginable to want to go back and find an episode. Cburnett 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I want to think about it more, but it's persuasive.Noroton 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noroton. Another reason I can contribute: it might be interesting to people who want to study the political use of the media (e.g., who has appeared on the show, who hasn't, the timing of appearances--before/after elections, and so on). Now granted, it's not a scholarly article on the topic, but I could see it catching someone's fancy. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw Walter Scheib on the show the other week it didn't really go into detail about why he was let go by the First Family. When I made a few minor edits to the page, I clicked his link and read a referenced website from the article and found out why. I found it interesting. Sorry I'm not as sophisticated as the poetry aficionados. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Wadems, on giving me the first actual answer to a sincere question. I accept your apology. And don't worry about it, being polite to strangers is more important than being sophisticated, so I'd work on that first. Hey, Cburnet, do you have an answer yet or do you just want to think about it a while longer? Noroton 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is doing exactly what any Wikipedia list should do: It is documenting information relevant to a subject without cluttering that subject's main article. Information is verifiable and the show is unquestionably notable. That said, let me get on my soapbox for a sec: As this is the article's second nomination, and the first nomination didn't even come close to succeeding in this article's deletion (a unanimous Keep, as a matter'a fact), I have to register a bit of annoyance at seeing this sort of second nomination. Deletionists shouldn't be encouraged to swing at their targeted piñatas until they finally hit them, IMHO. Oh, and Noroton: Take a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Antepenultimate 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you don't get it, Antepenultimate. I wasn't saying I didn't happen to like it, I was asking why anybody would. I don't understand the purpose. I recommend keeping all sorts of things I don't like. I haven't seen a single reason given why anyone, including fans of the show, would want to look at this list. What part of "My mind's open: What am I missing here?" do you not understand? Noroton 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand pardons, Noroton. In fact it was your claim of open-mindedness that suggested to me that you would read beyond the first sentence of the link I provided. To avoid further confusion, here's what I was getting at: Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT). -- Antepenultimate 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me another thousand apologies, Antepenultimate. I never said the nature of the subject was unencyclopedic, I asked how it would be used or enjoyed by readers. Different question. And it was a question. (I usually favor inclusion and I usually argue against people who say something is "unencyclopedic"). And as for "in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects" what part of "Wikipedia is not a directory" don't you understand? I don't like simply standing on Wikipedia bureaucratic rules, but I also know they exist and I don't see how this article avoids violating it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't official. Trying to build consensus is also an official policy. My asking a sincere question is part of that, your response doesn't help. By the way, what is the answer to: How will this article be useful or enjoyable to anybody? Noroton 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like another thousand apologies, Noroton, then you shall have them. I honestly was making an attempt to answer your "honest question" (despite said question being a footnote to an already-made decision to "Strong Delete"). If you're wondering why some people may wish this info kept, that may be part of it. That is all. -- Antepenultimate 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't be open-minded if I don't agree with you from the start? If I put "strong disagree" in front of my comments, I can't be open minded? I don't know what the meaning of your last two sentences is, but after all this typing you don't seem to have an answer to: How will this article be useful or enjoyable to anybody? Noroton 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would likely be much more inclined to directly answer that question if you could provide a guideline stating that Wikipedia articles must be "useful" or "enjoyable." Anyway, I'm not really that interested in getting all worked up over this. Hopefully we have both been allowed to make our respective points in this arena of debate; if we disagree, then that is all there is to it. -- Antepenultimate 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you actually have an answer and you're just not gonna give it out unless you trade for my answer? The point to my question was practicality, not that there's a guideline saying anything in Wikipedia has to actually have some human purpose to it. I believe actual human readers should be served by Wikipedia because the purpose of a reference work is to serve readers, and all rules of Wikipedia should directly flow from that. Where the rules get in the way of serving readers, the rules should be changed or ignored and the service kept, not the other way around. That's why I usually advocate keeping articles rather than deleting them. But if I can see no use for an article, and if the article also violates a Wikipedia rule, then I favor deletion, and even "strong delete". And when I do that, because I just hate doing that, I look for ways my objections might be met and I try to state them in my comment. And sometimes they are met and I change my vote. What you're demonstrating here is that not only does this list violate the not a directory rule, but that there's no practical reason for violating that rule because in the real world there's no real use for this list. But one person's answered my question and others might.Noroton 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axe and grind is the way it has to be done; see LUEshi's seven nominations before policy finally triumphed over WP:ILIKEIT. Actually, I highly resent being called a deletionist, I'm more so of a mergist. AFD is the last resort when I don't think that the content can be merged or woudl be useful to merge. I prodded two of the year articles, but Cburnett disagreed. In this AFD, I obviously tried NOT to go the same route as the original nom did, who simply decalred that it was "unencyclopedic cruft"; I actually tried to provide a reason from WP:NOT. I see that I swung and missed here a bit in categorizing this as plot summary. Hbdragon88 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I was getting on my own little soapbox there, so I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" here. Double jeopardy policies have their weaknesses, but in general I would think that they could keep us from wasting our time on such "percieved" problems as this article, and could allow us to focus on the things around Wikipedia that really need fixing. -- Antepenultimate 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relevance and commentary can always be added to a plot summary, but once deleted no one would bother recreating it just to add commentary. Keep and let people add commentary and flag it as needing commentary. It would only be a directory if it contained all red links, blue links make it a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where you got the idea that blue links make the difference between an article being a directory or not is an unfathomable mystery. Otto4711 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to insult another editor by demeaning them. WP:CIVIL. Cburnett 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Otto4711 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Richard Arthur Norton had this specifically in mind, and it doesn't make the direct "red vs. blue link" distinction, but perhaps the foillowing excerpt from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) MOS entry could be relevant to Otto's concerns: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of Christians doesn't include your neighbour, because she's not notable for her Christianity, she doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and she may never have. However, it might well include St. Peter. (Emphasis added and Wikilinks removed) (original at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people). -- Antepenultimate 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT - lists like these would do happily on a fan wiki of some sort. --Action Jackson IV 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably by moving to a Daily Show wiki or fansite. Note that I voted to keep the article last time, but I'm changing my mind; now it really is just a laundry list of celebrities. I totally agree with User:Hyperbole that "It may say nothing about John Cleese and Pervez Musharraf that they both appeared on The Daily Show, but it most definitely says something about The Daily Show itself." However, the same thing could be said in one sentence in the Daily Show article itself. How about, "The Daily Show attracts a diverse cross-section of celebrities, from John Cleese to Pervez Musharraf (the only sitting head of state to appear on the show to date)."? A table of five hundred celebrities is not encyclopedic. --Quuxplusone 05:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are no valid reasons for deletion.

"This article fails WP:NOT#INFO. Specifically, this article is essentailly a plot summary of of every episode (#7)" -- plot summary? I don't see any plot summary. I see a list of names of individuals. -- Black Falcon 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It also fails WP:NOT#SOAP in that it lists what each guest was promoting when they appeared on this show." -- WP:NOT#SOAP applies to Wikipedia editors, not the subjects of articles. Is it a violation of WP:NOT#SOAP to note the Catholic Church's position on abortion?

There are, however, reasons for keeping, namely that it meets WP:LIST (it is informative and aids navigation). -- Black Falcon 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete canonical listcruft. There is no encyclopaedic topic "Daily Show Guest", therefor a list of them is arbitrary. Plus it's a directory. Plus it's of no interest other than to fans. Plus it's the job of the Daily Show's webmasters. Plus it;s all sourecd from primary sources, so is largely WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Wikipedia Is Not Paper. This is not a plot summary because The Daily Show interviews are not fictitious. This is useful information to many people - I use this page at least once a week. This information is verifiable and notable.--Pigu 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I think that the article is very useful to catalog who has been on the show, and it does not contain any actual plot summaries. Fernandobouregard 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the articles form a record of events in the show, which, to an extent, represents literary, cinematic, political, and other popular output of the time. Who appears and why has a meaning greater than a simple list. Furthermore, I think the reasons given for deletion misinterpret the policies. Al001 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe this is useful and while the 'Wiki is not paper' is debatable this is useful information. MrMacMan 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced list that adheres to all policies. Nom's argument regarding plot summaries and soap boxes is wildly off-base. --JJay 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case these lists do get deleted, I have mirrored much of the content here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/The_Daily_Show. Copysan 00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps an argument could be made against the article, but WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#SOAP are not it. --shadytrees 04:43, 19 February 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. Proto ► 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercars[edit]

I am nominating this page for deletion as people's opinion varies from one to another, even from car magazines can vary that term as for example, how can car magazines consider the Ford GT as a supercar when it is the same size as the Ferrari F430 (the latter but precessor model has been banished into the disputed supercar column) and this has been a subject to argument for a good perio so I think it would be a great to take this page out of its misery. Garth Bader 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because the definition is vague does not mean we have to delete the page. There are undisputed vehicles and cars that fall in a gray area can be listed separately. As long as we work to provide sources there is no reason to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- James086 ^Talk 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I don't agree with the reasoning of the nom, this list is very subjective and hard to reference (I added most of the refs) because some sources call a car a "supercar", while others may not. It is up to each editor to decide which source is reliable. Also the list can be and is argued over, so there are inherent POV issues whether it gets fully referenced or not. James086 ^Talk 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get rid of all the OR on the page: if there isn't a reliable source that says that a given car is generally regarded as a "supercar," that car should not be on the list. (in other words, the list should be about a fifth of its current size) --Hyperbole 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article's introduction says it all: "The category is a subjective one, however, and the inclusion of some of the automobiles listed may be somewhat controversial —depending upon the opinion of the reader." If inclusion on the list is a matter of opinion then the list fails WP:NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy. Otto4711 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whoa, we're having a mass list deletion massacre as I have noticed recently on my watchlist, nominated this for deletion as the term cannot be accurately be defined and even the Goodwood FoS has its Supercar Run which some of the cars featured there can genuinely be classed as supercars. Willirennen 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. This kind of list is too subjective to be useful. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really want to come to this articles defense. As it has been stated above the criteria by which a supercar is defined is vague, however some cars are nearly universally accepted as supercars and sources can easily be found to back it. The article does require some changes; the intro paragraph needs reworking to encourage only referenced supercars to be added and the list needs some pruning to remove unreferenced vehicles. If the subjectivity is really such an issue I would support a name change to "list of vehicles refered to as supercars" but I don't think it is truly necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I suspect this page was hived off from supercar as a cleanup exercise. However, Wikipedia articles are not lists, especially unreferenced ones like this. We have a supercar category already, and if an individual vehicle does/does not deserve to be so classified it can be disputed on the talk page of that vehicle. --DeLarge 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daniel. The article can be worked with. Unless it is closed to outside editing, and no one has claimed that, standards can be assigned and agreed upon by concensus if desired. I don't like the idea of removing what has obviously been a good deal of work because someone feels it may leave out appropriate candidates in theory. Bbagot 03:46, 17 February 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 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel du Plessis[edit]

There are no references, after a lot of searching on the web I have found nothing that says this player exists, or that he plays for Leinster or Namibia Shudda ^talk 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except for WP mirrors, there's virtually no trace of this guy on the internet. I'd feel more confident if I could find an actual roster for the Namibian squad, but I can't vote keep just because the article seems too bland to be a hoax. --Djrobgordon 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sourced and doesn't seem to be notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for WP mirrors, there's virtually no trace of this guy on the internet. I cannot find any mention on him on the Leinster web, and on forums regarding Leinster rugby, the only hit I get on his name is somebody asking who the guy is as he had never heard of him before reading the Leinster Rugby article here. The Namibian website has been taken down. --Bob 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put in a source request under talk. I would recommend giving a sufficient amount of time for a response before taking down. The article has been up for 4 months and has been edited by multiple people. A bit of patience won't hurt. Bbagot 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When I found the page I tried to find some sources for it. However there is absolutely nothing on the internet about this guy. Chances are it's a hoax. I have not found him listed in any Namibian team lists, any Leinster team lists. As well, he was never the International Rugby Board under 19 player of the year (I checked their website, where past winners are listed). So after spending a lot of time trying to verify this info I can really think of no reason to keep it. - Shudda ^talk 20:58, 17 February 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 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Katzen[edit]

non-notable vanity bio. MPS 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the nominator. If anything, there should be a stub on Retail Alphabet Game (currently red linked) and this katzen guy could maybe have one sentence about him. MPS 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this necessarily falls afoul of WP:COI (the "vanity" policy); the original author, User:EvanFreed, has created several stub-class articles about various people. Still, I see no evidence (or assertion) of Katzen's notability. --Hyperbole 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game (which is Katzen's only claim to notability) is possibly notable enough to deserve a mention on List of Internet phenomena, but that's about it. I've had it emailed to me a number of times, so I guess it's somewhat known. As for Katzen, the most he deserves is a mention as a creator of the game, if it's deemed notable enough to be listed somewhere. Katzen's user page is his fourth Google hit, which doesn't bode well for notability. --Djrobgordon 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no or limited assertion of notability. The game that he invented also isn't as notable (although it was reviewed). --Sigma 7 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ha ha, I completely agree that I'm non-notable. This page showed up randomly a year ago, and I've been waiting for it to be flagged and deleted since. Jkatzen 04:51, 16 February 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 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging with Dylan and Cole Sprouse and Guest Star Jesse McCartney[edit]

NN bonus feature on a dvd Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. On the off chance there's anything interesting to be said about this interview, it can be said on the DVD's article or on the show's. --Djrobgordon 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bonus features do not need articles in most case. Otto4711 00:17, 15 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 07:28Z

Rocky (Rocky The Baby Kangaroo Joey characters)[edit]

Page appears to be the article about SpongeBob Squarepants, but with the phrases "Rocky" and "Rocky The Baby Kangaroo Joey" substituted. Probably a valid article for speedy deletion, but I'm using the afd process just in case I'm missing something and the article isn't simply a hoax. Dugwiki 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense from a user with two edits, both to this article. The article was tagged speedy and the tag was removed without comment. Nuke it. Otto4711 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seedy Delete nonsence, definatly a copy of the spongebob page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:13, 15 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:22Z

Urban Transit[edit]

Non-notable band. I'd have nominated for speedy per ((db-band)), but the article asserts notability by claiming this band has toured with numerous notable acts. However, the "official website" given in the article is a myspace page, while the info at what appears to be the "real" official website seems to contradict the claims in this article and fails to disclose any real notability. I should also note the lack of relevant ghits when searching for ""Urban Transit" band". Agent 86 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources.[65] Maybe make a redirect to Public transport. (Urban transit already redirects there.) Pan Dan 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public transport; this band appears to fail the criteria. Having such a large image doesn't help, either – Qxz 18:50, 15 February 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. -- Gogo Dodo 04:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Bugs[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Dugwiki 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. Probably speedyable, in fact – Qxz 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete def not the place for this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Patent nonsense. Readro 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense and no context. --N Shar 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Tagging as such. riana_dzasta 02:30, 15 February 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. Yuser31415 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging Tories[edit]

Alexa rank of 366,181. Article fails WP:WEB. Lots of Google hits, but I could not find any non-trivial coverage in verifiable and reliable sources. Previous keep arguments slanted toward WP:ILIKEIT rather than focusing on verifiability issues. Should be deleted. RWR8189 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in the earlier AFD/VFDs. Bucketsofg 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article appears to have some merit. It could also benefit from improvements. I have noted that the editors of this article have not received notice of the AfD. User:Jayden54Bot provides notice for article 4 weeks old or less. Of course, if anything articles of greater duration, with multiple editors deserve greater process. I will manually provide notice to all editors of this article with the following neutral notice: "You have edited the article Blogging Tories. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've been through this before. The Blogging Tories have been mentioned on national newscasts [[66]], press reports [[67]], and were at the center of a debate on how the Canadian blogosphere fits with Canada's election financing laws [[68]]. (As a side note, those last two links are full of crap, but anyway...)
I should also note that those Alexa rankings are suspect, because the Blogging Tories entry is not about www.bloggingtories.ca, it's about all 300 sites that comprise the group. If we wanted to accurately reflect this entry's Alexa ranking, we'd have to combine the ratings of all the member blogs.
--The Invisible Hand 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Progressive Bloggers, which is seen as the opposite number of Blogging Tories, has just been deleted. Watchsmart 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cites provided by IH above seem sufficiently persistent, verifiable, and reliable. Notability seems beyond question. Political Bloggs that have significant impact and are clearly notable seem to have difficultly generating cites outside of "Blogosphere". I think PB suffered from that, despite "delete" lacking even a super-majority. I hope it is brought up for DRV. Edivorce 21:11, 18 February 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act[edit]

First Deletion Reason: To the extent that this subject was notable, that notability has long since passed, and morphed into a conspiracy theory which also lacks little notability. The subject gets ZERO Google News Search hits, and to the extent that it does obtain Google hits, these are to sources which are blogs and crackpot websites, and therefore do not meet our WP:RS requirements. Part of a Walled Garden of the tax protestor/nutburger blogosphere. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and violates Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:FRINGE Nominator Note to Closing Admin: should this article be deleted, the Re-Direct NESARA should also be removed. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note related deletion proposal at Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion proposal results were Keep (June 2005) and No consensus (June 2006). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into NESARA conspiracy theory. (If the target is deleted, please clarify vote to mean delete.) Current notability derives solely from the conspiracy theory, but I don't really see anything that would need to be merged into that article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiabillity and reliable sources as to actual content, and any sort of showing of wide notability. --MCB 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has survived countless VfDs. It IS notable, it IS sourced, it IS referenced, and it IS needed to distinguish two entirely separate subjects: the titled legislative proposal, and the hoax that stole the name. inigmatus 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not because anything mentioned above. It simply isnt a real law, no proof of it being one exists. It was simply some BS used in an internet scam, where only a small county paper covered it. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with No Merge. Please see my reasoning at the AfD debate for NESARA conspiracy theory. I particularly hope that Arthur Rubin reads this, because I suspect he's making a "type" error ( propositions about a thing are not of the same kind as the thing itself ). WMMartin 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not confusing them; the only notability (left) of this real proposal is due to the conspiracy theory/hoax. Without that, it's just another failed, unsubmitted, legislative proposal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Lexis/Nexis search for NESARA generated no results. I did learn that the word Nesara means "rising sun" in the the Kannada language, but this is not an idea that people in government or the press ever seem to have discussed.GabrielF 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the sources provided on article isn't enough?inigmatus 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The sources are an article on WorldNet Daily which is largely based on an article from a Tacoma paper and two websites. On Wikipedia we base decisions on notability on the presence of secondary sources. In this case there are almost none. Check the "offbeat news" section of your local newspaper's website. I can assure you that anything there will have 10 times more sources than this article. For example, the first "offbeat news" story in my local paper is (coincidentally) about Middlebury College telling students not to cite Wikipedia. A google news search for "Middlebury College" and Wikipedia gets 118 results. Admittedly, most are probably from the AP wire, but I also see separate articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Guardian and a couple of college papers. And that's without going to the second page of the results. [69] This isn't any more notable than the millions of other ideas people come up with every day. GabrielF 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NESARA conspiracy theory, as the conspiracy theory is what gives NESARA its notability. ZERO Google News Search hits is plainly false, such that I wonder why the proponent made this claim. I get one result for current news and 39 results for news archives. Although the one current result is a press release about a recent independent film. NESARA also gets five relevant hits on Google Books and one on Google Scholar. PubliusFL 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act", which is the name of this article, gets Zero Google News hits, as is appropriate, since it is not an Act, but a dead legislative proposal -- one that failed years ago. Hence: non-notable because it's not described in WP:RS. If you want to discuss the subject, feel free to do so without limit on the tax protestor blogs, but on Wikipedia it doesn't meet our standards. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment if the hoax is notable, then the proposal is notable, and a separate article IS necessary to emphasize the blatant differences. It is encyclopedic. Most people only know about the hoax version, so to inform them of the legitimate version, seems to me, to be a compelling reason to keep the article as is. I spoke to Dr. Barnard personally before he died and he explained to me that the only reason the proposal never got serious attention was because the hoax version is so prevalent. He was still working hard to distance the proposal from the hoax until the day he died. Of course, I should mention I found out about NESARA through that article on WND, so if I could find it through third party sources, so can others; and thus it's notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inigmatus (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Comment. I'm afraid the proposal is only notable because of the conspiracy/hoax; whether or not it made any sense, there has been no reliable source talking about it. The Fair Tax was at least, submitted to House and Senate committees (where it quickly died). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eh Dosen't hurt. Dosen't really help either. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above. Travb (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there is a real legitimate version but was only generally connected to a single individual who has now died, then unfortunately it's existance on here is doomed to only be used for hoax agendas, so it might as well be deleted until it can be re-created separately from the hoax. Right now it only spreads misinformation. bov 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. I would say WP:NFT applies the most here besides the other guidelines that are violated. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable; something doesn't have to be currently in the news to be notable or we'd have to delete 99% of articles.--Holdenhurst 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is it notable? If it's notable only because of the conspiracy theory/hoax, the article should be merged there. If it's otherwise notable, I haven't seen evidence presented, here or in the real world. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as per above Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not merge. NN hoax. gidonb 00:20, 20 February 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 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo DeOro[edit]

Borderline vanity page a poll player, nothing really useful to keep. --Jeff Defender 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Note: Nominator has made few edits outside this topic, and none before it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nominator demonstrates no problems that are actionable. Whether Jeff Defender (talk · contribs) finds the article to be "useful" personally is of no consequence, and there is less than zero evidence of vanity, especially given that the subject of the article has been deceased for quite a long time. Subject is clearly notable, as a decades-running world champion in more than one cue sport, and was inducted into the Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame in 1967, one of the very few non-Americans to ever receive the honor. DeOro is one of the billiards legends. The article is a bare stub and needs wikifying and expansion, but this AfD is quite improper, as the facts in the stub are sourced, and notability is beyond question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something else is off here; was this AfD filed properly? Hours after its creation it still does not appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 14. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i fixed the problem, The afd is now in proper format and it is listed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in spades De Oro is undoubtedly one of the top historical figures in all of billiards, among the ranks of Hoppe, Greenleaf, Mosconi, Crane, Etc. Mentioned in or the subject of at least 284 articles in the New York Times archive [70] (actually more if you use alternate spelings). You can look anywhere; 60 results for Google books [71]. Suggest that nominator withdraw nomination and spend some time learning process before nominating material such as this.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per SMcCandlish Bencherlite 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL More evidence. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Yet more evidence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's gets worse - this is a actually a WP:POINT violation by a WP:SOCKpuppet, likely of 68.237.229.68 (talk · contribs), and of Karim Prince1 (talk · contribs), and Jbl1975 (talk · contribs), among others that an admin could dig out of a deleted talk page. See User talk:Jeff Defender and edit history (not to mention the username...) Jeff got his pet non-notable WP:WEBsite speedied, and rather than try to understand why has lashed out. The user's history consists of nothing but the following actions: getting a vanity article speedied (was defending it in talk under another username, by own admission, and clearly is not a newbie and likes to cite obscure WP essays at people in defending his WP:COI article), adding blatant WP:SPAM here, trying to delete the speedy tag under one username or another but got caught, and meanwhile attacked this random stub, using the same "vanity" label he lost his wikispam to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but shouldn't we assume good faith? NoInsurance (chat?) 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did AGF, as evidenced above. I responded to this as a legit but misguided AfD, addressing only policy points about the article and the AfD. I then did research, after ~~admin~~ smart person Malevious noted the weirdness of the user's history (immediately after the nom statement, up top), and that research conclusively demonstrates that this is a sockpuppet acting in bad faith; there simply is no room to assume good faith any longer. Please read the evidence. I'm not even the first to figure out that this is a sockpuppet, as documented in the sources already cited immediately above. I do not randomly go after users in AfD or anywhere else. If I come to a conclusion of puppetry or any other bad faith claim, I assure you it's after due dilligence and great effort to not have to go there. I spent over an hour researching this one, hoping it wasn't true. Cf. the trying-to-be-helpful comments I initially left for the pseudo-user on its talk page: "If you simply feel (and I would agree) that the article is too skeletal and needs expanding, all you need to do is flag it with ((Expand)) at the top (I've already done that in this case), and someone will get around to working on it. Thank you." I will happily hand-hold new editors. This isn't one. Its a repeat vandal and policy violator, who deletes SD tags, spams, and modifies other people's AfD votes, all documented above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it may cost you support in your RFA. You accused him of disruptive editing, but he hasn't logged in since he posted his comment on the Golden-Road.net site. You should know that a user posted a link to the page, so new users might log in and comment and state their case. I can see his point, he stated that the article is not notible outside the pooltable fandom. NoInsurance (chat?) 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument emphatically does not belong here. Responding at your user talk page. Other than the last bit, which is actually about the article: Please read WP:BIO. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:19, 15 February 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.