< February 14	February 16 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; but it does need to be worked on. ~ Arjun 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis[edit]

Says nothing not already said far better in the article for Genesis. Do we really need an article on every single story in the bible, when that just leads to rehashing the same material over and over? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything has not already been stated, it could be merged. As you have said it, though, this article can be deleted. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Genesis says little about creation stories. If the material in this article which is not found in the Genesis article were added there, that article would be too long, and it would be overwhelmed with detailed analysis of the creation stories, which are only part of the material now in the Genesis article. This article is about the creation stories common to three great world religions, and these creation myths have been the subject of literally thousands of scholarly works. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I am not worried that we will run out of bandwidth by having an article on this important topic. Important topics deserve editing, not deletion, if someone disagrees with what the article says. I am not impressed by dire warnings that if we do not delete this article we will be swamped by having two article about every book of the Bible. If there are two encyclopedic topics dealing with something, and the article would be too long with both included in one article, Wikipedia policy calls for having two separate articles. Edison 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it wpinning off in future, but as it is, it's an absolute mess, and every single aspect of it is done, and done better, in Genesis. Better to delete it, expand it there, then spin off when content is gatherered. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep:Genesis is a long article with one paragraph on creation that references this article as main. We have articles on every single episode of Star Trek (See Category:Star Trek episodes). Why can't we have articles on Bible stories, most of which have an extensive literature in various religious traditions, secular scholarship, depictions by masters in painting and sculpture, fictional treatments, operas, plays, motion pictures, etc.?--agr 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't my area of expertise, but the article looks to be pretty well referenced and detailed. The question of whether or not this referenced subarticle should be merged into the main article for Genesis sounds to me like a question that should be handled with a merge tab and discussion on the talk pages of the articles. Short of that, I would want to hear a reason to delete (as opposed to simply saying the content can probably be merged) the article before supporting a deletion. Dugwiki 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per agr Jcuk 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although not because we have articles on every Star Trek episode. The existence of one article or set of articles has no bearing on whether this article should exist. No, keep because the nomination presents no compelling reason for deletion. This is a scholarly topic and an article on it is a reasonable addition to an encyclopedia. Otto4711 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The creation stories in Genesis are such a controversial and well discussed topic that they deserve a focussed article, separate from the general Genesis article. Having said that, I think this article could be cleaned up and improved considerably.Tonicthebrown 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge or delete - genesis can handle any extra info mentioned here. it's best to keep it as one article.

Keep or merge. The nominator of this article is half-way correct. We don't necessarily need an evaluation of every book of the Bible, but I am a Christian and believe this article has some Religious truth to it. I also agree with Tonicthebrown, the article is so controversial a focused article is deserved. It should either be Kept or Merged into the article Genesis. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep This is a special aspect of the Book that merits an article. I think we do need an article on each truly major event in the Bible, and that the creation of the universe qualifies as major. And it's a good article, too. (Some of the part of it discussing the Mosaic origin of Genesis is more general, and does not belong--but that's for editing. I don't really think it necessary to give a detailed evolutionist critique of everything relating to the Biblical account every time it is mentioned, or a detailed atheist critique of every article on religion. Perhaps a sentence reminding people that non-Abrahamic religions and non-religious people don't think it happened that way, just in case any true beginner doesn't realize that.)DGG 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further reason to keep - This is not the only expansion on the basic Genesis article, focusing on a particular section of the book. There are also the articles: Genealogies of Genesis, Fall of man, Noah's ark, Tower of Babel, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph (Hebrew Bible) etc. The arguments in favour of deleting this article would also compel us to delete these others. I agree with Edison that a merge of material would have the result "that article would be too long, and it would be overwhelmed with detailed analysis of the creation stories". That's the whole point of these sub-articles. Tonicthebrown 07:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, my main reason for wanting to combine this one was because I thought it did parts well done poorly in Genesis, whereas Genesis did parts well done poorly in it. This doesn't look likely to happen. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve There are a number of areas where this article could be expanded. I have in mind the long historical tradition of commentaries on the Seven days of creation. Since such changes would enlarge this article even more, it doesn't make much sense to merge it into Genesis. SteveMcCluskey 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I think that there is so much material in Genesis that there is no problem with having separate articles on each aspect. However, I do not feel the article as it is at present does this topic justice.--Filll 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are so many variations of Creationism articles on Wikipedia, almost all of them using the Genesis myth as its basis, why do we need another? This is just another religious story that is best kept in the Genesis article. Let's move onOrangemarlin 01:36, 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 12:24Z

Passel[edit]

Dictionary definition, already exists on Wiktionary Ksbrown^talk 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef per nom. Otto4711 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Cel ithemis 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. --Dennisthe2 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Wooyi 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WINAD. Richard833i 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean delete?--Dacium 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WINAD not a dictionary...--Dacium 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What they said. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef.-- danntm ^T _C 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does it fall under CSD A5 as a transwiki-ed articles? Because if it weren't already there, everyone would be voting to transwiki it to Wiktionary. Maybe A5 should be expanded? --Plutor ^talk 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the nominator said. Inkpaduta 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NOT#Dictionary.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A) WP:NOT#Dictionary B)Is it under a CSD? Either way, unnecessary. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps put ((wi)) in its place. GassyGuy 01:27, 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 12:25Z

List of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody Kisses[edit]

List Cruft. A list of every kiss in the series isn't needed. Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - if by some stretch of the imagination these kisses are so important to the plot of a particular episode, then note them in the article for the episode if one exists. This is ridiculous trivia. Otto4711 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Oh god this is useless - the kind of stuff that should go on a fansite, not Wikipedia. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is completely outside of the realm of wikipedia, but I'm still impressed someone took the time to create the page. PaddyM 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, the show's main focus isn't even about kissing. I'd hate to see this spread to a whole bunch of other shows' articles. --Nehrams2020 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical Nuclear Ewok From Orbit And Consecrate The Ashes Delete. If kisses were instrumental to the overall purpouse of the series, I would be mildly considerate of its worth. But this is trivial information of a new level, and if we don't stop it now, we will have precedent for a downward-spiralling trend. "List of noses picked on foo reality or game show" anyone? -- saberwyn 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If ever the word "cruft" applied to anything... Resolute 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and proposing making lists of all blue things in Thomas and Tank Engine. (Seriously, though Delete with extreme prejudice) --Haemo 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely absurd article. Most fancruft article i have ever seen.... --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia Ulysses Zagreb 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft Maxamegalon2000 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: list all the kisses for WHAT? Causesobad → (Talk) 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Makes as much sense as a list of times a gun is fired in a Quentin Tarantino movie. TheLetterM 15:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, Uncategorised and fails WP:NOT#LIST.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tigerbeatcruft. Only of encyclopedic interest to the CDC. Caknuck 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivia -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Crush by elephant Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not belong in an encyclopedia, a fan site maybe or something else, but not an Online Encyclopedia. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:14, 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 already performed by Brookie. --Chris (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Lesley[edit]

Questionable notability - and the article for this person is just a list. If notability is found to be good, this biography needs to be changed from a list to an extensively rewritten article describing the person, not what they have done. (People have imdb.com for seeing the roles a person has done.) -- Guroadrunner

Delete doesnt seem too notable, as well as not sourced and a bunch of linkspam. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to even say what she does in the first place. Is she a voice actress? Does she lick frogs? Please! Tell us more! --Dennisthe2 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by her imdb entry and a quick Google search, she appears to be a regional theater actress with a few voice-over credits. Not notable, in my opinion. --Djrobgordon 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources showing notability and no content except a long list of gigs. Maybe good for a resume but not acceptable for an encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- not meets WP:N. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list of irrelevant info and the article fails WP:BIO. As-well as this is has no introduction, refs etc.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, the article is just a list with no context or biographical information about the subject. It doesn't attempt to provide references for verification or to establish notability. Will reconsider if an actual referenced article about the person is created, but as is this may as well be deleted. Dugwiki 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediable per WP:CSD#A3, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 08:39, 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 12:28Z

Exclusive Analysis[edit]

Recreated speedy. Article asserts notability but is very spammy. Seeing what the wider community thinks. -- Steel 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it is spam, but let's set precedent here. None of the sources provided satisfy WP:V. --N Shar 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be rewritten as it now reads like an ad but their work is published by enough notable third parties to warrant an article. NeoFreak 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having their work published isn't enough. We need someone (multiple people, actually) to have published stuff on them (i.e. multiple external sources). -- Steel 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I might reconsider if the article is completely rewritten. Right now it's spam, and I'm not convinced there's anything notable about the company. Steel359 is right. Even if some of the employees are notable, that doesn't automatically mean the company is. Have they done anything innovative or original? Are they unique in some way? Right now, I don't see how they're any more important than you're average consulting firm. --Djrobgordon 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. I looked for third party sources to explain the significance of the company, and I didn't find any good ones. YechielMan 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V, not a really significant company, likely WP:SPAM. Wooyi 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per N, V, and CORP. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:CORP, totalyl irrelevant.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:10, 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 welcome a project to merge all the fetish stubs into one list. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:29Z

Insertion fantasy[edit]

A so called fetish about, believe it or not, insertion. Totally original research. The article was proded with (paraphrased) "Original research that just makes the title into a sentence". This is already covered in sexual intercourse. Redundant and I'm not seeing any sources emerging that don't just directly deal with sexual intercourse as a general topic. The endless subclassification of fetish articles pretty much reaches its zenith here. NeoFreak 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no context, as well as not sourced. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely pointless (since this is just sexual intercourse) and completely unverifiable. --N Shar 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single mention of this, other than Wikipedia mirrors. If this is a real fetish, every heterosexual woman in the world has it. --Djrobgordon 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundancy. Wooyi 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hysterically redundant "fetish". I should make articles outlining "sexual genitalia fetishes". I mean, they're pretty widespread, eh? --Haemo 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No pun intended on hysterical fetishes of the pelvic region? See List of medical roots under H But seriously, delete it. --Selket ^Talk 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hold on, this it would appear is not completely made up. Google search gives over 27 thousand results. Future votes might want to skim through that to see if sources exist. Mathmo ^Talk 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This "insertion fantasy" fetish seems to be legit, involving inserting objects inside oneself, and is apparently related to unbirthing, voreaphilia/macrophilia etc.[1] so I'd imagine this isn't as broad a fetish as previously described in this AfD. It just needs expansion and some sources-K@ngie^meep! 10:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's some more info on this fetish (unfortunately not safe for work[2]). I also just added the links to the article as sources-K@ngi e ^meep! 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need for a made up fetish that "sort of relates" to topics that we already have articles on and that can't even provide reliable sources for themselves. I can check NSFW sources here but by the looks of it it doesn't seem to meet the crteria needed to be counted as a reliable source. Also the term "Insertion Fantasy" will not return contexual or accurate results in google ehich isn't a indicator of notability anyway. NeoFreak 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoFreak. Inkpaduta 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant context, sure wikipedia is not censored is not censored for minors but this is just a silly article.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's occurred to me that rather then deleting a lot of these 'fetishes' that they should be merged into sections of a larger article, such as Uncommon Fetishes (or some title therefore of). This will delete the articles, while allowing what little information there is to be kept; it also means sections of fetishes that 'do' turn out to be 'fake' can be more easlly removed, with out ten thousand AfDs--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I thought of the same thing. I am putting together a list (bottom of the page) of the fetish and paraphilia articels that deal with garments or clothing of somesort and don't have the references or notability to stand on their own. I'm planning on putting them all into a "Garment fetishes" article with redirects. NeoFreak 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relevance unknown--Sefringle 04:52, 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 speedy delete by Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) per ((db-bio)). --Wafulz 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Fischer[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria Samw 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete NN, not sourced and a vanity page all rolled into one!. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and so tagged as A7. NeoFreak 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has had passing coverage as to his existence by venues and college magazines, but that's about all I can glean about him. The article seems to give no explanation as to his relevance. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:49, 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 keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Engineering Centre[edit]

Disputed speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G11 (Spam), brought here for clarification after a messy deletion review. Questions raised there include whether it should be renamed or merged. Procedural listing, no opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me a while to sort things out. The article is not spam; it's more like the editor who wrote it was a little confused. From what I could glean from Google, the company is taken seriously over there in Wales, but I wasn't able to confirm the purported awards it received - that would be helpful. YechielMan 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For details of the awards, see MEC web site or Cardiff University web site. Sweetpea2007 11:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewrite this article and remove the links to deleted or un-uploaded images. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. they are the real deal [3]. Mathmo ^Talk 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are reliable enough and it's totally not spam. Let Sweetpea2007 a chance to rewrite it. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an OK article but it does fail the spam rules as mentioned by the nominator.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be cleaned up though. Xiner (talk, email) 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires cleanup as mentioned above - has potential. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another vanity article for Duc-Truong Pham, whose article we deleted not long ago. Alternatively, mergeto Cardiff University, where stuff like this usually belongs. Ohconfucius 08:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Ohconfucius, you did not delete the article about Professor Pham, but I blanked it because I did not have time to reply to your defamatory remarks.

As I have stated before, Professor Pham did not write his biography or any article in Wikipedia. I wrote the article about the Manufacturing Engineering Centre because I saw many articles on similar centres in Wikipedia e.g. Warwick Manufacturing Group, Wolfson Centre for Magnetics, etc...

The article I wrote initially did not contain a biography of Prof. Pham. After a few days, someone added a link to his name, that was when I filled in his biography (as I thought that the biography was required in order to complete the article - I am new to Wikipedia).

Please be more constructive and check facts before publishing your remarks, and I do not wish to enter into any more arguments. Sweetpea2007 10:17, 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 as WP:BOLLOCKS. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racejo[edit]

Not notable neologism. Alex Bakharev 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NFT. and possibly OR. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I searched for it on google, found that it is a Spanish word, filtered for English, the only English result was when it appeared in some random key typing a troll put on a forum ie "alkjsfia hoifjo racejoajagij. Some how I don't think it is used much. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged as such under A7. Could also be tagged as blatant advertisment. NeoFreak 01:12, 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. Luke! 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empowered Internet Solutions[edit]

Small non-notable company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeppo Network (2nd nomination) JW1805 (Talk) 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the discussion at the ZeppOS AFD. --Brianyoumans 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable company, delete it and all articles of its personnel. Wooyi 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The decision on this AfD should probably be tied with the eventual outcome of the Zeppo Network AfD. —gorgan_almighty 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and appears to fail WP:SPAM.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:14, 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 wasSpeedy keep I'm withdrawing the nomination per WP:SNOW. Pascal.Tesson 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Disney[edit]

Contested prod. Not a notable website. Does not meet WP:WEB as far as I can see and I find little in the way of third-party coverage, despite the high Google count. Pascal.Tesson 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supported by a notable film critic, and claims it was mentioned in an official release from disney ("Disney Dossiers: Files of Characters From the Walt Disney Studios"), I believe that make it notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is indeed third-party coverage, as well-known DVD news/reviews sites like TheDigitalBits.com, TVShowsonDVD.com, and HomeTheaterForum.com have cited UltimateDisney.com many times for specific Disney-related news stories and release dates. Two of those sites have their own Wikipedia pages as well, and those articles are shorter than that of UltimateDisney.com's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapay (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 February 2007
Keep Agree with Malevious --Bdrischbdemented 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Malevious and Escapay. JackSparrow Ninja 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that idea just got snowed out. I'll just withdraw the nomination and close as keep... Pascal.Tesson 04:21, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:30Z

Your Political Party of British Columbia[edit]

This party is not well known and is one without reputable sources. The website link looks as if someone created a page just for fun. There is also minimal information. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiclai06 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem like a notable party --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally nonnotable; 5 nonwiki ghits. (It got fewer ghits than votes!) YechielMan 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to keep based on new information. YechielMan 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep: wow, over 400 votes!~~ not notable, no coverage. It's possible for a party to deserve an article even with fewer votes (see Reform Party of British Columbia), but that party has a notable history, whereas this one does not. I saw only 3 non-Wikipedia/mirror google hits. --N Shar 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references, including the list of registered political parties in British Columbia, a newspaper interview with the party's leader, and minutes from a City of Coquitlam public town hall meeting including brief comments by the party's leader. I would argue that, when a jurisdiction has a formal registration process for political parties, that any party that is registered should be considered automatically notable, in the same way that any elected member of a national or provincial legislature is automatically notable. --Eastmain 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual candidates may or may not be notable, but this is a registered political party. Notability is not the same as popularity. Agent 86 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I agree with Agent 86 but there must be some de minimis threshold for political parties. But until we establish one, I say it stays. -Selket ^Talk 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough considering... - Fosnez 07:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until we have a better consensus on which political parties are notable and which aren't. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that eventually a small enough party will fall under WP:NFT. This clearly doesn't --Selket ^Talk 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86 & Eastmain. Mathmo ^Talk 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been cleaned up and referenced so it seems to meet the standards.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86 and improvements by Eastmain. -- Black Falcon 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment other "existing" or historical political parties have been deleted from Wikipedia, such as the Rent is too Damn High Party (afd). There are obviously huge differences between the two parties, but the suggestion that the party is notable simply for being a bona fide political party should be scrutinized and applied uniformly throughout Wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent86 and others, notability need not be confused with popularity. RFerreira 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle 05:02, 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 12:31Z

Magdalena Trzebiatowska[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Having one's works displayed in several local exhibitions and websites does not make one notable. The references are: a homepage, university general homepage (no mention of the subject) and a confusing German website which looks like some contest/exhibition photo gallery ([4]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete best claims of notability are exhibitions, but not one of the venues has its own article. Feeeshboy 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, if Wikipedia does not have a article on the Seetal competition than shame on us, it is one of Switzerland's leading art prizes. Besides she was in the Master and pupil in Warsaw an invitational that, at least in Europe, was widely covered. There are also multiple mentions about her individual exposition in Athens. Alf photoman 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:MOS very much.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally per Alf photoman and list of exhibitions. Willing to reconsider if knowledgeable arguments are presented. WP:MOS is not a deletion criterion: I've cleaned up the article a bit. Tyrenius 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:BIO due to exhibitions. John Vandenberg 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not so sure about notability, but I will defer to others as to the significance of the exhibitions listed. My concern is about references and WP:V. From what I can tell, the exhibitions list is taken from the artist's website. Citations would be helpful, but, at present, I'm not seeing other reliable sources. Of course, my Polish leaves something to be desired. Planetneutral 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Personally, I don't see the evidence to back Alf photoman's (persuasive) points. If those points are verifiable, I could change my mind and overlook the absence of other in-depth published sources in English. Mereda 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tyrenius, on exhibitions, which are far from "local" as nom asserts. Johnbod 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as i accept the judgment of those who know about what exhibitions are notable. Art-related deletions appear frequently enough that it would help the rest of us to insert articles about the ones that are considered major. DGG 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Art exhibitions which seems a rather mixed bag. It might be useful to have a "List of major art exhibitions" but it would need constant defence against the, well, minor ones. I think a regular exhibition can certainly be notable without implying that every artist who has been shown in it is - the Royal Academy summer exhibition for example shows about 500 living artists every year. I would not take the fact that an artist has exhibited there as in itself evidence of notability, although if they have exhibited every year for ten years, that is rather different. A link to an reputable external list on the visual arts project page or at Art exhibitionwould be handy. All that goes in spades for galleries! Johnbod 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think something very useful that is emerging from these art AfDs is the type of specific criteria that apply. Guidelines should follow practice and not seek to impose on it. Exhibitions, for example, are peculiar to artists and one of the main means by which artists demonstrate their standing. Provided that the exhibitions can be verified, then they may form an important part of notability. Most artists do not often tend, for example, to be featured in newspapers, and many art magazines do not offer all their content on line. These ideas need working through and I think the best way is out here in the front line for now. Tyrenius 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree totally, but it is a complicated subject. Not every gallery has only notable expositions nor does every non-notable gallery have only unimportant artists. I could cite two examples right away: Before John Lennon's drawings went on world tour in the 1990 they were shown at a fairly small gallery in Darmstadt-Eberstadt/Germany located in the cellar of a bookstore. As far as I know that was the last notable artist to have a exposition there. On the other hand there is a gallery in La Coruña/Spain that has had expositions with paintings from Picasso, Miró and Dalí, yet most of their business is done with relatively unknown local artists. What we surely need to have is references to the likes of the Documenta, the Venice Biennale or the Prince of Asturias Awards#Arts. Alf photoman 13:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (wikilinks added by John Vandenberg 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Alf, I think this is what Johnbod was getting at above. If we can create a list of the top exhibitions, with articles that have citations galore to prove it, it becomes easier to judge notability for the cases that probably should be "keep"s. The list doesnt need to be extensive either, nor would it need to be encycopedic. i.e. it could be out of the main name space (like Wikipedia:List of notable art exhibitions) and only used for the purposes of Afds. John Vandenberg 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'm disagreeing, because I go back to the standard requirement about always needing published sources that are non-trivial. Where I think a 1-line fact about a "good" exhibition helps, first, is that this increases the likelihood of (eventually) finding written sources in more depth, such as a catalogue or review that might not be on the internet. And, second, being well exhibited increases the chances of being influential on others and producing written sources after the event (e.g. "X's earliest influences were the photos of A and the paintings of B"). Both those argue for 1-line exhibition references having a useful role in AFD debates, particularly in identifying articles that should be given time to develop, but IMO they are not a permanent substitute for published sources that have depth of content. Meanwhile, would it help to take the generic discussion back at the project page?? Mereda 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info There's already a generic discussion that started Feb 14. --Mereda 16:12, 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 Alphachimp, bio with no assertion of notability (CSD A7). BryanG^(talk) 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanen Henderson[edit]

Not notable. Speedy deletion db-bio tag was removed by page author. lightspeedchick 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (or userfy); it's still an A7 candidate. --N Shar 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Alynna 03:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable person, suspected WP:AUTO. Wooyi 04:30, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:31Z

Sylvie Cachay[edit]

This article was Prodded as this article about the designer of the product Syla was suggested for delete with the product that just completed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syla with a result of delete. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:V, it also seems to have issues with WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. etc Prod was removed by Special:Contributions/69.22.244.19 with no reason given. Signed Jeepday 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Should have been deleted with Syla (see that debate). --N Shar 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN company. janejellyroll 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with as above ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:BIO and it has no refs etc.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Pea ceNT 09:26, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red star passes[edit]

Contested Speedy. Still doesn't really assert any notability (it doesn't claim to be important, being a spinoff from a defunct MUSH and a merge of another doomed MUSH). No third-party reliable sources, fails verifiability. ColourBurst 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Red star passes" and "game" gets you something like 230 ghits; similar combos with "mud" or "rpg" even less. I can't see this being very notable. --Brianyoumans 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, much less actual notability. Why did this fail speedy? --Selket ^Talk 07:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strictly speaking, a telnet game is not "web content". ColourBurst 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ephemeral; subject is also possible copy-vio (author known to bar *any* fan-use of her creations) -- Simon Cursitor

Comments: (don't really feel comfortable voting as I'm probably biased...) Anne McCaffrey changed her fandom policies in 2004 and now even allows fan-fiction online, so no copyvio. There are at least two other MUSHes based on Anne McCaffrey's work on Wikipedia as well. There are in total 50 or so and if someone could let the fans know (e.g. at Dragonriders of Pern) what a game needs in order to have a page, that would be great. From looking at the MU* Games category, I can't figure out why this page is up for deletion while others with similar or much less content are not. - tameeria 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sources for a web or web-related game are usually found on appropriate websites, so this is adequately sourced. I do not see that its mention in some gaming magazine would add much. The article itself does not run to excess. If anyone other than the author asserts notability & removes the tag an article will fail speedy--probably someone assumed that a game based on her of her novels showed N plainly enough.DGG 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources cited, no reason to believe this subject is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:09, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etsuko Yoneda[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO. He does not have a large body of work or enough major media coverage to be notable. Nv8200p talk 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Selket ^Talk 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and due to lack of adequate references to prove notability. Edison 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Etsuko was a girl's name... nevermind. --Candy-Panda 12:59, 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 speedy delete A7. - Daniel.Bryant 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Barcelo[edit]

Self-created vaity page. No notability as a poker player, even admitted in the article. 2005 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. so tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agreed with as above. The article itself condemns itself, and I can't find any evidence that would contradict it's modest claims -Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fold 'em! I mean, delete. I think if you deleted all the articles in Wikipedia that described their subject as being "up and coming", you would delete very few notable articles. --Brianyoumans 03:56, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Çiçek Izgara[edit]

Çiçek Izgara is a restaurant. All we know about it is that it is in Turkey, and, according to original research, they supposedly have great chops and meatballs. No attempt to establish notability. -- ArglebargleIV 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Elmer, but we're not a good spot to post the reviews. --Dennisthe2 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A restaurant needs a lot to be notable. Even "seats 150" doesn't necessarily mean it makes the cut - there are thousands of restaurants which do that. If the restaurant had some historical or political significance, sure. But this is nothing special. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The restaurant name gets over 2000 Google hits, but in Turkish, so it is hard to tell if they count as good sources to show notability. Perhaps some who speak the language can see if there are sufficient sources to show its notability, or can check for sources in Turkish Wikipedia. Inkpaduta 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The N.Y. Times lists five restaurants in Bursa, and the review of this one, while positive enough, says nothing indicating that it is notable in the Wikipedia sense. --Macrakis 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep;Article itself satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). There are numerous independent sources in Turkish and English (Google search)which refers this restaurant.Must ^TC 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article stands now, with no references. If references are provided, perhaps keep article. Αργυριου (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some independent and reliable references;Frommers, Travel.Nytimes, Travel.Yahoo, Travel.Msn, Virtual Tourist, Travel.webshots.Must^TC 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Frommers, N.Y. Times, and MSN references are the exact same one short paragraph restaurant review. The MSN reference is a one sentence plug saying that its is elegant and serves good food. The Webshots reference is a single picture of the restaurant. The Virtual Tourist reference is a review by a tourist. I'm sure that it's a good, probably even excellent restaurant, but there are a lot of excellent restaurants. The references fail to establish any notability beyond reviewing the food. -- ArglebargleIV 20:20, 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. Proto ► 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 professional wrestling television ratings[edit]

nn/or list, unencyclopedic and only of interest to big wrestling fans. The page for 2007 WSX television ratings has been deleted, and TNA/WWE have their own ratings pages already (which probably should also be deleted). Booshakla 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, mostly on the basis that there's no reason to delete, and that, in the realm of professional wrestling (especially after the 1990s), ratings are very encyclopedic. ~~I do agree, though, that the WWE/TNA articles are now redundant with the creation of this article. I propose redirecting those to this one.~~ Jeff Silvers 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing my suggestion to redirect the WWE/TNA articles to 2007 professional wrestling television ratings. The WWE article also contains ratings for other WWE programs that are minor enough to warrant exclusion from this article but important enough to be noted in a WWE-centric article. The TNA article does this to a much lesser extent (having an "other" category), and could probably be redirected here. Jeff Silvers 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is a bunch of stats encyclopedic or fancruft?--Dacium 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" See WP:NOT#INFO. This qualifies as "an indiscriminate collection of information" in my opinion -Selket ^Talk 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this short television rating article should be included in a short paragraph, in the WWE article. Has no notability on its own unless it received the best rating of the year or something like that. See WP:NOTE. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete trivia Ulysses Zagreb 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ratings are important for any tv-shows but even more so for continously live events. Bad ratings may result in a sudden change in storyline for example. It is also interesting to see how competing products are doing week for week.Ondbraddod 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The ratings were very important way back during the Monday Night Wars. They're really not so now. --UsaSatsui 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ratings are still important. I suggest that we either keep this paticular page, or delete the seperate pages with ratings on them(TNA/WWE Ratings for 2007).

Delete Unencyclopedic. Xiner (talk, email) 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep perhaps a relatively esoteric article, but by no means unencyclopedic or non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly transwiki to Wikisource Some of the notes above refer to WP:NOT#IINFO. However, note that this policy section does not apply to problems involving "trivia". In fact, an attempt to add a section for "almanac style information" (which this article is) to WP:NOT#IINFO failed last year due to lack of consensus. Thus arguments specifically using WP:NOT#IINFO should be considered an invalid use of that particular part of policy.

Now that all being said, the article does suffer from a couple of issues. First, the article appears to use original research in attempting to analyze the ratings, such as in the Notes section. This is presumably included to attempt to place some meaning on the raw ratings data and explain possible reasons for various highs and lows. Unfortunately, such original analysis of data isn't allowed since it is simply a form of original research. In order to keep those sorts of comments in the article, they would have to be properly cited. Second, it's not clear that any attempt is made in the article to assert that this information is somehow notable. In order to assert notability, the information in the article needs to be the subject of multiple non-trivial references about it. In this context, non-trivial means that it can't simply be a weekly data dump of ratings numbers, but has to be an actual discussion or analysis of these ratings.

So all in all the article should probably be deleted unless it can be made into an actual article with referenced context and analysis beyond just the raw numbers, and without resorting to original analysis and research (ie the analysis should have been published somewhere else). If deleted, I might be ok with the verifiable data itself being included in Wikisource, since Wikisource is specifically intended to provide publicly avaiable raw data sources of various types. Thus this might be a bad article, but it might be an ok set of data points for Wikisource. Dugwiki 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since this is a pretty interesting topic, I'll mention that I do think it's theoretically possible to have articles about television ratings in general. Television critics and the industry frequently publish analysis of the broad ratings for various weeks and quarters and seasons, and this information is extremely important to people in the industry and of interest to many television watchers. For example, I bet you could make a decent article entitled "2006 television ratings" that accumlates newspaper articles and interviews to analyze various aspects of the 2006 ratings period, such as notable highs and lows, possible ratings trends and analysis of reasons for major ratings changes, etc. I could probably support THAT kind of ratings article. The article in THIS afd, though, unfortunately doesn't reach that level. Dugwiki 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ratings are good to compare and show if there has been a decline or a rise in a certain promotion or show. Also WSX no longer has a page on its ratings so this is good for someone who wants to know wrestling ratings without going to pop-up filled websites. Bencey 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming you're right that some readers might be interested in this info, that doesn't address the issues of original research and references, and the article doesn't present references to verify that the analysis of the data has been notably handled in publications. The article needs to take care of those problems before I could recommend a keep. Dugwiki 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia and unencyclopedic, per Selket. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now Rating information has relevance whether or not it is your cup of tea. The question is one of sourcing. I'd say give time to provide a source. Bbagot 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.118.184 (talk) 19:59, 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 12:40Z

Paul spera[edit]

Article about a gentleman who created a non-notable magazine and appears to be the grandson of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Unfortunately, those aren't enough to meet WP:BIO and there isn't much in terms of coverage of this fellow in reliable sources to meet it either. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his accomplishment does not meet notability standards. Wooyi 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uni mag is not notable. Nothing else notable.--Dacium 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO bar. Notability is not generally transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alf photoman 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well researched, and Paul Spera is sufficiently notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.139.24 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is an informative entry on a notable enough person. Harlequin is a Yale based magazine, but its subscription base that extends internationally. Also, Ruth Ginsberg has spoken of this grandchild while giving testimony to the Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertise (talk • contribs) — Expertise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete non-notable. Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Pea ceNT 09:31, 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 Nomination withdrawn. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:46Z

Rewilding Institute[edit]

~~While a notable topic, almost all of what little text there is is copyvio lifted directly from several parts of the website, and it serves as little more than an ad.~~ Askari Mark (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn following satisfactory further work to remove copyvio material. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of copyright status, it fails the content policies for other reasons. YechielMan 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has been given to show a pass of WP:ORG--Dacium 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ORG was merged into WP:CORP and its page says it is currently disputed, so iut is not the final word here. Nonetheless, the Rewilding Institute satisfies it by its national influence. A Google search shows that the director is a widely quoted spokesman for a point of view on having large carnivores in the wild in North America, and speaks to professional organizations across the nation, and is widely interviewed and quoted, and has apparently influenced interstate highwat construction to provide better wildlife crossings. Regardless of WP:ORG, the article satisfies WP:N WP:RS and WP:V with the 4 references I added. Inkpaduta 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG isn't in dispute of its basic requirements, only the wording from the result of the merge of the articles. The fact is that the article does not show in any way how the organisation meets any of the requirements of WP:ORG. EVERY organisation is obviously going to be WP:N WP:V because they all exist, this is the whole point of having it pass WP:ORG.--Dacium 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not post it for deletion because it was non-notable, unverifiable or lacked reliable sources. It is posted for copyvio. It would be a worthy article, but not as a c&p. If someone were to immediately begin working on it to resolve that problem, I would be willing to withdraw the AfD nomination. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens I would request to pass the nomination to be for failing WP:ORG.--Dacium 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is no longer a copy of what is on the organization's webpage. I rewrote the portion of the article that seemed to be a copyvio so it is not. The facts are well sourced to reliable and verifiable independent sources. If it meets the primary notability criteria, then it passes WP:ORG. Inkpaduta 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Closing Comment: I feel that Inkpaduta's further work on the article resolves the copyvio problem, so I will be withdrawing the AfD. Regarding Dacium's recommendation for it to be nominated for failing to pass WP:ORG, I leave it to him to do so, but I do not support it. My original examination of this article revealed sufficient independent sourcing to make it fully notable under WP:ORG, albeit the article has yet to be developed more fully by including them; any interested editor has much material to build upon. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 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 Merge to Brandeis University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:03Z

Renfield Hall[edit]

A dormitory at Brandeis University. No third-party reliable sources found on google talking about the dormitory. Only locally relevant, so suggest deletion or merge (not to Brandeis University, but to a list of such dorms). ColourBurst 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rediect To the university page. A few sentences seem salvigable. Else Delete, not notibility.--Dacium 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is no more notable than any other building I've ever seen. Feeeshboy 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing newsworthy (0 results on Lexis-Nexis search of articles) or notable about this dorm building. --Aude (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dacium. Cut to a couple of sentences. No independent sources to prove notability. Inkpaduta 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, like the majority of university residences. Nuttah68 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dacium. A shame if it's just deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Just not notable. If some sources could be found that say it has architectural value or as the location of some historic event or some other reason to consider it notable, it should be kept. (Dalhousie's Howe Hall is another dormatory up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howe Hall) Noroton 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) edited to correct name and add link[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 12:45Z

Frank Firke[edit]

Vanity page. We've been through this before with numerous other Jeopardy! contestant non-notables, including College Champion Nico Martinez. Game show contestants must be notable outside of the game shows they appeared on, or exceedingly notable within the game shows they appeared on (e.g., record-setters) to be considered notable. Robert K S 04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability outside of game show not asserted nor found in top ghits. Nothing especially interesting or precedent-setting about appearance on show. Does not provide any content of interest to the reader or assert context with any hope of expansion. Sub-stub. No multiple non-trivial sources found to support notability. Jerry lavoie 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i was on a game show, wheres my page!--Dacium 06:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability requirement in my view. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve In most cases, I would wholeheartedly agree that an article dedicated to a Jeopardy! contestant is inconsequential at best. However, this Frank Firke earned a measure of notoriety because of his response to an answer apropos the 19th Amendment. In other contexts, his "How much is 19?" remark would not be worthy of further consideration, but the very nature of both Jeopardy! and Jeopardy! fandom dictates that this incident is bound to go down in program history. That so many fans are so devoted to the history of such on-air mishaps bespeaks the power of his appearance on Jeopardy! In that light, it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia or its editors to delete "Frank Firke." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studslonigan50 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. NN. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:52, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 05:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webscriptions[edit]

Delete Spam, questionable notability, no third party independent reliable sources as to why an encyclopedia would care about this particular e-book company. I could not find any news articles through google or my university's library catalog. Ocatecir 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, enough sources added. - Ocatecir 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in case this is still reviewed, but I hope enough sources now stress the notability of this project (NYT, Times, quotes from notable writers).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:42, 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. W.marsh 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Aerospace Reconnaissance Technical Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

Material has been incorporated in other pages which have more context and content Buckshot06 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - could you please specify in which pages the materials can be found? -- Black Falcon 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whops. The single Aerospace Reconnaissance Technical Wing in the USAF, the 544th ARTW, is now the 544th Information Operations Group, and all the info is presented there as part of the 544 IOG's history. Buckshot06 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. So, delete per nom. -- Black Falcon 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the info is in other articles as above.--Dacium 06:35, 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 ~ Arjun 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Idol (Season 4) contestants[edit]

Indiscriminate list of over 200 names, whose prod was contested by an IP editor. This is a directory of pretty much everybody who took part in the preliminary stages of Canadian idol. I do not see that there is a place in an encyclopaedia for this type of information. Ohconfucius 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. There are idols in most big counteries and most have 4 or more seasons, so that could be 10,000 people or more to be listed who really don't have any notibility.--Dacium 06:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these people would have had no more than a few minutes on TV - that doesn't make them notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cattle call of all contestants. They have already had their 5 minutes on TV, and without independent sources for each, fail to show notability. Inkpaduta 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would seem to violate WP:NOT#DIR as it is basically just a phone list of people's names with no encylopedic analysis or context to why this information is at all notable. Such a list MIGHT be ok on Wikisource as a data reference for someone writing an article about the show (for them to look up the name of someone, for example). But it's unfortunately lacking as an article. Dugwiki 22:46, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal student loan consolidation[edit]

This is a "bad mood" nomination but not a "bad faith" nomination. The article text looks like a train wreck, and seems to fail WP:NOT in its treatment of the subject. A redirect to FFELP might work. YechielMan 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No sources, so is both Original research and wikipedia is not a manual. If this were removed you could merge what is left to FFELP.--Dacium 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as written, though possibly a good article could be written on the topic. We also have College Consolidation Loan, which is more of an encyclopedic article, though brief. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this particular article is entirely original research. A complete rewrite from scratch would be needed to salvage it. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to guides, or in the business of giving financial advice. I could see someone writing something about the industry and history of loan consolidation, but that would be an entirely different article - might as well start over from scratch. --Brianyoumans 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is of great importance, since millions of U.S. students owe billions of dollars subject to this process. I added 2 references, in addition to several that were already there. It was a topic of considerable debate in the congress, as is referenced in the article. The topic gets over 1 million Google hits. The article is adequate coverage of a notable topic and is not original research or a "how to" guide. Inkpaduta 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redo from scratch.-- danntm ^T _C 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notable subject. I suspect some statements can be verified. Xiner (talk, email) 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge College Consolidation Loan into this article. This article has a better and more descriptive title, and more content. Alternatively, come up with a better and more generic title for both articles than the awkward "college consolidation loan" - maybe something like "student loan consolidation." PubliusFL 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Bbagot 21:58, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Zagato 575 GTZ[edit]

Nonnotable variant of the Ferrari. The article's purpose seemingly is to promote a Japanese collector of such cars. YechielMan 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single specific model of a car is not notable just like a product from any other company is not notable.--Dacium 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has to be a famous or notable car to be included. Delete per WP:NN --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Delete This is an important model that is built to commemorate 50th anniversary of one of the most famous ferrari, the 250 GTZ. It is also importnat since it is designed by Zagato. --Carcrazy 08:18, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Gorgon's Head Lodge[edit]

Contested speedy deletion, I decided to bring it here. This gets literally one result on Google, but That seems to point towards what might be a reliable source ([5]). It's a secret society, but we do have articles on plenty of these... we just need evidence of coverage by reliable sources.--W.marsh 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is any different to a private WEB board. It is unverifiable WP:V and apart from supposidly existing for 100 years it is not notable at all apart from being 'secret'. The burder is on the author to show these, especially with something that will be debated over its existance and notibility.--Dacium 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless verifiability is ascertained, anyone could make up articles like this. Xiner (talk, email) 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that this is fabricated, or that, while it is true, because other, similar, articles could be made-up, this one must be deleted ? -- Simon Cursitor

Keep When "Orange County NC property ownership" is searched on Yahoo.com, you may open the Orange County Tax Dept website. Then click on "Orange County Interactive GIS Mapping Systems" then search "Gorgons Head Lodge" when you get to the page: [6]. This verifies the existence of the dwelling. The fact that less is known about it than other secret societies does not make it non-existent.--Uncalum 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh you could verify my house through that method, and millions of other dwellings. Wikipedia is not a directory, though. --W.marsh 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "UH" so what is the problem with it then?--Uncalum 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:N. --W.marsh 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what's the significance of having ANY society available on Wikipedia?--Uncalum 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because many have been written about non-trivially by published sources. E.g. Skull and Bones. We write articles based on those sources, if they don't exist, we can't really have an accurate, neutral article. --W.marsh 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't that the whole concept of Wikipedia: an article can exist and be edited until some neutrality is attained? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncalum (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      - But if they aren't drawn from any published sources, the contents of an article are just the opinions of the random anonymous editors of that article. --W.marsh 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I understand. However, these aren't opinions. Ahowever, just because no published articles have been written on the subject does not necessarily indicate that the information is purely opinion or untrue. I would think that the concept of Wikipedia would help this article reach a general consensus on the subject. You, obviously, have more experience in this matter, so obviously, it is up to you.Uncalum 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Such information really might exist, the link I mentioned above [7] is a strong clue. A good article could potentially be written here, if someone really did their homework. --W.marsh 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Without giving away too much information, I myself was a member of the organization, which is how I know of the existence and of specific details. I know it is difficult for that to be used as a source though, so if it needs to be deleted, I understand.Uncalum 02:06, 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 Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, an identical article was previously deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup not long ago. Qwghlm 10:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup 2022[edit]

This is the textbook example of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (click on the link for proof). Based on the unwikified reference, I suspect that this was recreation of deleted content. YechielMan 06:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL To far away yet. Host isn't even selected. May not even occur yet as funding etc. isn't confirmed till host selection/plan confirmed.--Dacium 06:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until 2021 or so. --Selket ^Talk 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; I don't think anyone has even starting working on it yet. As "contenders will start to become clear in around 2010" and , the article shouldn't be created before 2010 at the earliest. -- Black Falcon 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until at least the next three world cups have been gone through. doktorb _words^deeds 08:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Best not wait till any more than three have gone, though, or we'll miss this one ;-) ChrisTheDude 08:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK sorry for putting it up, just thought it might have been a good idea for my first addition to wikipedia :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moorcroftlad (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 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 12:43Z

Futurlogics[edit]

This is a book about a strange idea which has not caught on in any wide cultural context. YechielMan 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Amazon sales rank is 3,422,830. The publisher is listed as "Self Teaching Publications", and a google search on "Self Teaching Publications" leads to a page identifying the publisher as the "HOME OF FUTURLOGICS". Dave6 ^talk 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strangeness isn't cause for deletion, but the lack of notability is. The article doesn't assert any notability, and I can't turn up any either. William Pietri 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources--Sefringle 05:03, 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 12:43Z

Takenbystorm[edit]

non-notable and confusing, as Taken By Storm is a wholly different article Feeeshboy 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator about nonnotable. For confusing, there are ways of dealing with that (disambiguation etc.). YechielMan 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN and probable WP:COI --Selket ^Talk 07:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N with 18 ghits (taken.by.storm+kiefer), only one meeting WP:RS [8]. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:42Z

Jodi J Horne[edit]

Non-notable artist. No claim of notability. Another editor proded the article, but was summarily removed by the author.[9]. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. YechielMan 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 1K Ghits for "jodi horne", less than 300 unique. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, great works indeed Alf photoman 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes across as a free advertisement for a non-notable artist Bbagot 22:02, 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 delete. W.marsh 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moh Azima[edit]

Minor film-maker (music videos) with no evidence of independent recognition, reviews or awards that would meet WP:BIO. Spammy text created by single-article editors. Prod notice removed by 74.73.176.158 who added a link to an unsigned blog review. IMO still too weak against WP:BIO. He's just another small businessman. Mereda 08:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion here, as I don't know the criteria for music-video directors. But he does have very, very scrawny listings in IMDB and All Movie Guide. I'm guessing that's still well below the cutoff. William Pietri 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this article's references are blogs. Apparently no press reviews of his work, no independent recognition. Does not meet WP:BIO. Even for feature-length movies we would expect to see press reviews to assure notability, and what's shown here is much less than that. EdJohnston 19:43, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:42Z

Pamy beley[edit]

Probable hoax. No useful Google results. No IMDB entry for this alleged actress. Movies listed also can't be confirmed in IMDB. Proposed deletion was removed without comment. User has not responded to queries on article talk or user talk pages. William Pietri 08:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, seems like a hoax. Only got Ghits by adding pamela (not just pamella) to the search terms. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I originally found this as a speedy, but flipped it to a PROD because there was an assertion of notability, even if it is completely fabricated and not verifiable. Subject doesn't meet WP:BIO if you ignore everything that does meet WP:HOAX.--Isotope23 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the only contribution from creator User:Pamyb, who did a nice job of drafting what appears to be a hoax, or a fantasy, or dreams of a career in show biz. I hope the new editor sticks to factual edits, since (she?) appears to have a flair for words. Edison 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I can't believe I missed that. And I agree: I hope this contributor starts working on real articles, as he/she has the makings of a very good editor. William Pietri 00:15, 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 12:49Z

ESAPRO[edit]

This is an article made by a single purpose account (one other edit apart from creating this - and that was actually vandalism of another similar article; see here) and is clearly spam. The product itself is not in anyway notable - in fact, I've been in the dietary supplement industry 12 years, working for/with as many as 15-20 different brands, and I've never heard of it (if not for this possible conflict I would have just speedied it myself). Google test reveals 49 results (and most of these aren't about this product at all)^[10] - in short; Delete Glen 08:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I've just looked at the history of this article and noticed its already been deleted twice before as blatant advertising - so now my position has changed; Speedy Delete Glen 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I couldn't find any evidence that this is notable, and I couldn't confirm any of the information. Given the three-times-deleted status, salting the earth would seem appropriate, too. William Pietri 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Xiner (talk, email) 21:59, 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 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Black Man[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable protologism. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I'm just a typical deltionist. NeoFreak 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't this article just be "Typical (insert race, national origin, religion, or anything else) man (or woman)"? --UsaSatsui 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kloepper[edit]

An article about a photographer that doesn't claim any exhibition, any publication, or any other verifiable notability, and that also doesn't name any independent source. The links do suggest that he's a good photographer, but I don't think that this is enough. Google hittage is minimal. Not verifiable. (I wish him well, though, and hope he donates some images to WP.) Hoary 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion for a non-notable photographer. Name gets 399 Ghits, most not about him. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Per nom. --Bryson 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination (non-notable). Turgidson 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Self-promotion? to a degree yes, but not my complete CV or life story. My photographs aren't about ME, so any googling, while it does find me, it doesn't always find my works as I post and or donate most of my work annonomously. When I photograph for the state, county or some other group involved in historic perservation it's not so you can see my name on the picture, but rather so you will SEE the picture. ALSO I go by my e-mail name primairily, SHELKA04 a search under that reveals a few hundred additonal hits. My current project " a civil war era mental hospital" while still in progress can be viewed here: http://www.geocities.com/shelka04/upload.mov

again no name no credit taken as it's about BEING there and not who took the shot. Removing me from wiki may save a few Kb on the server and keep me from my 15 minutes of fame, BUT it will also impeed my ability to further contribute. By that, simply put, many groups I petition for access to photograph would have an easier time understanding my objectives if they could read a bit about me on more then just google. Long story short I would like to shoot the abandoned areas of ellis island, the georgia state pen and ASARCO's Utah copper mine, places that would be easier to access if as I said I could point people at what i was looking to accomplish. John kloepper OH and the hits on Google are mostly about me, I have interests also in computer, GIS, roofing , cycling, and music by peter gabriel, just didn't want to go off topic with them

Delete, as non-notable and unverifiable. In addition, and in response to the comments above, please see WP:Not. The fact that the author/subject claims to use Wiki as a springboard to greater fame ("keep me from my 15 minutes") and as a platform to achieve access is contrary to the purposes of an encyclopedia. TheMindsEye 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, What if any is the difference between this entry and say this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Enos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.162.222 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, ah, this one has dodgier spelling for a start. No, the article on Enos is not so good. No, Enos is not so notable. But Enos is half of Streetstudio, which I think I remember reading about in a real, dead-trees newspaper, and which for example was a Yahoo "pick" (whatever that means) and which gets a lot more googlehittage than Kloepper does. Does Enos warrant an article? I don't know, but he does appear to be more notable than Kloepper does. -- Hoary 09:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self promotion, vanity and non notable. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The Boy that time forgot 16:30, 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 Redirect to the appropriately-spelled title, which can be done without recourse to AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Krasodar Kray[edit]

Missprint in the title "Krasodar" instead of right "Krasnodar" Zabaznov 09:45, 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 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peekvid.com[edit]

I believe this article, Peekvid.com should be deleted because the previous article named Peekvid was deleted and protected by Administrator JzG as it violates A7 of WP:CSD. There is no need for another article as I do know there is a few people that are recreating the article under different names due to the protection of the other (e.g. from Peekvid to Peekvid.com). Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consensus can change; previous decisions are not necessarily authoritative, especially not speedy deletions. The nomination appears to be based on the previous deletion alone, and is thus flawed in my opinion. -- intgr 11:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: The criteria for speedy deletion is based on the article itself, and not the subject of the article. CSD A7 states that the article does not establish notability, not that the subject is non-notable. However, the notability of the current article is debatable at worst, thus does not fall under CSD A7 any more. (Sorry for posting three comments, I can never get all my thoughts together in a single run :) ) -- intgr 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article seems to have merit and establishes notability of the subject. (Even though the author violated the consensus on his previous deletion review of peekvid, recreating this article instead of one in his user space: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February#Peekvid, presumably out of ignorance on what the administrators were telling him). -- intgr 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CNet wrote about it in June, Google News has a few current mentions, and Alexa has had it in the top 1000 since the beginning of the year. The article's no great prize, but that's cause for cleanup, not deletion. William Pietri 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established via articles at cNet (per above) and RealTechNews and by news story run by NBC15 (Pensacola, FL). Caknuck 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peekvid is a major file-sharing website that last week was in the top 300 on alexa. It has been down for a week but it is now back and at 500ish. Major website, news stories, millions of users, pop-culture phenomenon et cetera. David Spart 19:10, 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 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Newport[edit]

Non-notable unsuccessful barrister and (very) minor political figure. Seemingly has never held an elected office. Page recently created, seemingly as a vanity/self-advertisement exercise- see hist. Badgerpatrol 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Creating this page was Mr. Newport's one and only edit. Badgerpatrol 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination (WP:N)--Tikiwont 12:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Bencherlite 20:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor apparatchik, and per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI and WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further proof that the nominator is an ill-informed individual who makes petty personal attacks (for which he has no evidence; how do you know he isn't successful?) whilst maintaining a politically-biased agenda. Richardbooth 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is unsuccessful in the sense that there is no way that a minor barrister working in a provincial set outside London is ever going to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, ceteris paribus. Once again- if you are chucking around allegations that I have some kind of political bias, please provide some EVIDENCE. Otherwise- retract your accusations, please. As for the articles themselves- you'd do well to stop launching personal attacks against me and instead start demonstrating just how the inclusion of any of these fits with Wikipedia policies. Badgerpatrol 09:18, 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 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hughes[edit]

Non-notable minor local level political activist. Strong suspicion that the page was created to advertise his forthcoming local election candidacy, either by Mr. Hughes himself or a close associate. Badgerpatrol 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Badgerpatrol 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination (WP:N)--Tikiwont 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia is not a soapbox Alf photoman 15:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local political figure (I guess). seems like a vanity page. --Tainter 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local political figure.-- danntm ^T _C 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor apparatchik, and per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rwendland 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an ex-footballer also named Paul Hughes who fits the notability criteria (see here and here). I suggest replacing the current content with a biography of him. SteveO 23:59, 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 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Griffiths[edit]

Non-notable, extremely minor local level political figure in a small British city. Page created seemingly as a vanity/advertising article (see hist as part of a concerted campaign to spam Wikipedia with local candidate's biogs in the run-up to local council elections later this year (see above noms). Badgerpatrol 12:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Badgerpatrol 12:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination (WP:N)--Tikiwont 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another article in the chain of spam articles by this user/group.--Tainter 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and WP:SOAP. Candidate for local council election which fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rwendland 21:45, 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 delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Conservative Future[edit]

Non-notable local political youth organisation, with no history and no national profile. See WP:ORG. Badgerpatrol 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Badgerpatrol 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination: non notable local branch of Conservative Future (WP:ORG)--Tikiwont 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC), expanded by Tikiwont 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG.--RWR8189 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cid (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep I question the knowledge of the nominator when he says Dorset CF has no national profile. Oliver Letwin MP, head of Policy Review for the Conservative Party, is an active supporter and he is involved in one of our policy debates later this year. Similarly, Robert Syms MP and Tobias Ellwood MP have both contributed to the organisation and Mr Syms is our guest speaker next month. We have a page on the national Conservative page and we are spreading to Wiltshire as part of that Area Chair. And by saying it has no history you have overlooked its origins as the "Young Conservatives" in Bournemouth. Finally, in terms of notability, four of its members are standing for election this year to Dorset councils and one of its former members is a parliamentary candidate for a Dorset parliamentary seat. Richardbooth 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...so none of your members are actually serving as elected representatives, and the highest any of your former members has ever reached is being a candidate for an election that won't happen for another 3 years. If your organisation has ever been profiled in the national media, or if you have evidence that it has a high national profile, by all means provide links here. Otherwise, see WP:ORG. Badgerpatrol 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact one of our affiliated members, Tobias Ellwood, is the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East. Its national profile can be found on the Conservative Party website and several articles will be appearing in Dorset-wide press (such as The Daily Echo) during the April run-up to the local elections. As a final point, considering David Cameron's drive to promote youth interest in politics, I think this article is very relevant as evidence that shows we are embracing his campaign. In fact, Nick King's parliamentary campaign office is establishing an Executive position to deal with Dorset CF and youth-based constituency matters. Richardbooth 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for demonstrating that the modern Conservatives (or Labour, or Liberals....) are "down with de kidz". The fact that this article highlights your embrace of David Cameron's ideas and policies is utterly, utterly 1000% irrelevent, I'm afraid. This is not a political soapbox, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The right thing to do is to restrict that sort of material to party or personal blogs and websites- it has no place in an encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An organisation which certainly wields local political influence with Dorset's councillors and Conservative MPs. It has a website and a profile on the national website. As a result, it deserves a Wikipedia entry. Twiggybriggy 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user's first and so-far only edit to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Dorset Conservative Future is an official ofshoot of the United Kingdom Conservative Party. It is a registered branch which is supported and endorsed by many senior figures in the party. I am concerned that in this situation a political bias against the party is occuring, and this is especially worrying when an article about the youth organisation of the BNP has been allowed to remain unchallenged on the site. Michael Griffiths

(User has 8 Wikipedia contributions in total, including 2 to his own article (Michael Griffiths- page creation and one other edit) and 5 to this AfD discussion.) Badgerpatrol 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no political agenda for my own part, and I think that some of the above !voters are !British even, so I suspect that the only issue at hand here is whether this page (and by extension the related vanity/self promotion pages that I came across today and put up for deletion) is, or is!, in line with policy, particularly that on notability. In my view, they blatantly are not. So far, no-one here (with the exception of one dubious possible meat puppet) has !voted to keep the article that is not directly mentioned in it as an active member of DCF. That seems to say it all really. If you feel the BNP article (which I am not aware of) does not confirm to policy then feel free to nominate it so that the issue can be discussed. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea who Twiggybriggy is - he could very well be a lurker who objects to your seemingly political agenda. In actual fact, looking at your comment on the history page ("Sock it to us, Twigster!"), it looks like you're making a mockery of this entire process. If the national Conservative Party has a page on Wikipedia, it makes sense for its county-wide offshoots to have pages as well, especially when we play an active role in formulating local Conservative policy and holding debates against institutions such as Bournemouth Council. As I've already written, we also have several notable members. I am not comfortable with User:Badgerpatrol making this administrative decision due to political bias reasons; I hope a neutral figure can step in, and not one who has a vendetta against certain users and organisations. Richardbooth 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you clearly have no idea how AfD works. I am not an admin and I have no power to delete the article; after the discussion has run its course, an admin will step in and make a decision as to whether the page's inclusion in the encyclopaedia is in accordance with policy, as demonstrated by the arguments and evidence in this discussion. It is certainly not logical that every local offshoot of a national organisation is automatically notable- because Tesco or Wal-Mart are notable organisations, does that mean that every one of their local stores should have its own article automatically? Of course not. Again, the only issue here is whether or not this article conforms to policy. It does not, in my opinion, and neither does it seemingly in the opinion of the other disinterested correspondents so far. Badgerpatrol 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also take exception to your personal attack btw, for the record. I have no vendetta against any organisation- in fact, I rarely edit political articles. Please provide some evidence that I have any kind of vendetta against "certain users and organisations", as I feel that's a pretty serious accusation. I first became aware of the existence of these (DCF) articles and users less than 24 hours ago...the simple fact is, that the subjects of this and the other related articles are not at all notable, per WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:BIO. Badgerpatrol 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources.". Best case merge to Conservative Future. Ohconfucius 08:58, 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 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self supporting institution[edit]

Non notable neologism Carmen56 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination template was not complete. It should be now. -- Tikiwont 12:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ambiguously titled neologism with no notabilty or sources. NeoFreak 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this should be evaluated per WP:ORG, looking less on the articles title and intro, but rather on the group of (Adventist) organizations it attempts to describe. (This might be the former Association of Seventh-day Adventist Self-supporting Institutions, which is now Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries[11], but aslo using Google there still is no indication of notability aoutside fo the Adventis context.) Tikiwont 14:40, 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, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Blake (rap artist)[edit]

Contested speedy deletion candidate with assertions to notability present. Procedural nomination, so no opinion yet. Kchase T 12:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no links to anything that would constitute a reliable source. I also don't see how this article could pass WP:BIO or WP:BAND. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Arichnad. The blurry, amateur photograph "taken by myself" also gives away this guy's status. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone who takes on the name William Blake has my love, but this fails WP:BIO. Lesnail 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to think he passes WP:MUSIC: great name, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)D[reply]
Delete. I have never heard of this guy, has he produced any songs?, nice name but it is obvious that William Blake just wants to be famous and he wants to be known, good luck William Blake. Czesc26

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Engström[edit]

Well, the Pirate Party may be cool, but that doesn't qualify you according to WP:BIO. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article I think the appropiate action of me to do when arguing for the article not to be deleted is to state the arguments I considered when I created the article through a translation of the . Christian is a figurehead of a political party that has become well known in the Swedish public mind and he has a notable presence in the debate around software patents. He was among the founders of swedish branch of the FFII which is a major party of the software patent debate in respect to the European Union. Although in need for expansion with additional information and references admitedly, because of his public appearences the article is justifiable as people could be interested in the person and want more information about him. Lord Metroid 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the vast amount of information is the reason for why wikipedia is popular and an extra article even if not used all to often adds value. Lord Metroid 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independant articles regarding the subject cited in the article and I couldn't find any either. He does not appear to meet WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 02:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deaths in Scream[edit]

Redundant with the plot section in Scream (film). Expanding upon that is horror fancruft. It is violating the growing consensus for a word limit for film plot synopses. (Scream's "synopsis" is already huge). I have also seen a more basic list of deaths being added to the films' articles: these are redundant to the plot section and looks like something an amateur fan site would do. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Word. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. --Bryson 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scream (film)#Deaths, which currently only contains a link to this article. -- Black Falcon 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How is this important? JuJube 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Scream (film)#Deaths and shorten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cid (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 February 2007
- Comment: I really don't think the 'deaths' section is a good idea. It is covered by the plot and it's very immature. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the consensus is to merge... will you be okay with the merge? Or will you delete the deaths section? -- Ben 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm skeptical that there is a common understanding of "merge." An example of what I think you mean by a deaths section is illustrated here. I more encyclopedic, mature version would be ensuring that such detail is integrated within the plot in context. Those 'deaths' (and sometimes 'Survivors') sections are really cheap and beneath us. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with JPS. I'd be interested to know what the purpose of listing the deaths is, whether as a section or a separate article. What's the benefit to the reader, even if it were decided that it's all encyclopedic? Would someone who's not a hardcore fan have some reason to read that, and if so, what's the reason? Noroton 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it would appear that there is a disagreement about how to present the information. Some editors seem to think that a section listing or describing the deaths of the characters in the movie deserves a section apart from the section describing the plot of the movie. I don't know what the right venue would be for a discussion of that point... I imagine the only time it would get cleared up would be at a request for arbritration. With that said, thanks for responding to my query. I'm going to assume that you would take merge to mean make sure it's covered in the plot section. -- Ben 06:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article should be enough, whether this is merged into the main one or not. Response to JPS: More immature than the movie? I have no opinion on merging.Noroton 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem is. You don't request to delete other death lists like the List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series and the Final Destination ones. So what's the problem? If you do delete this then I think you should be deleting those ones too. I think I am proving a point aren't I? Adam 1412 12:15 16th February2007.
- Oh, thanks for pointing them out. You're correct that they should also be deleted. --The JPS^{talk to me} 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3, which is a multiple AFD. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one hell of a point you made there, chap. (Adam) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is superfluous information. Qualifies as fancruft. --PhantomS 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike FF13 and the FD series all the deaths can be placed in plot summuarys without too much concern. Jamesbuc

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (defaults to keep) W.marsh 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party[edit]

This "group" does not exist. The article mentions more than once that it might be a joke, and says that they only thing "they" apparently do is run a website. The talk page is full of people asking over and over for reliable sources, but no one answers. From reading the talk page, it apparently survived a VFD back in December 2003 or January 2004, but sourcing was a lot looser back then. These days, it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. — coelacan talk — 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. — coelacan talk — 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Either the "Party" is not a joke (yes there are people like that out there) or enough people believe it is real or at least proscribe to its platform for it to not make much difference. These has been enough coverage of the group in the media esp with the Red Lake High School massacre and Jeff Weise, an adhereant, for the article to pass the requirements of notability and verifiability by relaible sources. If the actual party is inteneded as a joke (ala Landover Baptist Church) that needs to be addressed within the article but the subject itself does not meet deletion criteria. WP:BOLLOCKS is not a policy (too bad though). NeoFreak 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Media coverage of the group: [12] [13] [14] (intent to run in elcetions in Maryland, Bill White has done so} [15] [16] (mention in "domestic terrorism article). That's just 3 or 4 minutes on Google. NeoFreak 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to answer these earlier. These links are completely unacceptable. The first, I have already dealt with in my reply to WMMartin below; it contains a single sentence that Weise posted messages on nazi.org, and then it quotes from their press release. Completely trivial, and nothing to write an article from. The second, a CNN transcript, has two sentences, one saying Weise posted there, the other with some CNN commentator saying essentially "I browsed the website!" The third has no content at all, it's just a list, no hint of a reliable source whatsoever, and it's on a K-12 teacher's website (nothing scholarly, for sure). The fourth, an MTV link, has one sentence and again quotes from the nazi.org press release. The fifth is a Yahoo Answers link that contains a cut and paste of Wikipedia's Bill White article! The links themselves are very strong arguments for just mentioning the site at Jeff Weise and Bill White (no real need for a merge, even), and at the very best leaving this page as a redirect to Bill White. I wouldn't see much to gain from such a redirect, but others here seem to think that's better, and I'm not dismissing that opinion; I just don't share it. — coelacan talk — 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the fact that Bill White has run in elections has nothing to do with nazi.org, as he did not run as their representative. He runs in elections but never for them, and he's not even a member, he just picked up the opportunity to advertise himself as Public Relations for nazi.org after Weise's incident; this is all very clear upon reading White's article. — coelacan talk — 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though it hurts. Alf photoman 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:NeoFreak. I've seen some strange combinations of political ideologies, but this one beats them all. -- Black Falcon 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much sounds like something made up...somewhere. As stated in the article, "The LNSGP at present has no intention of gaining ballot access or fielding political candidates". I'm sorry, but if this party has no intention of running in election and is not registered as a party with the applicable electoral authority of any jurisdiction, this "party" pretty much verges on being speediable as a non-notable club. Any relevance this "joke" may have in regards to other articles referred to in this AfD can be mentioned in those articles. Agent 86 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This group, like most extreme political groups, is not notable because of their performance in elections, just the oposite. It is their influence on the fringe and youth (like Jeff Weise), the nature of their message and their underground activity and imapct on popular culture that makes them notable. This "club" has recieved quite a bit of news coverage and it is both verifiable and notable via these channels. Remember, popularity is not an indicator of notability. NeoFreak 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that popularity does not equate notability. My comments are founded in the lack of substance behind this group, and the ongoing assertions that it is, at best, not serious and at worse, a joke. Agent 86 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wether the subject is satire or ideology is not the concern. That is an issue to be addressed in the article. The only thing I can assume you mean by "substance" is "notability" as that is the criteria for the worth of a subject's substance on wikipedia. The issue is wether the subject meets the criteria for deletion which it does not; It meets the requirments of WP:N and there are reliable sources to prove it. I'm not sure I understand policy you find this article in violation of. NeoFreak 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BOLLOCKS may not be policy, but WP:HOAX is, and it's grounds for deletion (though not speedy). Bill White has a history of grabbing attention for himself by claiming to be "public relations" for whatever made-up white power slogan he can get his hands on, and there's no evidence that this "group" amounts to anything but its own name. If we're going to argue notability from Bill White, then the page should simply redirect to Bill White (neo-nazi), like Utopian Anarchist Party already does (another of his toys). Jeff Weise was never a party adherent, he was a webforum member of this and many other non-notable white power forums. There is no evidence that the "party" has any members, and all they have going for them is well-parked web domain real estate, nazi.org, and a silly name meant to associate themselves with two somewhat-successful United States third parties. Note that all the notability they may have picked up has only been for Bill White or for Jeff Weise and his webforum posts. No notability for any "Party", and so no notability for the supposed subject of this article. — coelacan talk — 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I just read over the article again and it even says: "It does not have actual members like the Democrats, Republicans or Greens." That says it all: WP:HOAX. — coelacan talk — 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In order to delete something on the grouds of it being a hoax you have to prove it is a hoax. Simply saying "it sounds like a hoax to me!" is not acceptable esp when the subject has garnered this attention from reliable sources. Like I said this is all to be hashed out in the article itself. I'm not saying the article is good one way or the other, I'm saying that the subject itself meets all the requirements for a article on wikipedia. Barring real evidence that it is a hoax (not having "real members" like the two major political parties could mean it is impossible to register as a member of the party which still makes it an ideological group, not uncommon or grouds to label it a hoax) this doesn't meet a single portion of the criteria for deletion. Not one. NeoFreak 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you know it's logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. However, one of the article's external links, this from Reason (magazine), explains what was found through some investigation of the forums. That article makes a coherent case for it being a hoax, as it is apparently a joke site of Craig Smith's, who doesn't even touch it anymore. — coelacan talk — 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I understand that it might or might not be a joke. For the sake of argument let us say that it is. With all the events surrounding this topic the subject retains it's notability. If you have issues with the verifiability of some statments in the article then go ahead and change the article. The subject itself though, and it effects, are documented and verifiable, therefore the article is alright. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, it's kind of a fucked up way to argue notability I suppose. NeoFreak 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you're making sense, but I just don't think the sources argue for any notability of the "Party". The fact that Bill White argues it's real is evidence that it's not real, just like the Utopian Anarchist Party. And like that other hoax, the notability supposedly attached to this is at most enough for a redirect to Bill White (neo-nazi), imho. A little off-topic but I loved one of the comments on Reason.com: "This should be a warning to any teen in a lunatic fringe party: don't do a school shooting--Bill White will just hog all the glory after you're dead." — coelacan talk — 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an outstanding quote. I suppose the difference is that the "Party", which in all probability is not an actual entity, does not warrant an article under WP:HOAX and WP:V with the first policy cancelling out the primary "reliable sources" which could be used to establish the second. With that in mind I would still say the subject of the article is notable and verifiable in popular culture, all things considered. If there is not enough material to substain a rewritten article with this in mind I would not be opposed to a redirect and merge to Bill White (neo-nazi) and a mention in the two realvent school shooting articles. I just worry that the topic has touched to many stand alone articles and merging it would result in navigational pains. NeoFreak 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge ~~Someone please convince me that this isn't notable.~~ I know the Bill White situation... but It's just that I don't think it has to be a Hoax and so it still might be notable. MrMacMan 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nazi.org is notable on its own, then there will be third party coverage out there, independent of the situations involving Bill White and Jeff Weise. There is no such coverage. There is no notability for nazi.org except as it pertains to these two individuals, and so it should not have its own article but should simply be mentioned in those individuals' articles. The point of WP:N#The primary notability criterion is that "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. [And] In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." The problem with this article is that because all the sources are really about Jeff Weise and Bill White, the coverage of nazi.org is all trivial. There is not enough non-trivial coverage to write a verifiable, npov article about nazi.org. This is a controversial topic, which is why it's extremely important that the content of the article be verifiable, however, with the triviality of the sources, this is impossible. So the article can never be encyclopedic. The best mention that nazi.org can get is passing references in the Bill White and Jeff Weise articles, because it gets no substantial coverage in the third-party sources that we would need to write an article from. — coelacan talk — 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, take content and merge to The Bill White or Jeff Weise articles. This info should go somewhere so please don't delete. MrMacMan 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep, with No Merge. Like some of the other participants in this discussion, I found it easy to identify acceptable sources/references in support of this article ( http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/index.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1443462,00.html, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4557742, http://www.artsandlettersmagazine.com/FeaturedStoryHMathewBarkhausenIII.html, and http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:EVpX0Y_z8GsJ:ai.arizona.edu/hchen/slide/ICDAT-DarkWeb-Oct2006.ppt+%22libertarian+national+socialist+green%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=74 were all available through Google without trouble ). The last reference I list was to a slideshow that appeared to have been presented at an academic conference on monitoring dubious/terrorist activity on the internet; this group appears to have been specifically studied by academics. Whether the group actually "exists" or not - one suggestion is that it started as a joke but attracted enough people that the joke was subverted - is not relevant: as the Reason Online article cited by this article points out, we here appear to have an example of the Thomas theorem. In any case "non-existence" is not a problem for us - we have plenty of articles on James T. Kirk, the United Federation of Planets and so on. What does matter is notability, and that seems clear: we've got references, including academic ones and news stories, and the group/website appears to have had an impact of some sort on the real lives of people. coelacan has, unfortunately, muddied the waters by talking about "nazi.org": we should ignore this sidetrack. Our focus should be on the specific subject of the article. Although it may be difficult to make the article NPOV, and we need to be careful not to let our own opinions and ideas enter the article as OR, the subject of the article itself is notable. WMMartin 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're muddling the waters, WMMartin. The "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" is nazi.org and nothing more. Your google cache of arizona.edu link states this quite clearly: it's about the nazi.org forum, and they didn't study the "Party", they simply used that webforum as an example of how a "hot thread"-detecting metric works.[17] That citation says absolutely nothing about the "Party", what they "do", what they're about, anything. It's only the briefest of trivial mentions of nazi.org, in a computer science case study of a generic algorithm. The fact is that all these links you've come up with are trivial, and thus they all fail WP:N (which says the sources must be non-trivial), because you can't write an article from them. Let's actually look at the links you've provided (the reader is strongly encouraged to actually click on these links and follow along). Besides the google cache of arizona.edu, you've got something from artsandlettersmagazine.com,[18] which has two sentences, both saying that the "Party" issued a statement: they "refused to wring hands over a 'tragedy'...", etc. Does this tell us anything we can write an article from? No, it belongs in Jeff Weise's article, because it doesn't inform us at all about the "Party". Let's look at your NPR link.[19] It's about Weise, again, and it says that he posted lots of messages to lots of (other non-notable) neo-nazi web forums. It's got one sentence, at the very end, which says that Weise posted some messages to nazi.org. What does this tell us about the "Party"? What information here can we write an article from? We can certainly add the short reference into Jeff Weise's article, but that's it. Again, because you seem to have overlooked this, the point of WP:N#The primary notability criterion, which asks for non-trivial coverage, is that "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. [And] In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." There's no non-trivial coverage yet to use. Let's look at the Guardian link,[20] which is again that exact same issued statement that was in the artsandlettersmagazine link. It's just direct quotation from nazi.org,[21] but no independent investigative reporting, no verifiability here. As http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/weise/ demonstrates, it's a press release, expressly forbidden by WP:N, which clearly says: "The "independence" qualification excludes all ... press releases". There's nothing more in the Guardian link besides a reprint of the press release, so this is both trivial and not independent. Still failing our simplest notability requirements. What about CNN?[22] One sentence that says Jeff Weise posted there, again, fine for his article, and then more reprinting of the nazi.org press release. There's absolutely nothing there, in all of those links, to write any kind of wp:verifiable article from. And the fact that nobody has actually bothered to investigate them is evidence that nazi.org is in fact non-notable; no journalists or academics are interested in them enough to study them and write anything approaching a wp:reliable source, because they have no notability whatsoever outside of the Jeff Weise and Bill White articles. — coelacan talk — 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A website is not a political party. They have run no candidates, have held no conventions, no membership to speak of, no major role in any significant protest movements, no publications outside of their own website. They do seem to have gotten some attention in outside articles but only because of the utter weirdness of the idea or speculation whether this is a joke, so does not completely fail WP:ORG but doesn't clearly pass WP:ORG either. Notability is a judgment call in this case and I would suggest applying the same criteria here as to other non-notable upstart and web-only political parties, such as the United States Pirate Party, Dragomiloff 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep If people treat this party as real, then it is real as a concept, and since it is obviously N judged by the comments above--even of those who were arguing for delete. If there were any doubt about N, it no longer exists, after Jeff Weise who is widely known to have supported their principles. it is the sort of think which goes into WP. In fact, articles like this should be thought of as essential parts of WP--it is good that there be some relatively reliable guide for web users who come across this for the first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'll assume you weren't being intentionally disingenuous in saying that my words really amount to "keep". Even with honest intention, it's certainly not a fair argument. I believe I've been perfectly clear in the reasons why this article fails notability, and you haven't addressed those reasons. Simply, without reliable sources to write an article from, we cannot create a "relatively reliable guide" for anyone to read here. In addition to non-notabilty, the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it fails hard, as I've demonstrated above. Discuss the sources if you like, but as the case currently stands, we have no verifiable content whatsoever except "Jeff Weise posted some messages and Bill White distributed a press release." And no one is showing up with better sources. — coelacan talk — 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just from a vexillological point of view, to be able to see the flag because it is so unusual. Keraunos 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) The flag perfectly symbolizes the concept of ecofascism. Keraunos 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, I have no affiliation with this group. Secondly, I've run across their page several times during my Internet travels over the years. And it seems that I'm not the only Google search for the phrase "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" turned up 10,100 hits. They seem to be somewhat notable. (if, for no other reason, the laugh factor) And most importantly, somebody just mentioned this site on the message board that I administer. I came to Wikipedia to get more information about the "party", and luckily there was a page here. Don't delete it. -- Big Brother 1984 19:02, 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 keep. W.marsh 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian politicians[edit]

Redundant to our categories. Created when there were no categories. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
1. Lead starts with This article lists all Australian politicians who have articles on Wikipedia which is not true.
2. History shows it is not maintained, and is way out of date compared to Category:Australian politicians and its children.
3. talk:List of Australian politicians shows a brief discussion of its lack of value last April, with no rebuttal.
4. No articles link to it.
--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying comment I have no objection to a list (or series of lists) with this title, provided that they are complete and maintained/maintainable and comply with WP:LIST. The current article does more damage than value to the project. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it may well need some work. A list of obviously notable people. There is no such thing as a list that is redundent to a category. Jcuk 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintained and potentially huge list. --Peta 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was last altered 2 days ago. That doesn't say unmaintained to me. However, taking a closer look at it, it is a horrible article, that needs a LOT of work..... Jcuk 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me removing a red link to List of members of State and Territory parliaments that was created a month ago by moving one of the incomplete and unmaintained sublists out of this page. That article was deleted under the ((prod)) process as Incomplete list of past and present members of eight different parliaments, 15 different houses, over 150 years for some of them. Better covered by categories like Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and complete lists like Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, 2005-2009. These appear to exist for each state. It had 32 names on it. The reason it was split out a month ago was in response to ((prod)) on this article - the only response was to split it into three incomplete lists and remove the template. It was given a month to get cleaned up. In the preceding 2½ years I count less than 5 constructive edits (all small) that were not disambiguating names already there. Over that period there were a number of elections, including at least 3 states and a federal one. That looks unmaintained to me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm all for categories there is a difference between List of signatories of the United States Constitution - which this page could become similar to - and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution. This list needs work and promotion, not deletion.Garrie 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? There are about 400 stubs on Australian politicians; there are potentially thousands of individuals who have been politicians at the federal, state, and local levels in Australia. How do you propose that one could make a useful list that incorporates all those people. The only way to do it would be to make this a list of lists.--Peta 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a list of federal and a list of state politicians (one for each state)... simple, and local politicians if appropriate (Lord Mayors are usually about the only ones notable enough). JROBBO 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possible bad faith nom. DXRAW 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I can accept all keep arguments... except that one. The reason I did nominate it was since I saw it getting mentioned somewhere as going up for deletion, while it wasn't. So I finished the process. Now, though, I can't find that... personally I don't really care whether this remains or not. I'd like you to explain how it could be a bad faith nomination, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment WP:AGF and WP:NPA! DXRAW edited this article 6 times on the evening of 13 January after it was tagged ((prod)). The first edit comment was give me a sec to fix. The other edits split out List of former members of the Australian House of Representatives (50 names) and List of members of of State and Territory parliaments (32 names). In the following month, no effort has been visible to make these lists complete lists in terms of people, or containing additional information to make them better than categories. It was previously considered at Talk:List of Australian politicians and WP:AWNB#What to do with List of Australians?. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed at the list of former politicians debate. These debates have got to stop; people should realise the potential of articles and do some work on them, rather than just deleting them because they can't be bothered maintaining them any more. JROBBO 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. List of notable people with potential to be useful. Should possibly be a list of lists for Federal, state and Territory politicians and other notable political figures. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is kept or recreated, it should be made a list of complete lists for each of the 16 houses of state territory or federal parliament. Each of those should contain more than just names (e.g. dates, electorates, ministerial posts). I don't know if there's a guideline for whether they should be sorted alphabetically or by election date. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean. Dfrg.msc 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Since it looks likely thst this page might be kept, I have replaced the link to the recently deleted articles with a complete list of links to the lists of current members of each parliament. The page is still odd now as it has links to 15 lists of current members, and 15 links to people who were members of colonial parliaments over 100 years ago. Others are welcome to improve it by deleting my addition if it helps the project. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:33, 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 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Serafin[edit]

Non-notable person RPrinter 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The best independent verification of notability I found was the In Magazine profile, but that doesn't add up to multiple nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, lacking multiple non-trivial mentions leaves no choice Alf photoman 15:06, 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 Alphachimp, copyvio. BryanG^(talk) 06:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Droch Fhoula[edit]

Cannot find any evidence this band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines - no notable releases, tours, etc. Only slight claim to fame would be that the lead singer is a notable professional wrestler, but he is only notable in that field, not as a musician. Plus, everything on the page is total nonsense ChrisTheDude 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaving the question of the writing style aside, I can't find any independent evidence of notability for this band. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - if an article looks like something that would be found on a myspace page, chances are it actually is from a myspace page. The article is a copy of the band's myspace page. I've tagged it with a db-copyvio. -- Whpq 22:04, 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 keep. - Daniel.Bryant 09:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brocas Helm[edit]

Non-notable metal band, fails WP:BAND. Prodded, but contested after four days by Orange ginger, who on the talk page stated Deleting this page is idiotic. I was curious about the band, and the page provided me with information. Why delete it? It just seems utterly pointless to me. Does seem quite uncontroversial, really. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Reviews [here and here seem to indicate that they may have some notability that I can't prove, so someone may come up with better sources than I could. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This group is actually a very important cult metal band. The article could use a little cleanup but they are definitely notable (at least in heavy metal circles) and the page should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezuiwf (talk • contribs).

Keep, there seem to be enough referececs available to keep them, even though the original article was unfortunately created without any. For a start, I rewrote the intro and added some sources. --Tikiwont 10:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am the creator of this page, and I think the page should be kept. The band is very important in the Epic Metal scene, and has even headlined the first edition of the Keep It True festival in Germany (http://www.ancientspirit.de/liverevi/keep_03.htm). The "Brocas Helm" entry has been even accepted in the Italian wikipedia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocas_Helm), so I think there's no reason for deleting it. -Nergal-Behemoth (Talk) 12:14, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software patents under the Patent Cooperation Treaty[edit]

COMMENT Request for deletion has been withdrawn by nominator following excellent work in improving article as discussed below.GDallimore 14:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meaningless article. Patents cannot be granted through the PCT procedure, it is merely a centralised system for prosecuting patent applications which must then be turned into individual patent applications before each national office in question who will then decide, under their own laws, whether or not to grant a patent. Article is therefore misleading and unecessary in view of existing articles on software patents under US, UK, EP and JP law. Have nevertheless copied text into Patent Cooperation Treaty article in case something useful can be salvaged from the discussion of the various Rules and Articles of the PCT that are mentioned. Numerous redirect pages to this article should also be deleted. GDallimore 15 February 2007

Article content has been merged. The GFDL requires keep. Uncle G 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only some of the content has been merged because it mentioned a couple of interesting facts about the PCT which might be useful in the PCT article. The relevance of these facts to the AfD is zero because the article itself is meaningless. GDallimore 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether some or all has been merged is irrelevant. You merged the text. The GFDL requires that the article therefore be kept. It's as simple as that. Uncle G 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me give an example as I fear I'm not explaining this properly. Say I create an article called "Blah". The content of that article is little more than "blah, blah, blah", but in the middle of the article is an inciteful, referenced section about the works of Mozart. I want to keep the bit about Mozart and merge it into the existing Mozart article, but the article as a whole is clearly up for deletion. Are you saying that merging the Mozart bits into Mozart means the rest of the article cannot be deleted? Surely not. I feel that this is a comparable case. The article, and the title of the article was meaningless and no record of it should remain on Wikipedia, even though some intelligent and well-versed contributors referenced interesting parts of the PCT in a (failed, in my view) attempt to make the article as a whole make sense. GDallimore 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying that merging the Mozart bits into Mozart means the rest of the article cannot be deleted? Surely not. That is exactly what the GFDL requires. See §4. The edit history must be kept. Uncle G 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see where the GDFL says any such thing. On the contrary, it suggests merging as a resolution to many issues, with the article then being reduced to a redirect. However, the only reason for keeping even a redirect is because of the links from 9 articles which would then be broken. Since the only thing which can be said about the subject is "the PCT doesn't say anything about the whether software can be patented", a better solution would be to delete the links themselves. Tim B 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The GFDL can be found at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is linked to by every single page that you've read here. Please familiarize yourself with the copyright licence under which you and all other editors are making contributions. Uncle G 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Uncle G is correct. According to the GDFL the best that can happen is that the page should be redirected to where the majority of the information moved, as the edit history will be retained in the redirect page history. Therefore Redirect as I don't think it should be kept.--Dacium 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't actually care about the fate of this page (that is, redirect or delete - I don't think it ought to remain in its current form), but that is a nonsensical reading of the licence as it applies to Wikipedia. The current version of Patent Cooperation Treaty contains none of the text from this article except for the quote from Article 27, which is, of course, not an original part of the contribution where it was added and therefore cannot be subject to the licence. The current PCT article section is not even a derivative work of the article since the remainder of the text was written from scratch, the only common themes, aside from the quote, being the general concept that someone might be interested in whether the PCT had any provisions on the substantive questions of what is patentable in a Contracting State and the fact that any useful statement of this must necessarily refer to Rule 67 and might refer to software patents as being a relevant example. If I understand your interpretation of GFDL, a person could prevent the deletion of any page by copying some of the text into another article and saying that even if it is immediately deleted again, it will remain available through the history of that page and consequently the original source page needs to be kept so that the history of the text can be seen. That would be a nonsense for text which was generally felt not to be needed at all in Wikipedia and was available only because it was inconvenient to delete sections of history of a different article (and near-impossible where the text was not deleted by the very next revision). Tim B 10:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that article was meaningless for reasons stated. Only relevance even to Patent Cooperation Treaty was to highlight the fact that the PCT is neutral on whether this and other subject matter is patentable but allows an exclusion from international search and examination. Tim B 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Keep: As rewritten, I can see a place for this article in a series about software patents (I am doubtful about whether series form is the most effective way of presenting the issue, but it fits in). It still needs quite a lot of revision though - I would agree with GDallimore that Rules 39 and 67 are not (and cannot in view of Article 27(5)) be about the patentability of software according to the PCT. Rather, they are a statement about the limited processing of international applications relating to certain subject matter during the international phase, depending on whether a particular International Authority would refuse to process it under its national law (see the agreements between the International Authorities and the International Bureau for the specific link with national systems). It's not an article that I'm likely to bother attempting to improve in the near future though. Tim B 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have entirely rewritten the article, highlighting the practical, historical and interpretive significance of the topic. The article is verifiable, provides sources, and the mere fact that the PCT would be "neutral" about the topic is a meaningless reason for nominating the article for deletion. Actually, the PCT is not neutral at all about the topic, as explained in the article (but even if it was, that would not mean nothing). In addition, if there is a consensus (see current debate), rename to Patentability of software under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (indeed the PCT does not grant patents, so that renaming the article could be appropriate). --Edcolins 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is largely fine, but the open para and the title are both still wrong - and opening para highlights the reason I voted this article for deletion in the first place. Article says: "There are two provisions in the Regulations annexed to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that directly relate to the patentability of computer programs." This is not correct. There are no provisions that relate to the patentability of computer programs. All these provisions say is that, when it comes to computer programs (and other subject matter) ISAs/IPEAs don't have to search/examine such applications. This is not a comment on their patentability since the PCT does not (and may not) comment on whether or not such things should be patentable. As the article states "Article 27(5) PCT provides that, as far as substantive conditions of patentability are concerned, national and regional patent laws prevail". This content is still useful but would be better put in a more general article such as Search and examination procedure under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Current article still needs deleting, or re-directing to newly title article if GFDL will not permit deletion. 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I respectfully don't agree with you. IMHO, the sentence "There are two provisions in the Regulations annexed to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that directly relate to the patentability of computer programs" is correct. Article 33 PCT says "The objective of the international preliminary examination is to formulate a preliminary and non-binding opinion on the questions whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and to be industrially applicable", so that a preliminary opinion on patentability is provided during an international examination during the PCT procedure. Rule 39.1 PCT and Rule 67.1 PCT relate to this preliminary opinion (written opinion of the ISA or examination by IPEA), and can have a direct impact on the outcome of the search or examination and therefore relate to patentability. By the way, the outcome of the search and examination are now called "International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter I or II of the PCT)". The definition of "to relate" is "to have some relation" [23], which does not necessarily mean "contain", "comprise", "include", "is included", ... The relation implied by the verb "relate" in the first sentence is explained in detailed in the article, making the sentence correct IMHO. I have removed "directly" though, which was not necessary. --Edcolins 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    - Geoff, Tim, I have reworded the intro (right, the original wording was clumsy...). I hope this is fine now. I suggest to rename the article Computer programs and the Patent Cooperation Treaty. A more neutral and precise title is in order. --Edcolins 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyway, I think disputing the title and one sentence of the article is nowhere near sufficient to delete the article. You state "The content is largely fine" and then "Current article still needs deleting, (...)". I have some difficulty conciliating these two affirmations. --Edcolins 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just had an edit conflict here after seeing your edit to the main article! the new version is so much better. I'll withdraw my AfD. GDallimore 14:21, 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 Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability, original research, etc... Neofreak sums it up well. yandman 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lift and carry[edit]

An article on the fetish of "carrying people". No joke. This is another neologism and orginal research fetish article created by a budding online enthusiest community with no reliable sources or verifiability. The extent of the article's sources are some yahoo groups and fan sites in External Links. The trend of internet interest groups getting together and making articles about themselves under the guise of it being a documented condition or trend has got to stop. This doesn't border on ridiculous, it takes a flying leap off the edge. Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought, a soapbox or social networking site. Fails WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:RS per WP:V. NeoFreak 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verfied. Madmedea 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it gains a reliable source. I've actually heard of this before, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.ZimmerBarnes 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: So Delete "as is"? NeoFreak 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Leuko 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI've looked for articles on this on google. '"lift and carry" fetish' gets over 16,000 hits, so it is popular, just nothing in the way of an article. Most websites also cover fetishes of strong women, "Amazons", and the like, so if there's an article on that, they could be merged. ZimmerBarnes 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references which are reliable to show notability. All these fetishes could be put in a list. Edison 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm working on a list of them to clean up, source, merge or delete. NeoFreak 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's whatever turns you on. Ohconfucius 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It being such an underground fetish makes it hard for it to have been documented. And proof of this existing is the fact that there seems to be lots of sites on the internet that are making photo/video sets in this fetish's name. Seems hard to call this something that somebody made up seeing as this have been around for decades and have actually found it's nishe on the internet. Bundling it with other fetishes would not work as two fetishes never is one single fetish. londoneers 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) — Londoneers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep the very nature of such topics makes them difficult to document by conventional sources, and if WP is to have articles about anything on this general type of subject, then documentation such as this article has is sufficient. (& considering recent talk on the N guidelines, there seems to be some acceptance of flexibility here). Personally, I wonder if some of the opposition to articles on fetishes etc. is perhaps based on unconscious discomfort with the topics. Topics people are uncomfortable with, just as in political or religious topics some people are uncomfortable with--should be included whenever any evidence of them is found, lest we indirectly censor. I certainly do not mean this is the motivation of anyone taking any particular position on this article--just a general comment/caution. Unless I watch myself, I find myself reacting similarly to certain types of articles. DGG 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you both get familiar with wikipedia rules on attribution. This policy states: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Since this material is, as you say, an underground fetish (and a neologism) it cannot meet his requirment and is therefore subject to deletion. Just because something may be true does not mean that it fulfills the requirments for an article on wikipedia. NeoFreak 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, material here must be documented in reliable sources. If it's too "underground" for that, it's not a suitable topic until that happens! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No encyclopedia could be complete without all the terms people use and like it or not, it's an every day term for some of us. One Yahoo group (heifadreamlift) has more than 13700 members, so it seems to me that this hobby/fetish is popular enough to be left out. Or you can delete it if you like, but then Wikipedia will not be accurate and helpfull concerning this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bokostas (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2007. — Bokostas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete If Wikipedia allows articles that can't be well-sourced, then the encyclopedia will inevitably make hoaxes easier, and they will proliferate. The article must be deleted if sourcing is not possible. Avoiding more hoaxes is more important than extending coverage to things that aren't established or documented well enough to have sources. Noroton 16:40, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming: A Serious Problem[edit]

Nomination process was not completed by its original poster. This looks to me like a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedia article. Content is redundant to Global Warming Feeeshboy 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or essays. --Aude (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - Global Warming is extremely controversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.176.194.173 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete per WP:NOR. unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an essay. -- Whpq 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely appears to be an original, albeit referenced, essay. Might want to check to see if there are individual bits of information that should be merged with Global Warming before deletion. Dugwiki 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original essays.-- danntm ^T _C 23:45, 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 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul's Arranged Marriage[edit]

Non-notable movie. No notable Google results or reliable sources. Delete. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Mathur utcursch | talk 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unsourced and not significant – Qxz 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable--Sefringle 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not worthy of being noted. --Parker007 02:10, 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 speedy delete as copyvio from [24] Tizio 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert e[edit]

stub article, covered in-depth at "Albert Einstein" islandboy99 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 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 keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axial pen force[edit]

not notable, doesn't make sense Rracecarr 07:02, 15 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]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Pen pressure. The definition makes sense to me -- it's just the force that a user exerts parallel to the pen. I'd be interested in seeing a graphonomics textbook or something. Google does not return many hits, but this is a small field. --N Shar 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've clarified the definition; it was badly written but the sources make it clear what the correct definition should be. --N Shar 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is trivial (at best, include as one or two lines in another article). Turgidson 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some sources to the article (as "External links", but they can later be incorporated). -- Black Falcon 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this page for deletion, so not sure if I should vote. However, one the main reasons I thought it should go was that the definition was incomprehensible. That has been taken care of. It does seem like this content could be included in the graphonomics article though. Rracecarr 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and congratulating the nominator for a sensible first decision and a sensible second one. DGG 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, but urge contributor(s) to reword first paragraph to provide easily-understood context to the unfamiliar reader, and to provide a diagram or something to explain what it is saying. (even something homemade using MSpaint would be better than no illustration). Jerry lavoie 01:48, 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 no consensus to delete, but the existing version could probably be transwiki'd. W.marsh 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpoint tattoo[edit]

Neutral I am familiar with the slang term, I can see it existing as an article provided it is bolstered with at least some form of reference or citation. --Ozgod 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag as needing sources – Qxz 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-wiki - Move to Wikitionary. I am concerned that there is only 1 real article linking to this (Ballpoint pen), but could exists as a definition. -AtionSong 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-wiki to Wiktionary unless expanded I agree with AtionSong, this looks to be little more than a slang definition. Unless it can be expanded, simply move it to Wiktionary and/or possibly merge into, say, Tattoo as a short paragraph or subsection. Dugwiki 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere Since I see girls at school with flowers and hearts drawn on their arms and legs in pen all the time, infact my friend had a flower drawn on her leg today, they do it during class while they're bored. --Candy-Panda 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a "Usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair, though, Wikipedia does have articles about notable slang terms that are written to explore the history and usage nuances of the term that go beyond a typical dictionary definition. So if this article was likewise expanded with proper sources to that more encyclopedic level of information, then it would probably be ok. Dugwiki 17:54, 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 speedily deleted as CSD a7. alphachimp 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dafydd Morris Jones[edit]

I am also nominating Iestyn Scourfield. Both fake Welsh players' articles created by vandal-like user Dafski. He also tried to put these players on Newcastle United F.C. and U.S. Città di Palermo squads. Angelo 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user contacted me by email, suggesting both players actually exist and are well documented in local media. Should this be true, I think they would not be elected to stay on Wikipedia anyway, as both of them do not satisfy the notability criterions (none of them seemed to have made any appearance in a fully professional league match). --Angelo 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - when you strip out the speculation there is nothing to suggest either has any assertion to notability under WP:BIO. Qwghlm 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - there appears to be no proof of any notability. I also recommend pemanently blocking the user if these articles are found to be false, as I suspect they are. Asics talk 17:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Update: yesterday the user created a Daf Jones article, actually a carbon-copy duplicate of Dafydd Morris Jones with a couple of "external references" which pointed to non-existent pages. It was already speedy-deleted, anyway. --Angelo 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 No assertion of notability. Jesse Viviano 16:07, 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. Shimeru 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyra Bugg & en Coca Cola[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has barely been updated with any useful information. While I appreciate that an article has been created for this album it contains no information as to how well it has done financially upon its release or what makes it particularly notable beyond being a debut album. --Ozgod 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given by nominator to delete. There are a lot worse album pages (not a reason I know!). Though it is not up to par with the albums project that could easily be fixed. --Tainter 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album is notable enough to keep. As per Tainter above, this article can easily be expanded upon and improved •CHILLDOUBT• 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally if the artist is notable enough to warrant an article, their albums follow suit. Marked as stub & fixed templates on talk page, which will get album project helpers' attention. SkierRMH 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the lack of a reason to delete (that it needs attention is unsurprising, but that's not a reason to kill it off). Additionally, I'd argue that the debut album of a notable artist is itself notable - as a kind of "notable first". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cangbush
Keep per SkierRMH, albums by notable artists should also be notable enough based on my interpretation of WP:MUSIC guidelines. (jarbarf) 18:01, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Ari[edit]

Neutral While I understand most television shows have articles dedicated to each individual episode, this one is sorely lacking in any real notable information (guest stars, overall plot arc development of the series, etc.) --Ozgod 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. See the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (TV episodes). YechielMan 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prohibition of future re-creation, or rename. Most NCIS articles (List of NCIS episodes and Caitlin Todd off the top of my head) seem to point to Kill Ari (NCIS) which doesn't exist. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It do now Redirected it.Lizzie Harrison 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page is the result of a wrong Mass-Delete and the restoration afterwards. It was much better, I know because I did it myself. I will take care of this page today and add the missing infos. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should now meet the requirements and the AfD can be closed. --SoWhy ^Talk 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous AfDs and the consensus that episodes are encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenton, Matthew's justification. Stickeylabel 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a consensus to keep and improve pages like this, not delete them. See WP:EPISODE. - Peregrine Fisher 16:01, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Truth Evangelical Assembly[edit]

Seemingly non-notable church group of South America Montchav 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but some sources and assertion of significance would be nice – Qxz 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This stub presents no sources to show they meet WP:N or the proposed specific guideline for churches WP:CONG. Edison 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletle, no assertion of notability. --Candy-Panda 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability, a very short article. Not much work will be lost if it is deleted. No objection to recreating it if sources can be found and notability can be shown. EdJohnston 15:50, 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 DELETE. Herostratus 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Strategic Weaspons Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

Misspelt page, non-notable with the limited context it has, with all information now at 99th Air Base Wing page and List of USAF Training Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As info can be gotten elsewhere. FYI, a page being mis-spelled is not criteria for deletion. There is a reason for the "move" tab. --Tainter 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little context, redirect to 99th Air Base Wing.--Vsion 06:32, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Legge (comedian)[edit]

No assertion of notability, and written in a really non-encyclopedic and chummy tone. If the guy really is well-known in Ireland, cleanup would be in order. Otherwise delete. Quuxplusone 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tone of article is no reason for deletion. Siginificant Irish comedian. Dwain 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned it up so it's not taken word for word from his CV anymore. Clears the notability bar, but admittedly not by much. -R. fiend 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 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 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solipsism syndrome[edit]

Why delete? it seems the merge suggestion is more appropriate. Jeffhoy 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It looks real to me. YechielMan 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Only one known reference at the moment, but the fact that it's in a NASA study tells me that it's more than just bunk, the study is also linked from the article, proving that it does indeed use the term. More than a mere dictdef, it contains interesting and sourced information on a topic that appears to be noteworthy. It's also pretty well-written. Wintermut3 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep i see no reason to delete this article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article just needs supporting references; it would be a shame to delete. Solipsism as a philosophy and solipsism as a syndrome are different enough to warrant two separate entries (with cross-references).

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

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

The Village (student housing)[edit]

Delete Despite being a former student of Montclair State University and one of the first residents of this new village complex, it does not have that notability of having its own page. The information about The Village can easily be condensed into the main article at Montclair State University. --Ozgod 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student housing. are there nay notbale ones?--Tainter 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established. I could see a building innovative or distinctive enough for its architecture, or one where some historic event happened. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renfield Hall and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howe Hall for two other deletion discussions on dorms. Noroton 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student housing tends to be not-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 05:13, 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 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent Box[edit]

Neologism or protologism; all of the references are to forums. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism (should be at Torrent box anyway) – Qxz 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO--Dacium 22:19, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Turtle (syntax), which was the best I could come up with out of this. - Daniel.Bryant 09:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle RDF[edit]

This article appears to be an instruction manual that has a non-encyclopedic tone. It also is an orphaned article with not many links.

If it is decided for keep, then I would recommend a complete rewrite

Guroadrunner 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete as unencylcopedic how-to information, or cut out all that information and reduce to a stub – Qxz 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to book. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This article topic is a duplicate of Turtle (syntax). -- Whpq 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forgot to add that I do not support a merge as this article is a how-to so there is no content worth merging. -- Whpq 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turtle (syntax) per Whpq. Pomte 12:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki either to Wikiversity or Wikibooks (I'm not sure which is appropriate, but it seems to me it fits in one of those) Noroton 16:44, 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, as rewritten. Shimeru 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation pages only has two links and is unnecessary. A link to Yahweh (song) is present in the article Yahweh in the form of a ((for)) template, therefore, the disambiguation page serves no purpose and is orphaned. –Crashintome4196 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a redirect to the U2 song on the Yaweh page. More or less serves the function fo this page. --Tainter 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Be bold and blank the disambig page, then list it as speedy G6. I'll hold back on that, but it's allowed. YechielMan 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CSD.G6 allows for "removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article", so I'm not sure if this technically qualifies. This is the only time I've done this as far as I can remember: delete per WP:SNOW. -- Black Falcon 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible; unnecessary disambiguation page – Qxz 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found in Yahweh three entries that do not really belong there, so I put them here into a See also section. Tikiwont 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revised version--Tikiwont 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised (w/see also) section. SkierRMH 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. --UsaSatsui 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised now it has WP:SNOW for keeping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- See, this is the danger of WP:SNOW. We've now invoked it both ways on this one article. That should speak volumes. --UsaSatsui 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm coming to the party late but the current version looks fine to me. Dugwiki 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and I agree with UsaSatsui regarding my skepticism with invoking WP:SNOW in these discussions. It's not a guideline or policy, and it looks to me to be too subjective and open ended. (I do like the funny picture, though.) Dugwiki 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hate to say it - links to songs on the top of real articles is bandspam. The proper way to deal with it - and Ive been over it with the good folks on wikien-l (you can bring it up there) is to simply make a disambiguation page. That way theres no misuse of hatnotes as wiki-linkspam and there is still a reference. -Ste|vertigo 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as revised please this is the best way to do it yuckfoo 02:02, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Knitting, good grief. Seems like a pretty dubious article to me, but Addere's note that we carry lots of very small publishers is a good point. The article does show a couple of third-party mentions, albeit in Knitters Review Forum and Knitters Magazine, which I suppose are not towering presences on the American literary scene. No resolution in either numbers or arguments. Herostratus 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolhouse Press[edit]

I originally tagged this as a speedy, but Elizabeth Zimmermann appears to be somewhat notable, is her self-publishing company (about knitting) notable enough? Canley 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: advertisement. Just mention this company in Elizabeth Zimmermann's article is more than enough. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unravel. Speedy G11 probably applies, but anyway it's not notable. YechielMan 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Granted the item needs more content but it's not really a self-publishing company. It's one of the most established publishers in its field and is as notable as many of the other publishing companies included here. As well, it's a subject of professional curated shows [25]. Addere 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inadequately referenced/sourced. No objection to re-creation later if notability can be proven. WMMartin 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For small, specialty presses this seems to be a slippery slope. All of these articles, for example, have similar shaky notability statements and don't cite independent sources: Collier Books, Ethos Books, Frew Publications, Grove/Atlantic Inc., Headpress, Hubert Burda Media, Informa plc, Island press, Jippi Comics, Joshua's Dream Corporation, Kissena Park Press, Luna Publications, Marick Press, A. C. McClurg, Natural History Publications (Borneo), Oceana Publications, Otter Press, Paolini International, Passagen Verlag, Peter Lang, Podiobooks.com, Prous Science, Sterling Publishing, Tartarus Press, Teach Yourself, Thelema Press, Tre Publishing House, Velocity Magazine, Wilderness Press, Xoanon Publishing, and Yapi Kredi Publications. Addere 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I added the show mentioned above, a second show, and articles in two online magazines. This is sufficient by WP standards. It is not easy to find references to publishers on Google (as distinct from their many books). DGG 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Peter Lang is a standard academic publisher in the humanities, one of the few independents still surviving. Island Press is a notable non-profit conservation publisher. Grove/Atlantic is a very important literary publisher--just look at the authors they publish, and the fame of their pre-merge Grove Press. The rest I don't recognize, but others will. There are several hundred thousand articles that don't cite sources. I've just fixed the 3 I've mentioned. DGG 03:05, 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. Yuser31415 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EA_Sports_F1_Series[edit]

I started to edit this page for style, grammar, spelling, nonsense, lack of citations, etc. but it quickly became clear that if I carried on, there would be nothing left. It really doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me, more like the sort of fan reviews you see on sites like Gamespot or IGN. M0thr4 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but does need cleanup and will probably end up a lot shorter � Qxz 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable video game. the idea that it has minimal real content does not mean that the article could not be significantly expanded. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genuine notable puslished games. Quality of article doesnt change that.--Dacium 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable video game. Article cleanup is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sweep. It's a work in progress, any faults can be knocked out as it's worked on. The fact that all games of the series are in one place is even better in terms of clean-up - there's only one article to chew at instead of five. Good faith nom, but suggest WP:SNOW as this can and will be cleaned-up over time. QuagmireDog 01:31, 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 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winton Watch[edit]

Non-notable local activist forum for a very small part of a very small British city. Article created as advertisement by this organisation's main contributor (cf. the article histories of Winton Watch and Paul Hughes). Badgerpatrol 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete Delete, with extreme prejudice. Badgerpatrol 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pernom. Have nothing to say. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail notability utterly. •CHILLDOUBT• 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notibility guidelines.--Dacium 22:15, 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 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic Flow[edit]

This appears to be a completely non-notable book group (!) and part of a campaign to spam Wikipedia with inappropriate articles advertising the biographies, politics and activities of a coterie of unimportant local political activists in the area around Bournemouth (a minor British seaside town). Badgerpatrol 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quickly as humanly possible. Badgerpatrol 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS, WP:N. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a trail of articles being created by someone connected to the central figure of Paul Hughes. Completly agree with nominatior on the spam campaign.--Tainter 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Many articles linking of this one should be looked into also.--Dacium 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original author I make no attempt to defend this one - it shouldn't be here so I completely agree: get rid of this page! I must, however, question Badgerpatrol's credibility on some issues - describing Bournemouth as "a minor British seaside town" when it is, in fact, Britain's most popular seaside town and a major European holiday destination is a pretty big slip up! CyanideSunryz 22:54, 15 February 2007

I meant no offence to the good people of Bournemouth btw! But the area is ranked 92nd in England by population...(see List of English districts by population) and I think describing it as a "major European holiday destination" may be a bit of a stretch. Dorset as a whole is very lovely however- well worth a visit. Badgerpatrol 00:57, 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 03:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyeon Mi-ri[edit]

This article crucially violates WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:Manual of Style. Looks like a gallimaufry of spam. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete bunch of garble jarble nonsense. I'm not exactly sure what it is. --Tainter 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it appears more like a botched translation than spam, it still fails (I think) to assert notability. Unless this gets a major reworking in the next few days, then it needs to go. Caknuck 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per everything mentioned so far. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - appears to be a cut and paste job out of http://english.tour2korea.com/02Culture/TVMiniseries/movie_03_view.asp?cpId=196&konum=2&kosm=m2_6. Note that the spelling there is Gyeon Mi-ri. -- Whpq 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reworked it and added an IMDB link to Mi-ri Gyeon. But the cut-and-paste issue remains. Actress appears prominent and will deserve an article at some point. Fg2 00:58, 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 per article's improvement, reliable sources added. Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RateItAll[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)).

Nom-Withdrawn based on establishment of two non-controverisal reliable sources. however articles still needs serious clean-up.Fails WP:WEB. A grand total of 37 google hits [26]. The links consist of 3 links to the site itself, 1 link off a page, 12 blogs, 6 press release reprints, 6 website directories, 2 photo sites, 1 forum and a myspace page. There are a couple of hits which go nowhere to sites which say things like "we have nothing on rateitall" or the link is dead. The only coverage from a reliable source is PCMag, before we even get into the quality of it, WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial coverage, and at best there is a single item of coverage. Given the nature of that coverage though, its borderline trivial as its solely a description of the content on the site. Even with the triviality of that coverage in question, its not enough to establish notability. Also there may be some conflict of interest on the part of the main editor as evidenced by this statement [27].Crossmr 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: absolute advertisement, all the sources come from its own website, violates WP:RS and WP:NOT. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, but it's too well disguised to qualify for g11. YechielMan 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The "37 Google Hits" is grossly inaccurate. You have to search like this "rateitall" not like this "RateItAll." Depending on what Google data center you hit, you'll find 600,000 to 1,000,000 hits. Same thing on Yahoo!. There is also a video clip of an ABC News (national) piece on RateItAll on the "Talk" page. Compete.com places RateItAll in the top 6,000 sites on the web (in terms of traffic), and Alexa places it in the top 25,000 Web sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I proposed its deleted based on its failure to meet WP:WEB. I went through the google hits that were returned simply to nip it in the bud and show that what little search traffic that was returned on the site didn't go anywhere towards establishing the notability of it. It was a bunch of blog postings and a few internet directories.--Crossmr 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here are the relevant links:

ABC News Clip http://www.rateitall.com/pressreleases/interview_56K_Dial_Up.mov

Full PC Magazine Feature ( I don't think Crossmr clicked through to the whole feature, it's pretty comprehensive) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2066713,00.asp

Compete http://snapshot.compete.com/rateitall.com

Alexa http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=rateitall&url=http://www.rateitall.com/about.aspx

Google Search Results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-45%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=rateitall&btnG=Search

Yahoo Search Results http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=rateitall&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

John Battelle Claim that RateItAll was first with rev sharing: http://battellemedia.com/archives/002603.php

John Battelle Wikipedia Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battelle

Here is a link to a company post which implored RateItAll users to be respectful and abide by the TOS: http://rateitall.blogspot.com/2007/02/wikipedia-entry-for-rateitall.html

I am a big fan of Wikipedia, and I admire the dilligence with which you manage the property. However, it is important that the case for inclusion be judged on the facts. Several of RateItAll's members put in a great deal of work digging up facts and writing this article, and it will upset me to see their work erased so nonchalently based on things like "37 Google Hits." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundreds of thousands of Ghits and more than enough mentions in many places as shown above.--Dacium 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not hundreds of thousands of ghits, there are only 44 unique hits using that search [28]. Most of which I bet are indetical to the results in the search I provided.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is just not true, and I don't understand why you keep saying this. RateItAll averages about 45 new, unique mentions per week... and we've been around for seven years. All you need to do to confirm this is to do a search for - rateitall - (no quotes, no anything), and scroll by hand through the hundreds of results pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per google and the Alexa ranking. While not as famous as epinions, it does get close to a million visitors per month. Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither google (which I've shown above is a drastically inflated number) nor alexa ranking is valid anymore for establishing notability.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sez you. Of course they do. What do you propose instead? If Google does not establish notability, why are you going to such great lengths to claim that the number of hits it gives you is not accurate? Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the owner of the site was using that figure to claim notability, not only does it not establish notability, its not an accurate representation of how many hits it actually receives. What I propose is obviously whats covered in WP:WEP for establishing notability on a website. So even if we want to pretend that google hits has something to do with notability, we need to look at the correct number which is 44 per that search and not 800,000 any time google searches have been referenced its always the unique hits and not the magic number google pops up at the top which counts everytime its replicated on a page or site (like a forum where a term can easily have its google results blown through the roof if every members profile is indexed and each one contains that term).--Crossmr 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The first argument for deletion is that only 37 search results for RateItAll came up in Google. This number I dispute. The real number is over 800,000. The second argument for deletion is the lack of noteworthy sources referring to RateItAll. PC Magazine and ABC News (TV) have both features the website. I dispute the assertion and call them noteworthy.

Just as a test, I just ran a Google search three times, again, and each time about 800,000 hits came up on the return. I would entertain a discussion as to how the figures could be so disparate. Please advise.

GenghisTheHun 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

The real number isn't 800,000 as shown by browsing the search provided [29]. Unique google hits are the only useful count, and 44 is all it gets.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The two reliable sources barely gets this over the WP:WEB bar. That said, every single one of the tags at the top of the article are accurate - in particular, it needs a serious NPOV adjustment and some major cleanup, but deletion just isn't warranted. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also disputing whether that PCmag source meets the criteria to be considered non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, the PCMag article is a 783 word feature article in a leading tech magazine. Under what criteria do you find this trivial?
its not word count, its the nature of the coverage. There are a number of types of coverage described in the notability guidelines and I don't really feel this meets the required type of coverage to be a source. The ABC news report is obviously a good source, but this is simply a description of the sites features.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on grounds of continued additions; dispute claim of lack of Google Hits/alleged status of "Spam"

Upon researching the link listed above by one who says that there are only 37 hits for RateItAll on Google, I've found it to be very misleading: I actually clicked on the link, and it says "Results 31 - 40 of about 812,000 for "RateItAll". (0.27 seconds)". I am baffled that this would translate to being "37 hits" when it very clearly says there are "about 812,000".

In addition, I dispute that the article is an advertisement nor SPAM; there is no solicitation nor is it a PR piece, and upon taking a look at the epinions article on wikipedia, it really does not appear to have a significant difference in content.

Regardless, I would argue that the content of the page, though meager now, has a great deal of expansion capability. By all means, I would agree that the content requires a lot of work, but that comes with time, with thorough and proper research.

Kamylienne 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, the only thing that even remotely matters from google is the amount of unique hits. I'm also going to remind people that this is a discussion, not a vote. I'm noticing more than one user who's sole contributions are to this afd and that article.--Crossmr 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can safely assume that the above comment is directed at my account: I wasn't aware that seniority was an issue at this site. As a first-time user, the small contribution that I had made so far IS on the one site that I feel I am familiar with enough to write on (rateitall), but simply because I don't have the expertise to edit pages entirely too well doesn't mean that, with practice, I won't expand to other articles. I don't think anyone here would believe that this is a matter of "voting" by any means, but I do feel that pointing out any differences in translation on what is "spam" and what is not certainly qualifies for legitimate consideration. Again, I still support the venture to put information on this website on Wikipedia, provided that it is expanded to a respectable amount of information (and I do agree that WP:WEB is a legitimate concern that requires addressing, but as this is still a new article, I think it can be worked on]]

66.231.142.107 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienne66.231.142.107 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter of seniority, its a matter of long history on wikipedia. Its not uncommon for things like sockpuppets to suddenly spring up when an article is up for deletion, especially one that involves a website or web content. I'm not saying you're a sockpuppet, but any AfD which involves editors who have only made a few contributions and they're limited solely to the AfD and the article in question always has mention of that made, with a reminder that this is a discussion and not a vote.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While I understand the concern in regards to "sockpuppets" (I guess that's the Wikipedia equivalent to "multi-ID spammer", if I'm understanding the link's article correctly), that would be an unfortunate side effect from being a "newbie" here; I know the guy who started the article is new at this, and I only joined in because I didn't realize that RateItAll didn't have an article up here. Actually, it never occurred to me to look until I found out he was writing one. Unfortunately for him and the article, I myself also don't know anything about editing stuff on Wikipedia either, so now you've got something that's entered in by two newbies (his contribution more than mine by all means), and it's bound to be a rough article when you don't have any experience.

But, I digress; as a newbie here, the best means of telling what's "good" and "not good" is comparison. So, when I looked up an article on a similiar type of website, I tried to see what the difference was, in order to figure out what needs to be done to get it to be "acceptable". However, I am having difficulty discerning what the differences would be. Not to pick on them or anything, as I think the page is nice, but I'm trying to compare content in the epinions article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinions) with the content on the rateitall article. If you can point out what, as far as differences, the rateitall article needs to do to be "up to par" for wikipedia's standards, that would be very helpful in getting the page to be acceptable. Kamylienne 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the discussion here is to determine if the article meets WP:WEB, which considers neither Google hits nor Alexa ranking. You can argue about Google until you are blue in the face, but the closing admin will just ignore it. The nominator asserted that this article does not meet WP:WEB, but few of the keep comments above address that point. Debate the article, not the search engine. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then: so we are not discussing Google. That's all right. Please consider the comments of John Battelle, who is as reliable a source on the development of web technology as you are likely to find, who mentions RateItAll as a prime example of user-generated-content ([30]). We get lots of non-notable sites on Wikipedia promoted by their creators: RateItAll is not one of them. Look at the hits on the PC Magazine article, where RateItAll was the "site of the week". RIA is not another throwaway forum or vanity website, the type we delete every day. Please consider improving the article using reliable sources, and removing POV, rather than deleting it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out on the rateitall talk page, and genghis's talk page that regardless of how reliable people think John Battelle is, there is no allowance in WP:V made for allowing him as a source, he is neither a well known journalist or professional researcher, so the comments he makes in a blog cannot be used as a reliable source. In regards to its promoter, the owner of the site has visited and commented on this AfD and encouraged the individual who is the main writer of the article publicly on the site. Whether its promoted by the creator or by the creator through proxy, its basically the same thing.--Crossmr 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "well known journalist or professional researcher?" He published the bestselling book on Google; he's one of the founders of Wired Magazine; he's an expert on this stuff. Of course his comments are allowable as a source. Please use some common sense. And you claim that the PC Magazine review of the site is "trivial"? Huh? That's a dedicated article about the site. It's not a trivial passing mention at all.Antandrus (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a description of its features, dedicated article or not. As far as Battelle goes, thank you for addressing that. I'd previously mentioned that I wasn't aware of him being a well known journalist and no one else bothered to defend it. If someone had bothered to point it out when I asked 2 days ago on the rateitall talk page it would have made it easier to verify this sites notability.--Crossmr 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good mention in the San Francisco Chronicle. That's a reliable source by any measure. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source, but as per WP:WEB this is a trivial mention. This is not a meaningful in depth article on Rateitall, its a passing mention, which lists it solely as an example. that doesn't satisfy the notability criteria.--Crossmr 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Battelle is an extremely well known journalist - along with Chris Anderson, I'd say he is one of two of the best known in the tech industry.

MSM Articles: I've dug up some more references to RateItAll in the mainstream media. Some are better than others, but I think they reinforce the PC Mag, ABC News, and Battelle features pretty well:

San Jose Mercury News - Silicon Valley Wrap-Up http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/06/01/silicon_valley_wrapup_nowpublic_segway_affinity_engines_much_more.html

Mashable - Revenue Sharing for the Masses (big Web 2.0 blog, cited as source 18 times on Wikipedia) http://mashable.com/2006/05/30/googles-adsense-api-revenue-sharing-for-the-masses/

Columbia Daily Tribune - Take Steps to Prevent Buyer's Remorse http://columbiatribune.com/2006/May/20060516Busi001.asp

Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Rating Governors, Senators, and Food http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06132/689629-293.stm

WebProNews - Round Here Marketing - Marking Territory in Local Search (WebProNews has been cited 74 times as a source for Wikipedia articles)

iMedia - RateItAll Interactive Blog Directory http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/6427.asp

USA Today - Not Happy? Voice your complaints online http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/cckim049.htm

San Francisco Chronicle - Everyone's a Critic http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/22/BU42743.DTL

Atlanta Business Chronicle - Leaving Atlanta: Some tech start-ups make tough choices http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1999/12/06/story7.html

None of these sources establish notability. Reprints of the press release, blogs, and trivial mentions (like a news site which simply sticks a link to rateitall at the end of an article not about it) and simple comparisons (....like rateitall.com) are all trivial mentions.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of Ghits, this website pops up in a lot of my Google searches. --Candy-Panda 13:15, 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 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hawk[edit]

Seems to be an autobiography (no meaningful contributions except from the subject of the article). This does not seem to be the "Ken Hawk" who does Chicaogo White Sox play by play, or any of the other Ken Hawks mentioned who get results on google news [31]. The main problem is the lack of sources, none are mentioned in the article, and I can't find any searching around. So this would apparently fail WP:BIO. --W.marsh 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have tried to find some reliable sources to validate the article without success, would appear to fail under WP:BIO •CHILLDOUBT• 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is my belief that User:Radiohawk and Ken Hawk are one and the same, thus violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI. If true, then the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia even if he is notable. Someone else should write his story if he is notable. --Silverhand^Talk 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no reliable sources. Most of it is self-serving, and what's not can be cut to two paragraphs or less. Note that a PROD was contested. YechielMan 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created in November 2006 by User:Radiohawk, who because of his name we assume is the same as the subject. There are no sources provided. When another editor (correctly) added the 'unreferenced' tag, Radiohawk removed it with no Talk comment and no edit summary. Similary he removed the 'prod' tag with no comment whatever. Article does not include any press comments or outside reviews of his work. Appears to fail WP:BIO, and is correctly considered non-notable. EdJohnston 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an uninteresting article, but its proper home is user space, not article space. — Athænara ✉ 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why this hasn't yet been mentioned, either here or on WP:COI/N, but Radiohawk (Talk | contribs) and 24.154.178.248 (Talk | contribs) seem to be the same editor. — Athænara ✉ 04:17, 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. Herostratus 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felix A. Keller[edit]

Subject is not notable and was placed here as self-promotion Dominus 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The subject's only claim to fame is having invented a simple expression whose value is e. He has repeatedly edited the e article to refer to himself. However, he is neither notable nor noted, and his contribution to mathematics is infinitesimally small.

The article Felix A. Keller was created by user Fak119, presumably Keller himself.

When he started adding his expression to the e page, I did some research to find out if the expression was actually known in the literature as "Keller's expression" or if Keller was known in the literature; my conclusion was that neither was. -- Dominus 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

Delete. Per nom. --Bryson 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless anyone can dig up multiple reliable sources in the actual mathematical literature for the expression; in that case delete only the bio. Google scholar finds four hits for "Keller's expression" but none of the four are about the expression described in the article. No hits for that phrase in MathSciNet. —David Eppstein 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Felix Keller also is not listed as an author of any article in MathSciNet (nor is he mentioned in any review). This also looks like the kinda formula that any number of people have stumbled on. I'd vote delete for both, too.
  Steven Finch, on the other hand, has published a number of works. I'm gonna take a quick look through the book mentioned in MR2003519 to see if it mentions Keller. (And he does work at Mathsoft; see [32].) Lunch 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The formula is listed in Finch's book on page 15, but it isn't credited to Keller. Finch gives an a reference to Richardson's 1927 paper that discusses using differencing methods to accelerate convergence of sequences when an asymptotic expression is known for the error (this method is now known as Richardon's extrapolation). Richardson doesn't mention that formula specifically, but with some tinkering one could infer it from the results there.
  As for Finch, the intro to the book says in part, "Steven R. Finch studied at Oberlin College and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and held positions at TASC, Lincoln Laboratory, and MathSoft. He is presently a freelance mathematician in the Boston area." Lunch 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and self-promotion. DavidCBryant 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim to notability of the person is the mathematical formula. The formula, however, has been well known to everyone at least since the 18th century and is found in all calculus textbooks. To say that it was introduced in 1975, when everyone had already learned it from calculus textbooks, is to ignore all of history except the biography of this one person. I anticipate that the author of this article will say that what the calculus textbooks actually say is

e=\lim _{n\to \infty }\left({n+1 \over n}\right)^{n},

but the differences are trivial and every freshman (except those who ultimately never become mathematicians) makes many many similar "original discoveries". What if everyone who "discovered" this formula were to have a Wikipedia article? How 'bout this: "John Smith in 1992 discovered this important formula: 1² +18² = 6² + 17² = 10² + 15², known as Smith's formula." Etc. etc. etc. etc..... one article for everyone who's successfully completed a homework assignment. Michael Hardy 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: OK, a bit less hasty: The formula is correct, as follows:

\left({n \over n-1}\right)^{n-1}\cdot n-\left({n-1 \over n-2}\right)^{n-2}\cdot (n-1),

so we have an expression approaching e MINUS another expression approaching e PLUS another expression approaching e. The last term comes from the cancellation of two minus signs, one of which is in the "(n − 1)" at the end. But still, it's a trivial consequence of a basic formula known at least since the 18th century. Michael Hardy 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see that two articles nominated for deletion both link to this same deletion-discussion page. The other one is Keller's Expression. I have already noted that "Keller's expression" has been found in all calculus textbooks since long before Keller's birth, but observe also:
- The phrase "for |n| > 2" makes no sense. The variable n is bound. Therefore, the value of the expression does not depend on anything called n.
- It refers to "the natural logarithm e" when it presumable meant "the base of natural logarithms, e". Whoever wrote this is not particularly familiar with mathematical reasoning or conventions. (Nor with Wikipedia's conventions.) Michael Hardy 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, the author of the article must not know much about mathematics as the equation has a limiting up to infinity involved, which means given an arbitrarily small number $\epsilon >0$ there exists $m\in \mathbb {Z}$ such that for all $n\geq m$ :

$\left|e-{\frac {n^{n)){(n-1)^{(n-1)))}-{\frac {(n-1)^{n-1)){(n-2)^{(n-2)))}\right|<\epsilon$ . So the phrase "for |n| >2" is not correct. Jka02 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom, Hardy, wish we could speedy. --KSmrq^T 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. linas 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Quale 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Michael Hardy. This is a bit like making separate articles on $e^{i\pi }=-1\,$ and $e^{i\pi }+1=0\,$ , which we really don't need to do. The discoverer of a formula can be considered to have discovered all trivial consequences of the formula as well, so Mr. Keller didn't really discover his formula after all. --N Shar 20:35, 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. John254 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Kozyra[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Although the article has been slightly expanded I am still unsure whether the person is notable: particulary, does having one's work exhibited in a few places makes one notable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded this article when it was prodded, by adding links to coverage of this artist in exhibitions at a major US gallery and a US university. That seemed to meet key points of WP:BIO - multiple, independent and non-trivial - oh, and international recognition too. I've now added links to reported censorship of this artist at home in Poland. --Mereda 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: non-notable. Turgidson 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is it that you guys don't like?? I've added details of her 1997 "prestigious award". --Mereda 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mereda. Also, Carnegie International and DAAD grant are no small things (I should be so notable...). Freshacconci 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Depends what the "few places" are! These are not village halls. Also publications cited. Not necessarily of major, but certainly of sufficient, notability. Tyrenius 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exhibitions and reviews in magazines meeting criteria in WP:BIO. John Vandenberg 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any artist that can be described as "synonymous with controversy" in a mainstream art magazine [33] pretty much meets notability for me. Planetneutral 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hope we are clarifying notability criteria for nom on these! Johnbod 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I do not like her and her so-called "art". However, there will always be someone wanting to check out who she is and the purpose of any Enyclopedia is to provide information on any given subject Tymek 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info There's also a generic discussion on artist notability that started Feb 14. --Mereda 16:12, 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. John254 18:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Yerka[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 13:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The primary problem is notability, the secondary, lack of references. The article claims without a reference that 'Jacek Yerka's work has been exhibited in Poland, Germany, Monaco, France, and the United States. His works also hang in Polish art museums.' Even if this is referenced, is it enough to have ones work displayed in few (what?) exhibitions and musems? Are they notable - or are they just an exhibition and museum in a small town or two...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has a link to an Omni article which is specifically about the subject. A search on Amazon shows a strange collaboration between him and Harlan Ellison [34]. -- Whpq 17:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mind Fields alone would be enough to keep, IMHO, but he seems to have quite a lot of notability even beyond that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong ref.[35]. I agree we could do with more. I've also cleaned up the article en route. Tyrenius 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of two books exclusively devoted to his art seems fairly notable. References are admittedly sparse, but an article in Omni is fairly reliable as sources go.Planetneutral 01:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO due to exhibitions and plenty of reliable internet sources are available. John Vandenberg 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above statements. - LA @ 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Johnbod 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info There's also a generic discussion on artist notability that started Feb 14. --Mereda 16:12, 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 keep, WP:SNOW. Perhaps a discussion on the village pump would be a better idea? Proto ► 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007[edit]

To start, I am not making a point (any claims to the contrary are not assuming good faith nor understand what WP:POINT means). This nomination stems from List of The Daily Show guests being deleted (here) for a second time for failing WP:NOT for two reasons applicable here:

WP:NOT#IINFO — it is a list of indiscriminate information
WP:NOT#DIR — it is a directory

Subsequently, I fail to see how this article (and the thousands like it) are any different.

First, the individual items in this article have absolutely no correlation with each other other than when they occur, which makes them indiscriminate. From WP:NOT#IINFO:

That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Every one of these articles fits this: just because something happened does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia.

Second, the items in this article consist of a "directory" because it is a list of loosely related items. The only thing binding these events together is when they happen. Two completely unrelated events having only time relating them is no different than two unrelated companies listed in the yellow pages because they live in the same city.

I am nominating this because policy currently can be interpreted that lists such as this and guests on a very popular and very notable television show are indiscriminate directories and have no encyclopedic value.

So what does current policy say to you? Does a list of events that are completely unrelated to each other except when (e.g., February 20) or where (e.g., 2006 in the United Kingdom) they occur indiscriminate? Cburnett 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly strong keep -- Holy Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses (add any other deities, prophets, or saints you want)! That being said, I will assume good faith and reply to the points you have raised.

Firstly, WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here because there is a discriminating criterion (time of occurrence). For the case of "Year by Country" articles, there are two discriminating criteria. This criterion may not be the best, but it is a discriminating criterion nonetheless.
Secondly, none of the three items listed at WP:NOT#DIR apply here: this is not a business directory (#3) or a geneological/phonebook entry (#2). I think your argument applies to #1: a list of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. However, I think this is too much of a stretch to try to apply this here. "Year" entries are not merely lists of (loosely-associated) people. They are lists of people that were born/died and events that took place in a specific (and relatively short) period of time.
Thirdly, these articles qualify per WP:LIST as informative, helping navigation (especially this one), and aiding development of new articles, so they should definitely be kept.
Fourthly, this is nothing like the yellow pages, etc., because all of the events/persons listed in "Year" articles are notable, whereas companies listed in the a business directory need not be. Black Falcon 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Black Falcon. This is obviously a discriminate list. It is the march of time which is determining inclusion, not the judgement of an editor. (Also, while the cited Daily Show guest list is clearly a more arguable case either way, it actually does look like a no-consensus keep at this point; thus, no precedent.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer Keep because, duh, history is encyclopedic. The day historical events happened is pretty bloody important to any discussion of the event and an idex-type article of those events is perfectly appropriate. I have already commented on the TDS guest list nomination so I won't drag that discussion here any more than has already happened. Otto4711 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not buying it. Just because someone claims they're not acting in bad faith nor violating WP:POINT doesn't mean they aren't. JuJube 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, while we're talking WP:NOT#IINFO, we need to kill "References to 2007 in fiction" now. It's well on its way to becoming yet another naff piece of bloated, unverified, OR fanlistcruft. By the way, nominating an obvious-keep article for deletion, in response to an AfD decision that you disagree with, most definitely is WP:POINT. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The current year is notable. I can source it by the calender on my wall, or if you prefer, you can look at my date stamp. For the record, because you disagree with the reason being offered for a deletion somewhere else, you're nominating an obviously valid article because "it fits the same criteria and therefore should be deleted". Not only does that assume that we're proving non-notability (notability can be reached in several ways, and only one is needed to be included, not the other way around), but it's most definitely disrupting to prove a point, despite what you think. --UsaSatsui 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how a list of Daily Show guests corresponds to a listing of events in the year 2007. I believe that a 2007 article has great value, and far more then any television show. Why bring up the Daily Show in your argument? If you believe an article needs to be deleted state the reasons why you think so, don't compare to another article or example ( see WP:POINT). It sounds as if you have nominated this article to use as a soapbox ( see WP:NOT#SOAP) your argument to delete a listing of the Daily Show guests. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion simply list why you feel that way. In any case I feel an article on the current year of 2007 is of some significance. Jka02 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Sorry, but for me there really is no question here. Removing the 2007 article would justify removing the article for every previous year, which is clearly out of the question. What better thing to put in an encyclopaedia than a record of events? The article is undoubtedly useful. Further, it seems completely inappropriate to compare this article to that of Daily Show contestants -- from the perpective of a British person, I've probably watched the Daily Show twice. This one's a no-brainer for me.. matt.smart ^talk/contribs 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per everyone above. Admittedly, the nearest the nominator comes to WP:POINT is the comment which suggests that nominating several articles for deletion in order to make a point is a bad thing (to my knowledge, only one is nominated), but that's roughly as close as one can come to it without actually going over the edge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of events in 2007 is encylopedic because an article about the year 2007 would be far to long considering all the significant events that could happen. The nomination is comparing apples to oranges. No one is going to look up lists that the nominator mentioned, but it is likly people will look up this list to see events from this year.--Dacium 22:02, 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 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Hall (University of California, Berkeley)[edit]

Non-notable, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject Seinfreak37 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a navigational template at the bottom of the page which has links to 19 of these – and all but one have articles. If this one does not merit an article, then surely none of them do? Keep, as the other articles establish a precedent, unless someone is intending to nominate them all for deletion – Qxz 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : So what if other crap exists? However, at least Cloyne Court Hotel appears likely to be notable. Ohconfucius 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable student housing. The presence of a template means that somebody went to the trouble of crating a template. -- Whpq 22:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even delete many/most/all or at best merge all to University Students' Cooperative Association per lack of notability. "Lots of non-notable things with a table of contents" doesn't make any of them notable. "One is notable (is it?) so keep the complete set of articles" doesn't hold for something that is intrinsically non-notable in general. DMacks 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having adequately indicated its notability or importance. Ohconfucius 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it could be shown to be architecturally significant or if some historic event happened there -- and neither is likely. Noroton 16:47, 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 delete. W.marsh 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hades[edit]

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO; I'm not finding any reliable sources attesting to his notability. Otto4711 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unsourced and lacking notability – Qxz 18:58, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moeso-Romanian language[edit]

del. Original research by an editor who came and go and doesn't answer the questions in article and user talk pages. I noticed some Romanian wikipedians don't mind it deleted, others just ignore the issue. While the topic is plausible, these people do exist, but as the article says, "They have been neglected by researchers in linguistics and anthropology because of their identity mimicry" or whatever, but wikipedia is not a vehicle for their revival. `'mikka 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the name is a neologism, not found anywhere outside wikipedia. The names used are "română / rumâneşte" in their language or "Vlach" in Serbian. bogdan
Delete -- the fact that the historical region Moesia covers more or less the area where they are found, does not imply that one can change the name of the language according to it. These people are called Timok Vlachs in English, Vlachs in Serbo-Croatian, and themselves call Rumâni. They speak Romanian (a dialect, and for obvious reasons somewhat poorer in vocabulary). I coppied the content of the page into an item of Talk:Timok Vlachs, so that if there are 2-3 useful sentences, one can use that info in the appropriate page. It is a waste of AfD space and time to name an article for deletion when it is obvious an ad hoc invented title. The appropriate space for this discussion would have been Talk:Moeso-Romanian language, and the result would have been the same in 1 day. Dc76 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A portion of the discussion here has been erased. See Uncesored version of the initial portion of the discussion for deletion of Moeso-Romanian language. I have received a wise recommendation "But I would suggest that you back off a step and think about whether this is worth arguing over." (see full text if interested), therefore I am not going to argue any longer. My final word is at the very end of this.:Dc76 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof was given that the concept exists; all Google hits lead to Wikipedia. We need to wait until linguists will write about this subject in an independent publication. — AdiJapan ☎ 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bogdan. Given that there is no google hit outside of wikipedia, this article even qualifies for speedy: it is a hoax. Dahn 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ego2007 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in fact, I already questioned the facts in this article before. My entry can be seen here. Not sure if it is a hoax like User:Dahn says, but delete anyway. Ştefan44 02:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Medical Experiments and the United States Government[edit]

Initially a POV rant with a biased title, this article now has nothing but links to other articles. Whosasking 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; biased or lacking content, depending which version you look at – Qxz 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Turgidson 19:10, 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 03:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common diseases[edit]

del "list of common, well-known or infamous diseases" as an unreferenced POV list: who says that they are "common or infamous"? There exist a technical definition of rare disease, and correspondingly there are List of rare diseases and List of diseases. But there is no formal definition of "common" or "infamous" disease (with the notable exception of Common Cold. :-) `'mikka 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Massively unmaintainable list. Any list that has a disclaimer about it, such as "This is neither complete nor authoritative" as in this case, should not be on Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is "common" supposed to mean? No clear criteria for discriminating between the common, uncommon, rare and exceptional. Possibly a redirect to List of diseases will be feasible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV list. How are acne, ageing and obesity considered diseases? Unless they are caused by some other disease, by themselves their disease status is debatable. --Candy-Panda 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aging, repetitive strain injury and headaches are not diseases. Kuru is certainly not a common disease. Moreover, any article that has a single sentence referring to "various sources in the Wikipedia, and public domain resources." as its sole references is in serious trouble. TimVickers 03:12, 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 Speedy Deleted. kingboyk 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rolle[edit]

I'm going to lose my temper a bit here. I hate self-serving, disgusting, unreferenced, fictitious articles like this. Early editors tagged it as a hoax, but that was removed long ago. The guy exists, but he hasn't (verifiably) done much of what the article says he did. YechielMan 18:09, 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 keep. John254 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Wilson (interior designer)[edit]

Only appears to be notable in relation to the Trading Spaces tv show. Suggest a merge and redirect to the parent page. SilkTork 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Trading Spaces – Qxz 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

SilkTork 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong no - as in don't do it. Doug Wilson has hosted other shows. Genevieve Gorder hosted Town Haul. Leslie Segrete and Andrew Dan-Jumbo were regulars for almost the entire run of While You Were Out. Vern Yip has his own design firm, and was a judge on HGTV Design Star. Carter Oosterhouse was on Three Wishes, the show hosted by Amy Grant. Almost all of these people are notable outside of Trading Spaces. The ones that aren't, like Hildi or Frank perhaps, could be merged into the article. Oh wait, Frank doesn't have an article. The ones that do are notable in and of themselves. Which is maybe why those folks have their own articles?

And if you're going to merge them, you might as well merge in Paige Davis and Ty Pennington, as they wouldn't be nearly as famous as they are if it hadn't been for Trading Spaces. Yet they're not on the list. Why, I wonder?

Sorry for the rant, but I feel this is a very wrong idea. I'm going to go and decompress now... -Ebyabe 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - each of these people have sufficient notability to sustain independent articles. Merging and redirecting will result either in bloating the Trading Spaces article with biographical and career details unrelated to that show or the loss of that information. Very Bad Idea. Otto4711 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like the show Trading Spaces, but many of these designers have gone on to host other shows, or have some other notable business in addition to Trading Spaces. The article that started this suggested thread was "Barry Wood (interior designer)". Barry has had a successful career as a model and architect, and now hosts a show called Hidden Potential on HGTV. He's even in the IMDB. He's also appeared in several print channels, most recently USAA's Magazine. The potential exists for any of these designers to step out of their embryonic roles into something much larger. In this sense I agree with Otto4711 that Wikipedia is uniquely suited to capture this information. Ekbeale 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen Trading Spaces, but I just looked up Gorder after having seen her in dozens of commercials for Sofa Express. My first impression is keep. -MrFizyx 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - We have plenty of articles on TV and radio personalities far less notable than these. We have a damn article for every episode of some TV series! That these people have all worked on this one program makes their individual careers no less important. The Monster 01:43, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 06:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Heuser[edit]

Not notable, and possible NPOV violation. Speedy and PROD tags removed by author, which is why this page is now being created. lightspeedchick 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:AUTO/WP:COI (and if it's not then the image is mis-tagged copyvio). Wikipedia is not: a free web host, an advertising service. A few google hits for other people with his name[36]. A 24-friends myspace is the closest we get to verification. The talk page indicates both self-promotion and ignorance of WP:OWN. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Author claims this is 'his own page' on Talk:James Heuser. Claims to be CEO of company as possible claim to notability, but this company would not be notable. Posted his pre-school under the education section. WP:N in addition to IslaySolomon's points. --J Morgan^(talk) 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious problems with WP:COI and WP:BIO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Blatant WP:COI.--Dacium 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or userfy autobiography. Ohconfucius 09:21, 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 to delete. W.marsh 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liblogs[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB. WP:WEB calls for multiple non-trivial published works about the website from verifiable and reliable sources, a Google search yields one, maybe two. No evidence that this website has won notable awards or that the content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators. Should be deleted. RWR8189 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the mentions are trivial only gets a mention in article about the topic in general, but no notibility of its own was shown.--Dacium 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at the present.. Perhaps there is a case to be made for keeping Progressive Bloggers alive, and also Blogging Tories, but not really this one. Watchsmart 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Liblogs played an important part in the recent Liberal Party leadership race. It's founder, Jason Cherniak, was Blog Co-chair for the winning Stephane Dion campaign. Many Liblogs members were given media accreditation at the convention. Liblogs has been featured in prominent "verifiable, reliable" media sources:
- "Contenders for Liberal leadership go to the blogs" - The Globe and Mail; July 10, 2006
- "Liberal contest starts turning into blog party" - Toronto Star; July 8, 2006
- "Lost in MySpace" - Ottawa Citizen; Sept 23, 2006
- "No Swift boat, no Rathergate for Canadian web logs" - Toronto Star; Jan 21, 2006

Also, statements like "No evidence that this website has won notable awards" betray a fundamental ignorance about the article. Liblogs is not about www.liblogs.ca, it's about all 250 sites that comprise the group. Therefore, any attempt to determine its notability must take into account the combined notability of its members.
--The Invisible Hand 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no realistic reason to treat The Blogging Tories, Progressive Bloggers or Liblogs differently. They are all lists of hundreds of bloggers in Canada and they are all read daily by Canadian opinion makers, including politicians, journalists and lobbyists. All three are integral to current Canadian politics and, unless Canadian politics is considered "trivial", all three should remain. Jason Cherniak 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The site liblogs.ca is mentioned in reliable sources, but in each case it's not the primary topic. Google finds 643 inbound links to www.liblogs.ca which is not tremendous. The argument for keeping this article would be based on the political significance of the site. I believe that it has about the same significance as Blogging Tories, so both should go together, but the references for this one are slightly better. If we deleted this article as well as Blogging Tories we would then have practically no coverage of political blogging in Canada. In fact, I might be persuaded to give up this article if someone would write Political blogging in Canada. The closest thing we have is Canadian blogosphere but that one is very short. EdJohnston 16:46, 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 MERGE to Huntsburg Township, Geauga County, Ohio. Not much of a quorum here, but (jarbarf)'s argument is convincing.Herostratus 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hershey Montessori Farm School[edit]

I initially prodded this and tag was removed. Non-notable school with no references. Google search produces no relevant independent sources. Soltak | Talk 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual with these kinds of articles, we need to see notability. Why is the school notable ? And what references can be provided to support this claim ? The article doesn't say, so fails our basic guidelines. Delete. WMMartin 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Huntsburg Township, Geauga County, Ohio, which is also a stub in need of expansion. The article gives a hint of notability, as most schools using the Montessori method are kindergarten or preschools, it is unusual or unique to have this offered to students within this particular age range. (jarbarf) 18:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirms[edit]

Prod contested without improvements. Non notable webcomic. Searching for Squirms gives 369,000 Google hits, but from the 33 distinct Google hits for Squirms plus Paul B (the author)[37], only two are about the comic, and both are the website it is posted on. Absolutely no outside references, obviously fails WP:NOTE. Fram 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, not shown notibility.--Dacium 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite notable yet, which is not strange since it has only issued 2 strips. Cute. MURGH ^disc. 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete does not assert notability, is not notable, and reads like spam. NetOracle 07:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete. See especially Murgh's comment above. Balancer 08:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy WP:NOTE & WP:WEB.Freepsbane 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Two comic strips and a website do not make this notable. Timmccloud 02:42, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fox[edit]

Notability not established. No reliable sources. --Chris (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; note also that Google provides few relevant results [38]. Heimstern Läufer 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - All reasons above, plus there might be copyvio issues in the text. --J Morgan^(talk) 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - links to online versions of newspaper reviews added. There are no copyright issues --Pmichelini 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to this revision. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Hardly worth doing that actually, as the redirect was only used in one article and I've just changed it. So go ahead and delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:43, 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 merge/redirect to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. W.marsh 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water Sword[edit]

Delete Non notable element in a video game ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. This is a critical plot element in the game, but not worthy of its own article. --J Morgan^(talk) 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Not notable enough for own article--Dacium 21:51, 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 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Head Little Body[edit]

I suspect this page about a book is a complete hoax. When searching for the book title on Barnes & Noble, it returns no results. I repeated this on Amazon Book Search with the same result. Searching for "big head little body" book on Google returns under 400 results, none of which seem to relate to the article at all, which surely isn't right if, as the article says, the book was at the number one bestseller spot for three months in 1978? H4cksaw (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not found in library searches I checked, Hoax or unnotable.--Dacium 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in Amazon or Library of Congress. --Selket ^Talk 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any references to back it up I will have to vote to delete the article. --Ozgod 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a hoax: I have found no sources that verify its existence, and no records in any library database either.

--sunstar net^talk 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. No entries in WorldCat. Addere 18:26, 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 delete. W.marsh 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick King[edit]

Minor local councillor (the lowest level of elected officialdom in the UK- even a small village will have at least 2 or 3 councillors) in Bournemouth, a British seaside resort town. Any possible notability would stem from his selection as a parliamentary candidate- but the next election is not until 2009/10. Badgerpatrol 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Badgerpatrol 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any non-trivial published sources. But I must correct you on a technicality: parish councillor is the lowest level of elected officialdom - they have practically no responsibility whatsoever. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I stand corrected! ;-) Badgerpatrol 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough for WP:BIO--Dacium 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Being a councillor in a unitary authority such as Bournemouth actually carries a lot of power and responsibility; far more than a town or district councillor has. In addition, Nick King is a parliamentary figure, a business entrepeneur (who won The Daily Echo award for one of Dorset's most promising entrepeneurs in 2006) and a rising star in the Conservative Party. By all means Wikify the article, but it has definite notability. Richardbooth 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Nick King is a very well respected Conservative Councillor in Bournemouth and parliamentary candidate for Mid Poole North Dorset. The fact that he has his own page and biography on the official national Conservative Party website is grounds to prevent this article from deletion. Michael Griffiths

Both of these individuals are personal friends and colleagues of Mr. King, for the record- see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Griffiths for details. I think, with respect, you guys need to have a good look at WP:BIO and WP:N. Being mentioned in "The Daily Echo" (????) as "one of Dorset's most promising entrepeneurs in 2006" is not likely to be taken as grounds for notability. Of all the DCF-related articles however, King's is the closest to notable, on account of his selection as a parl candidate- but the next election will likely not be for 2-3 years, and he may not win anyway. Generally, local councillors and as-yet unelected parliamentary candidates are not considered notable here (at least, in and off themselves). If he actually has a national profile (e.g. multiple articles in respected, wide circulation national papers, or television, or similar) then please provide details here. Badgerpatrol 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first thing I found on Google: http://www.bournemouth.co.uk/home/index.html?_area=incentives&_ber=275681&_rub=510453&id=646871&_site=business Richardbooth 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others can formulate their own opinion as to what that particular source means in the context of this discussion...;-) Badgerpatrol 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should point out that Richard Booth is NOT a objective user - he is a Conservative candidate in Wimborne and is a member of Conservative futures for Dorset.

Also should point out that Nick King was only commended as a entreprenuer according to that link - he did not even win the award! (AndyM11 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete Being a Councillor in itself does not conduct any power or authority - only as a cabinet member on a local authority do you wield power and responsibility. Being from the area I am aware that Bournemouth Council is Lib Dem controlled, therefore Nick King has no power in his current position. (AndyM11 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

User's three edits have all been to this dicussion (including the duplicate votes listed above). Badgerpatrol 16:26, 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 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doke[edit]

The page is an advertisement for Doke Tea. Unsure of its notability, but it seems slight. Scott5834 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete i cannot find anything that would allow this to pass WP:CORP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product of a goverment coperation push. Notibility not shown.--Dacium 21:45, 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 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The art of the possible[edit]

non-notable blog. Not in the Alexa 100,000. Apparently created by the blog author as a means of self-promotion, and in vioaltion of WP:COI Isarig 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If I'd come across it, I'd've been tempted to call it an attack page given the wording in places. Just goes to show that political language is a strange beast. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:WEB. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Has had years to get independant external sources.--Dacium 21:43, 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. W.marsh 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kalemkarian[edit]

A person who has been a writein candidate for numerous US elections. An article on Wikinews was deleted for lack of verifiability, see n:Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/Deleted_Archive_15#Tim_Kalemkarian_runs_for_US_President.2C_US_Senate_.2C_US_House. While their deletion processes do not apply to us, this does show that people have looked for sources and failed. The article is also largely incoherent and fails to note that this is very much a fringe candidate. A prod was removed without these issues being addressed. I was tempted to speedy delete this, but I think being a presidential candidate is a claim to notability. Delete gadfium 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- apparently, according to this source, he is an actual presidential candidate. Here's his election history to 2000 and he has participated in elections since then (see [39]). Also, see this CNN source -- Black Falcon 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources -- he intends to run for the Republican party presidential nomination for the 2008 election. Apparently, though he does not get many ghits, the hits he does get are from reliable and relevant sources. So, I am chaning to "keep and cleanup". -- Black Falcon 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about write-ins -- Although he was previously a write-in in 1994 and 2000, it seems he is actually a registered candidate for the 2008 presidential election. -- Black Falcon 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - argh!! Please ignore everything I've written above except the sources. Thanks, Black Falcon 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could file and run for President of the US, but that doesn't make me notable, and that doesn't make Tim Kalemkarian notable. A Google search yields only 70 hits. Blank Verse 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, and I'm not saying he necessarily is notable, but the fact is you haven't filed and campaigned whereas he has (multiple times in multiple elections). Whether the sources I've noted above make him notable...I don't know. That's why I've only commented rather than suggested a specific action. -- Black Falcon 17:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin -- there is what amounts to a keep vote on the talk page. Thanks, Black Falcon 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kalemkarian articles. Kalemkarian is an official Candidate registered with the Federal Election Commission. Kalemkarian spoke on a nationaly sindicated radio show with Hugh Hewitt the host. Hewitt can be contacted at web site hughhewitt.townhall.com . This article is very robust and vivacious. Tim Kalemkarian has inproved the article very much. Keep the article. author : Tim Kalemkarian. ((publish)) ((source:oricinal/author:Tim Kalemkarian)) [[Category:North America/United States/California/Los Angeles/Politics and Conflicts/United States Federal Elections, 2008]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous4 (talk • contribs).

Delete. None of the information currently in the article, except for bald facts about him being filed as a candidate in certain races, can be confirmed from the sources given. I looked him up in the FEC's database [40] by typing his last name into the search box. That database gives his full name, address, and names of his committees, which are mostly trivial strings of letters including his last name. Even the stuff in our article about his positions is completely unsourced. This article, if kept, will not be maintainable. Is it going to be our policy that anyone who files for president, in any state, deserves an article in Wikipedia? Surely in presidential politics, of all fields, you would expect that notable candidates would be covered in the press. There are no press mentions in the article, with the possible exception of the Hugh Hewitt show, which does not leave us with any actual text about him that we can cite.

In a previous comment, User:Black Falcon argued that the Talk page was in favor of a Keep. At a quick glance, nearly everything in the Talk page looks to be contributed by Kalemkarian himself, so I wouldn't consider that to be persuasive. EdJohnston 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the talk page of this AfD (and yes, you are right about the contributor). There exists some coverage of Mr. Kalemkarian in various places, but I don't know whether they qualify as "non-trivial" mentions. I remain, still, neutral (there is a claim of appearance on a radio show, but that claim is unsourced, so it does little to sway me toward a keep). -- Black Falcon 02:46, 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 this is articles for deletion, not redirects for deletion. Go to WP:RFD. --- RockMFR 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course[edit]

I think this page shouldn't be a redirect to that album at all. "Of course" is a very common English phrase and has got little to do with this album besides being one of the featured songs. Let's just let this redirect to the search page? Salaskan 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uh, no? This is quite clearly an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary. JuJube 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this belongs on wp:rfd not here. --70.48.173.6 22:58, 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 keep since it isn't a hoax.

Tom Brown's Schooldays[edit]

Article is a hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Mariegisellerafferty1 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Deletion tag added to referenced article which obviously is not a hoax. Simply south 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is the most famous British school novel. The nomination is either a joke or made in bad faith. Cloachland 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I suspect that an article by the nominator was recently deleted at afd and this is some sort of retaliation or test. Regardless, this is an obvious bad faith nomination of a work of classic literature.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Poor-faith AFD nomination. --Madchester 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Due to the similarity and timing of several vandalism edits by User:Quibbvlw (contribs), I believe that they are sockpuppets of one another and all the user's edits should be reviewed. Dismas|^(talk) 22:31, 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 keep, withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. --ais523 18:29, 16 February 2007 (U T C)

Laurel Nakadate[edit]

Although she may be a real person, the article seems full of nonsense.--Xnuala 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The article may be in terrible shape but that is a reason to clean it up, not to delete it. Passes WP:BIO based on references [41] and [42]. --Selket ^Talk 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate sourcing, but needs to be trimmed of excessive praise and logorrhea like "geopolitical gender transmogrification" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination or change to Keep, I guess I was drawn in by the malicious bent of the original author! Next time I will be less hasty on the trigger finger. --Xnuala 14:48, 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 to delete. W.marsh 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Race 5 contestants[edit]

Fails WP:NOT criteria on indiscriminate info. Article simply groups biographies of numerous non-notable individuals who fail WP:BIO. Important race details are already covered on The Amazing Race 5, additional bio details on this page are simply copied from CBS' official site. The Amazing Race 5 article already contains an external link to racer biographies on the official site. Madchester 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of individual articles about the contestants in the Amazing Race that already exist. Some of the articles about individual contestants have been deleted or redirected. Including summary biographies of each of the contestants on the The Amazing Race 5 helps make the original article more encyclopedic.

The information here was culled from several sources. Including a brief summary of who each of the contestants was not only makes the article more informative but reflects the whole nature of the show. Not including the information leaves out some critical information about the race. Also, since this information is found elsewhere on fan sites and commercial sites, it begs the question, why isn’t some NPOV information presented here.

Including this information on the Amazing Race 5 would make it larger and unwieldy, hence the creation of this subpage not only allows brief biographies of all the contestants, but helps make the original article more encyclopedic. This is in keeping with both WP:NOT and meet WP:BIO for notability standards. Also, if some of the contestants have significant post-Race accomplishments, the simple information here can be later expanded. --evrik ^(talk) 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. Why just have an article for this season? 2. Most of the bios contain very little outside race info, and the ones that have a lot already have their own articles. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Including this information on the Amazing Race 5 would make it larger. If this page gets deleted, then the information should be pasted into the AR5 page. --evrik ^(talk) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then you're basically using this page to prove a point which is not permitted. --Madchester 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination appears to be somewhat flawed. First, WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't cover cast lists/lists of game show participants/etc. It's pretty specific on the areas it covers, and this isn't one of those areas. The list might fall under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as a "list of loosely associated topics", but that's debatable since there are other generally accepted cast lists for other shows, including game shows such as Survivor. And since the list entries actually go into a little enyclopedic style detail on the individual people, it's not simply a directory of names. The nomination also assert, perhaps presumptively, that all the individuals on the list are not notable. But that isn't necessarilly the case, as we do have some articles about people who are primarily notable for being game show contestents because of the amount of verifiable published articles about them.

So basically so far I'm not convinced that the article deserves deletion by the arguments presented above. If the question is whether or not this material should be merged, a better way to go about it might be to try a merge tag and discuss it on the talk pages of the articles to be merged. Off hand I don't see a reason yet for deletion. Dugwiki 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redirect or delete is the most appropriate solution. The contestants are non-notable and the biographical info is already provided in the external links of the main article. --Madchester 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that not all of the contestents have to be notable for the list as a whole to be notable. For example, an article about a tv series will usually have a cast list, and sometimes the cast list is split off as a seperate article due to its size. Not all the actors on the cast list are necessarilly individually notable, but the cast list as a whole for the show does usually have notability. So I can definitely see people reasonably arguing that this cast list article for this show is likewise, as a whole, notable, even though not everyone on the cast would be notable enough for their own article. Dugwiki 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the authors of the page have done exactly what they should do. They took some related articles that might have beeen stubby on their own and make them into one fairly good article. This type of work is to be commended. Johntex\^talk 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Amazing Race, while not on the same caliber ratings- and notability-wise as Survivor, has produced over its years a large set of contestants. Many Survivor contestants, including pretty much all the winners and runners-up, have their own page, and I don't think it would be a necessarily bad thing to have a brief page describing a few notes about each contestant (with perhaps a bit more info than what's available on the CBS site). I think at the very least, if we can't make individual pages for the winners, then make them like a "team" page, like, for example, Derek and Drew Riker. Chip & Kim, I would say, are notable winners, as well as Flo, and there are several, SEVERAL contestants who, while they didn't win, could easily merit their own page (a Charla Faddoul page, I think, is long overdue....)--HansTAR 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. I have proposed here and here expanding the scope of WP:FICT and WP:BIO to include reality show contestants and allow for this type of a list article, under the theory that within the context of the programs they are "characters" as much as any fictional character from a drama or sitcom. This sort of article strikes me as a reasonable compromise for those who want a little more detail on the contestants than would comfortably fit in The Amazing Race 5 and those who would like separate articles on every contestant or team. Watch this article and similar articles for a while and see how they do. If they become unmanageable or unwieldly they can be put up for deletion at that time.

To answer the question as to why only this season has such an article, it is in some measure because Amazing Race 10 contestants was created and then summarily redirected to The Amazing Race 10. Other seasonal articles may also have been created and redirected; I haven't checked. I reject the notion that this is an indiscriminate collection of information, and anyone who's been following my AFDs over the last week or so knows I love using that as a reason for getting rid of lists. Otto4711 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As a compromise to the deletion of the David and Mary Conley articles, I had suggested that a single page be created, Amazing Race 10 contestants, to encompass all the contestants. I went to work developing that page and similar pages for each of the seasons of TAR. Prior to my posting my work, I got a message from Madchester that led me to believe that this would not be welcome. I had laid out the structure on each of the pages for a ‘’Contestants” subpage, and created contestant pages, and was going to post them and any appropriate merge tags. Instead of causing an even bigger fiasco I decided to post just a single page and see how that was accepted. Madchester immediately prod’ed and afd’ed the article, which brings us to today. --evrik ^(talk) 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is sourced and verifiable and nicely combines information that on its own would only consist of numerous stubs into a reasonable article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is... how should I put this... up for deletion? Auroranorth 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion not a vote. Your comment was a vote so I have striken it. If you wish to participate in this discussion, address Wikipedia's policies and what people have been saying above.--Konstable 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial beyond belief. (And if I am wrong the article should contest that. But it doesn’t.) —Ian Spackman 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:VERIFY - the only source is a self-referencing reality TV-show home page. While the topic probably merits an article and putting them together like this is a better solution than a bunch of stubs, one should only be created from reliable sources.--Konstable 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this page actually serves a valuable purpose for pointing out connections between racers (for example, until I was working on this, I had no idea that both Alison Irwin and Erika Shay participated in the same beauty pageant) and providing short biographies for contestants who do not have their own article (Erika Shay being a case in point, being Miss Pennsylvania Teen USA 1995 is well worth a mention considering the number of former beauty queens on the series). As for verifiability - the article clearly needs work but as I have shown [43] [44], simply putting some effort into the article shows that there are in fact a number of decent references out there. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good information. --South Philly 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evrik. Being a popular TV show, contestants are certainly notable. » K i G O E | talk 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why? There aren't any pages on the other seasons, and this doesn't meet the guidelines well enough. REDIRECT to Amazing Race 5. It would beef up the main article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.226.45 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 February 2007
- Comment in my opinion, the article is now far too long for the main article. As for pages on other season, I'm more than willing to create, research and reference articles on the other seasons (and would be keen to start now) but I see no point in doing so until this AFD is resolved in favour of either keeping or deleting the page. If the consensus is to delete, then any other pages created would also have to be deleted and thus the time and effort spent on creating them would be pointless. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason that there are no other articles for the other seasons is that before I had a chance to post them (and they are done) MadChester started prodding, the he afd'ed this article. When this artilce survives the afd, I'll go ahead and post the others. --evrik ^(talk) 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as none of these people are notable outside of the show. Merge whatever relevant info there is here that may not be on the main Season 5 page. Tarc 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better than a bunch of stubs, and would make the main page untidy. --Limegreen 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to all those who suggest delete and merge/redirect: the process of merging articles does not involve deletion of one of them. Per the GFDL, author history should be preserved when merging contents, so deletion of one of the source articles is out of the question. Delete and redirect is only possible when explicitely not merging content. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted, taking out all but original research and merging the article back into the main TAR5 article would make the main TAR5 too large. However, leaving the basic information from this article on a page by itself would make this page too small and, as noted, worthy of deletion. For someone who's trying to make a similar page for TAR1, my suggestion there, and applies here, is that there should be a single "Notable Contestants from The Amazing Race" with season-specific sections. This doesn't require each team be listed, only those notable outside of the show (even if it's post-show fame they've capitalized on); doing a page for the entire show helps to prevent minimal per-season pages, though there's no reason that if a single season has many notable people as to make the overall show page too heavy, that that single season can be moved into a single page leaving a note on the all-season page. The idea being, like currently argued about some Survivor contestants, is that a per-person/team page is kruft since most of these people disappear after being on their show, but a catchall page for notable entries avoids much of this.--Masem 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the page has been an aggragation of other sources, and that is not original research. The page is fine as it is. --evrik ^(talk) 15:26, 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. Proto ► 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffing Montessori[edit]

I initially prodded this article and tag was removed. Prod was the following: "This article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Notability could be derived from the statement that this is the second oldest Montessori school in the US, however, the only source I could find for that statement is the school's own website." After prod tag was removed I checked again for sources regarding the age of the school and couldn't find any. It appears to be just another non-notable elementary school. Soltak | Talk 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another article about a school... As usual, we need to see: a reason why the school is notable, and adequate evidence to support this claim. The article includes neither, so fails our basic guidelines. In particular, let's note that being the "second oldest" is not an adequate claim of notability: it is merely an observation of a unique quality, but having a unique quality is not per se notable. I, for example, am the only person born at a particular time and in a particular place: this does not make me notable, merely unique. Being "second oldest" may well be unique, but the principal response from us should be "so what?". We need to know what marks the school out from its peers in a non-trivial way, but the article doesn't say. Delete. WMMartin 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also, of course, the problem that if "second oldest" is notable, so too is "third oldest", and so on. We must beware of the Interesting number paradox. WMMartin 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Soltak. Discussions of school articles on AfD often lead to puzzling questions about notability, but this time it's less so, because the article is so tiny, it's not really informative. No objection to recreating it with interesting content and with some evidence of the school's notability. EdJohnston 19:56, 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 Speedy keep, seeing as it is not a hoax.

A Tale of Two Cities[edit]

Hoax. Blatant hoax from schoolkids. Carlawhitnash1976 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Obviously notable work. Likely bad faith nom. Heimstern Läufer 22:30, 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 (replacement page to be moved over copyvio) W.marsh 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch High School (Florida)[edit]

Does not assert notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinfreak37 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Eastmain 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- Eastmain 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio. Sources are referenced, but the content is copied verbatim. Not sure about copyright/permission status. Some wordings are promotional. --Vsion 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike out. Replacement page available.--Vsion 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We need to see a reason why the school is notable, and evidence to support the claim. The article provides neither, so fails our basic guidelines for retention. If this is indeed a copyvio - and it certainly looks like one to me - it becomes a Speedy. WMMartin 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article deals more with the construction of the school than its day-to-day operations, but the design and construction of the school appear to have been handled better than most other school construction projects. Perhaps the school is a notable design-build project. --Eastmain 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But, how is it notable? I don't see how it is. Delete. -Seinfreak37 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis that we are talking about the Temp article here - this is a 2,000 student school, larger than some towns. It has a significant place in the community and is notable for its innovative design. Further, its Digital Learning Environment is also notable, and possibly unique in the way it has been developed. TerriersFan 04:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - I have tagged as such since the whole article is copyvio - see article talk page. Once deleted there is enough viable material to build up a new article. TerriersFan 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A replacement non-copyvio page can be found at Talk:Monarch High School (Florida)/Temp. --Eastmain 07:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of their sponsorship of Pinwheels for Peace, verified by http://www.education-world.com/a_lesson/dailylp/dailylp/dailylp006.shtml. DGG 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewritten and well-sourced temp version currently published at Talk:Monarch High School (Florida)/Temp, and delete the copyvio page, obviously. RFerreira 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high schools are inherently notable, as per my incontestable, totally convincing argument here. Noroton 16:52, 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 Speedy Keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Alba[edit]

Non-notable biography. Tourette's Guy should really be restored, as should The Game (game) - yeh, really.Elainegmarshall1978 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- obvious that this was nominated to make a WP:POINT. -- ArglebargleIV 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Vandal edit. Sockpuppetry suspected by User:Mariegisellerafferty1 and User:Quibbvlw due to the timing and nature of the vandalism. Dismas|^(talk) 22:42, 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 to delete, merge still possible. W.marsh 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop 'N' Swop[edit]

An unfinished mode in a single game that's only accessible through the use of in-game codes, and it was referenced in a sequel. No reason for it to have an article. Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this exists (as far as I know) is that a merge did not make sense as there were multiple targets it could have been merged to and it didn't make sense to have the same information in two or three different places. So, now that it is here, I guess it should be merged and redirected to Banjo-Kazooie, if not kept. --- RockMFR 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect To the games main page.--Dacium 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Banjo-Kazooie or Rare (company). --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging into Banjo-Kazooie is the better option. The company page does not have much info on game content so this would be out of place there. --70.48.173.6 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Banjo-Kazooie series page, so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of Wikipedia articles refer to Stop 'N' Swop as a distinct entity. The feature has also been referenced in major publications, making it notable in its own right. BTW, it was also mentioned in Grabbed by the Ghoulies as well as the two Banjo games. Just64helpin 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So two cameos and one mode that's not meant to be accessed. If Minus World doesn't warrant an article - considered to be one of the greatest secrets in gaming - then Stop 'N' Swop shouldn't, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Banjo-Kazooie.--TBCΦtalk? 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banjo-Kazooie, though while it is full of speculation and such it still needs a place so Banjo-Kazooie is the best article to put it in. -- DeLMrcs 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banjo-Kazooie. JackSparrow Ninja 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I followed a link from Joystiq to this page, which shows that it merits its own entry. Tetzcatlipoca 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. StayinAnon 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Joystiq mentioning something in a game does not make it notable. They're a gaming site mentioning a gaming subject. I bet Joystiq also mentioned a bunch of other things that don't warrant articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banjo-Kazooie (series). I could live with keeping the article as-is, as well. Wilkie2000 22:20, 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 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal service volleyball[edit]

WP:NOTE, Non-Notable 'organization', which is a College Intramural Volleyball team. MrMacMan 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notibility shown.--Dacium 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Scottmsg 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to mention something that I forgot to in the reasons for deletion. This page was already deleted (I don't know how to link to a deletion log, but click LOG for the page and its the only log there). If you can't find it you can see them talk about the deletion here. Fang_Aili did the speedy delete the first time as listed in the log. MrMacMan 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:36, 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. Proto ► 12:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PWG World Championship defenses[edit]

Total fancruft. Precedence was set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ROH World Heavyweight Championship defenses. TJ Spyke 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Delete. Fan cruft. It's safe to say any wrestling article with the words: title defenses, in them are cruft and not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I removed the prod tag it was not because I disagreed with the deletion of the article, but rather because I think that this should be used to further establish precedent. Soltak | Talk 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest expanding this AfD to include List of PWG World Tag Team Championship defenses. Soltak | Talk 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, adding it now. TJ Spyke 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PWG World Championship and List of PWG title reigns by length to retain the information on all three pages but cut down on wasted space. Suriel1981 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the info notable at all though? Imagine how huge title defense section/pages would be for important titles like those in WWE? TJ Spyke 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because some people may find it useful to refer to. Suriel1981 06:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
  - That doesn't make it notable though, everything is useful to someone. This is just a small minor indy title, imagine how big an important title would be with a similar list? TJ Spyke 07:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If people desired an similar article about WWE titles and were willing to maintain it then I wouldn't stop them. You make a good point though. Everything is useful to someone. Hence encyclopaedias. Suriel1981 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Fancruft, better suited to a wrestling wiki. One Night In Hackney 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ab))

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

~~The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. John254 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm over-riding the non-adminstrator close of this debate. With respect, and without casting any aspersions on the good work that User:John254 does. To summarise:

The keep suggestions were of the nature of

"has potential"
"Why don't we delete A and an, then?"
"this is not a dictionary entry, it is an encyclopedia article"
""'The' is one of the most importants words in the English language"

Long consensus has established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that articles that fail to discuss characteristics such as controversy regarding its use, its rise popular culture (not just Return of the Killer Tomatoes), ot their ilk are dictionary entries. This is a dictionary entry as established by previous consensus on articles of this nature.

The result is redirect to Article (grammar).

brenneman 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The[edit]

See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The definition of the should be here, on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. The same has been done in Germany. Somebody 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has potential as an article and this does not just give a dictionary definition. Simply south 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above: What potential would that be, exactly? What encyclopedia subject would go by this title? Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, by the way. You are making the mistake of thinking that this isn't a dictionary article because it isn't short. (And this despite the fact that the Wiktionary article is longer.) Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is nothing more than a dicdef, and would expect to find an entry for "the" in no source other than a dictionary. The expanded etymology that forms the basis for this "article" does not make this encyclopedic. If tacking on an etymology makes something encyclopedic, we may as well merge wikipedia and the wiktionary. Agent 86 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why don't we delete A and an, then? It has potential as an article. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above: What potential would that be, exactly? Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing more than a dictionary definition. The fact that A and an exists is not a good argument for keeping the. Let's delete both! Lesnail 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, if it's decided that dictionary entries are now encyclopedic, why not merge or redirect both into Article (grammar)? Agent 86 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this is not a dictionary entry, it is an encyclopedia article. If we can write a good encyclopedia article about a word then it warrants inclusion. Bryan Derksen 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is exactly a dictionary article, except with the sections in a different order. The first section contains usage notes, with example sentences. The second section contains etymology (and some discussion of the development of definite articles in general that belongs in, and can already be found in, definite article). And the third section contains pronunciations. All of those are canonical dictionary article content, and standard parts of a full dictionary article. Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very good for encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Etymology section which is rather informative and encyclopedic. meshach 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any useful info should be merged into Wiktionary and the article deleted from Wikipedia as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It might be appropriate to move some of the etymology into the article, Article (grammar). Adambro 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The" is one of the most importants words in the English language. We use the word in the course of our everyday lives. Without the word "the" this sentence would read "is one of most important words in English language. We use word in course of our everyday lives. Without word this sentence would read..." --Candy-Panda 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The importance of the word 'the' is not under question. The question is whether there should be an article which is effectively a dictionary definition on Wikipedia when the Wiktionary exists for that purpose. Adambro 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Constantly repeating that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary doesn't actually make this into a dictionary definition. It contains an etymology section and a section about dialects, as well as links. These things would only appear in a dictionary if the dictionary is stretching its entries to include more than just definitions. It's manifestly *not* a dictionary definition. Ken Arromdee 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you've looked at a dictionary lately, but they certainly do include etymologies and usage notes. --UsaSatsui 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case the dictionary is stretching its entries to include more than just definitions.
  - A dictionary definition is a definition that appears in a dictionary. A dictionary definition is not "*anything* which appears in a dictionary". If a dictionary includes encyclopediac material about something, that doesn't mean the encyclopediac material is a dictionary definition. Ken Arromdee 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The policy is not "Wikipedia is not dictionary definitions", but "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", which as you can see includes usage guides. If the content doesn't go beyond what's in a dictionary, then it falls under there. What material do you feel is encyclopedic? There's an etymology that's more of a history of defnite articles than of the word "the", which looks like it's encyclopedic by mistake, but that can be merged. --UsaSatsui 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whilst Ken Arromdee seems unhappy that other editors keep referring to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, I would suggest that as UsaSatsui has noted, this is very important as it states the differences between encyclopaedia and dictionary articles. It also states "A full dictionary article... will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed". My point being that the question is whether it should be a dictionary definition or an article on Wikipedia according to these criteria. We are referring specifically to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, not what any other dictionaries may or may not contain. We are not simply making the statement that 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', we are referring to what that policy tells us should be on Wikipedia and what should be on Wiktionary. Adambro 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said it that way is that several people specifically mentioned dictionary definitions, which this isn't. But even ignoring that, it has no similar words with different articles, no inflections, nobody is suggesting foreign language versions, and it certainly isn't a proper noun. While it is an article about a word, even the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy gives an example of singular they. Featured articles include Macedonia (terminology), Yuan (surname), and Read my lips: no new taxes. Good articles include Hoi polloi, Truthiness, and Winston tastes good like a cigarette should. By people's reasoning here, we shouldn't have an article for Winston tastes good like a cigarette should unless it actually discusses whether Winston tastes good, and any article about the phrase itself should go to Wiktionary. That's absurd. Ken Arromdee 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, you'd think some people believe "We're sending it to Wiktionary" is the Wiki equivalent of "We're demoting you to toilet cleaner". Just because it's a definite article doesn't mean it has a definite article in Wikipedia (there's your pun for the day). Most of the content isn't really about the word itself, it's about definite articles, and the saveable info can be merged there. --UsaSatsui 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If someone can write some content into the article that's more than just what "the" means and where it came from, it would help the case greatly, rather than just arguing "It's not a dictionary article" and "it can be expanded into an encyclopedia article". If it can be done, be bold and do it. --UsaSatsui 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This contains nothing but dictionary information, albeit good, well-cited dictionary information. I agree with UsaSatsui - if this can indeed be expanded into something encyclopaedic, please do so, because some of us cannot quite imagine how. GassyGuy 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the status quo. This is a valuable article, and it should not be deleted. Why delete something that is useful and already exists?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.163.137 (talk) 16:58, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs associated with British towns and villages[edit]

This appears to be listcruft, and is very likely original research, and is also unverifiable too. It doesn't give any reason why the songs are associated with the towns, and appears to be unsubstantiated. sunstar net^talk 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Simply south 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see a list containing songs such as Molly Malone (Dublin), or Dirty Old Town (Salford), where there is a very obvious link being of interest, but this?.....Jcuk 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research The article makes no attempt to verify its information is based on objective published material. Dugwiki 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something close to nonsensical disguised as original research. This seems to be a collection of songs that people like in certain places, which is one of the more bizarre articles I've seen recently. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sentence "It is not known why these are associated as such, but it remains in their popular culture" practically guarantees the article's deletion. -- Black Falcon 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We saw something similar to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs associated with towns in the United Kingdom which was deleted near-unanimously. Most, and possibly all, of the songs listed do not mention the cities indicated nor are they necessarily by artists from those cities; some of the performers are not even from the U.K. This article is either unverifiable original research, a hoax, or nonsense. But if you hear songs by Eminem and think of Manchester or Leeds rather than Detroit, feel free to try to convince us otherwise. --Metropolitan90 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators should probably feel free to close this speedily under WP:SNOW, as the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for trolling by submitting A Tale of Two Cities for deletion. --Metropolitan90 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, but nothing should ever be speedily closed using WP:SNOW. WP:SNOW isn't a policy or guideline - it's an essay which doesn't even appear to necessarilly have clear consensus. Just recently there was an afd which started out with people saying they wanted to use WP:SNOW to close the article, then after a couple of changes to the article comments started coming in to use WP:SNOW to keep the article. The essay is way too subjective to be useful as a means for determining the outcome of deletion discussions (my two cents). Dugwiki 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a collection of random lists, the article has inadequate references, and it appears to be at least in part OR. I'd cite "sackload of irritating wankery" as a deletion reason as well, but it's not one of our criteria. WMMartin 15:38, 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. Most keep arguments seem to be from the same person. Proto ► 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony John Bailey[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)).

Delete:This article appears to be a piece of self promotion overwhelmingly edited by a single anonymous user who I suspect to be none other than Anthony John Bailey himself. The Boy that time forgot 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity page: I read most of the articles linked to. The articles were either trivial or biased. The other links were to web sites that this guy owns. That's about as biased as it comes. It's possible that he's notable, but this article definitely looks like a PR piece to me. Also, "Eligo International" turns up very few references elsewhere, and the first few pages worth of links on Google are NN sources: phone books and things like Craigslist. There's virtually no verifiable information on the guy on the Internet. Isn't this odd for "one of the most decorated living Britons"? -- TomXP411^[Talk]

Delete Was going to say to keep until I saw that the biggest contributor to the page - Eligo - is also the name for the company founded by Athony John Bailey. I will concur that is mostly appears to be a vanity page. --Ozgod 06:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the significant contributors to this article, I principally used the respected and newly published Debretts People of Today of 2007 to find most of this information including all the foreign honours and positions. I also used various online websites to back it up including as many non Bailey sites as possible ie medias. Bailey is an interesting person for me by the nature of his very wide activities, growing political influence and the fact that he has given money to a major UK political party during the ongoing political crisis here with the UK Government. I therefore oppose deletion but if you want me to re-edit it I can or you can. -- Seisal^[Talk]— Seisal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KeepIm not one and the same person. I have though used text seen on the Eligo site although have put enough references to back it up I think. I think there is enough merit in keeping it but do tell me some suggestions to edit as I am still new at this. -- 81.149.151.110 ^[Talk]— 81.149.151.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - An editor has expressed concern that the above Keep nomination was posted by a sock of User:Seisal. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many unverifiable vanity claims, fails WP:V. One Night In Hackney 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both those !votes were posted by the IP editor [45] [46]. One Night In Hackney 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting that. Please leave it up to the closing admin to determine that though! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is his entry in Debretts People of Today 2007 which has obviously been checked by their editors and is publically available. No vanity!. BAILEY, Anthony John James; b 13 January 1970, London; Educ Douay Martyrs Sch Ickenham, Univ of Veliko Turnovo Bulgaria (Dip), Univ of Sofia Bulgaria (Dip), Budapest Univ of Economics (Dip), Univ of London (BA); Career special projects exec Burson-Marsteller UK then account dir then sr account dir Burson-Marsteller Int 1991-95, prog mangr mgmnt communications IBM EMEA 1995-96, sr cnsllr Manning, Selvage and Lee Ltd UK 1996, chm Eligo Int Ltd 1997-, special counsel to HRH Prince Khalid Al-Faisal 1998-, chm Painting and Patronage Saudi Arabia/UK 1999-, special advsr Bd of Tstees Arab Thought Fndn Lebanon 2002-05; sr policy advsr Bd of Dirs Foreign Policy Centre 2006-; patron All Pty Parly Pro-Life Gp 2002-, advsr to Policy Unit 10 Downing St, memb London Challenge Ministerial Advsy Gp DfES 2003-; dir Maimonides Fndn 2002-, dir Forthspring Inter-Community Centre Belfast 2003-, memb Advsy Bd Three Faiths Forum UK 2003-, tstee Path to Peace in the Balkans Fndn 2003-, bd dir and tstee United Church Learning Tst 2004-, memb Advsy Cncl Fndn of Reconciliation in the ME UK 2006-, dep pres Venice Fndn Switzerland; memb Ctee Passage Homeless Centre; dep sec-gen and vice pres Gold Mercury Award 2002-; govr Douay Martys Sch Ickenham 2005-; offr Br-Saudi Soc 2002-, tstee Br-Moroccan Soc (hon sec 2003-); memb: RIIA, Royal Soc of Asian Affrs, Loriner's Co, Lab Finance and Industry Gp Soho House, Assoc of Papal Knights (in both GB and I), Catholic Union of GB, European Movement, Br-Italian Soc, Anglo-Portugese Soc, Br-Syrian Soc, Br-Lebanese Soc, Br-Nepal Soc, Anglo-Yemen Soc, Bahrain Soc, CAABU, High Cncl for Foreign Direct Investment of Portugal 2006-; fndn govr RC Archdiocese of Westminster 2005-, memb Friends of Westminster Cathedral, chm St George's Chapel Appeal Westminster Cathedral; ambass-at-large Repub of The Gambia; Medal of Merit and Co-operation Luso-Arab Inst for Co-operation 2006; Freeman City of London 2004; MIPRA 1996, MCIPR 1997, FRSA 2004; First Class Syrian Order of Outstanding Merit 2001, Knight Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre (Holy See/Vatican City) 2001, Knight Cdr with Star Constantinian Order of St George (Grand Magistral Delegate for Inter-Church and Inter-Faith Relations 2006-), Knight Cdr Royal Order of St Francis I (Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies) 2001, Knight Cdr Royal Order of Al-Alaoui (Morocco) 2004, Knight Cdr Pontifical Order of Pope Saint Sylvester (Holy See/Vatican City) 2004, Grand Cross Nat Order of Juan Mora Fernandez (Costa Rica) 2004, Grand Offr Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero (Panama) 2004, Knight Cdr Nat Order of the Cedar (Lebanon) 2004, First Class Order of 22 May Unification (Yemen) 2004, Knight Cdr with Star Order of Infante Dom Henrique (Portugal) 2005; Clubs Travellers'; Style- Anthony Bailey, Esq, KCSS; Contact Eligo International Limited, 12 Queens Gate Gardens, London SW7 5LY (Tel 020 7591 0619, fax 020 7225 5279, e-mail abailey@eligo.net) -- Seisal^[Talk]
- Comment: People of Today is written by the subjects of the articles and is not checked. - Kittybrewster 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Kittybrewster is absolutely correct. User:Seisal confuses Debretts with Who's Who which is checked. David Lauder 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From Debrett's own web site: "All biographical information is provided by the entrants themselves to ensure its reliability." https://people.debretts.co.uk/login.jsp -- TomXP411^[Talk] 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While cited, I believe that it is a vanity article that is written in a very POV manner. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bailey appears to be notable. The article needs a cleanup badly, however. Kyaa the Catlord 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kyaa the Catlord. TheQuandry 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shameless self promotion, notability cannot be judged on this article -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page, the article seems to imply that others are more at fault than him in the recent cash-for-honours scandal, which isn't necessarily what the press are saying.

Probably easier to start again. Addhoc 22:56, 16 February 2007(UTC):

- Comment Bailey is not associated with the inquiry so no implications implied. -- Seisal^[Talk]— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
Delete - non-notable's vanity page. - Kittybrewster 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term "galloping arrogance" springs to mind...--Couter-revolutionary 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:most blatant vanity I've ever seen. Bet much of it would not stand up to close scrutiny. Also, I seem to recall that he and John Kennedy (formerly Gvosdenovich) were arrested about 7 or 8 years ago on charges of Fraud brought by one of the Tunisian Royal Family. Shady character. The Labour Party deserves him. One can't help wondering if he has told his "fiancée" that he supports socialists. David Lauder 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...my thoughts entirely...--Couter-revolutionary 10:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I brought this up last week at the admin noticeboard, the whole thing is suspicious and self promoting. Along with the article the high res. publicity shot should be deleted. Also worth throwing into this AfD is Painting & Patronage an "artistic exchange programme" - which is actually nothing more than a PR event for the Saudi clients of his PR firm Eligo - it too reads like a PR firm press release. SFC9394 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy bio. If he is truly notable, let someone neutral write it. The article as it is now is fluff. SchmuckyTheCat 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Have edited the biography greatly to reflect all your valuable comments. I'm still new at this! -- Seisal^[Talk]

Please only say keep or delete once per discussion.--Isotope23 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm, how often do you want to take a vote still? ~~ Phoe _talk 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

~~Editing the bio doesn't change the fact that, to all accounts, he's a non-notable. No reliable references seem to be linked to from this article.~~ -- TomXP411^[Talk] 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a little more research, I've turned up some articles about him or his companies... but the way they all talk about him makes my skin crawl. It keeps triggering that "too good to be true" flag in my head. Also, his web sites (Elios, and the art foundation) don't have ANY links from other web sites. That seems odd for organizations that claim to be so important or influential. On the other hand, one article I found said that his fee for some arbitration was over £1 million. When you run in those circles, you don't exactly need Google for clients to find you. If the article is kept, there's got to be a way to make it sound less like a résumé and more like an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps, instead of listing all of his awards, charities, etc, we could shorten it and say "works with several organizations, the most notable are:" and "has received several awards, such as..." -- TomXP411^[Talk] 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think that the notability of the subject of this article is of less importance than the potential breach of WP:Auto, WP:COI and WP:NPOV.The Boy that time forgot 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are all relevant. It has been greatly improved but is still a speedy delete. - Kittybrewster 10:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and CLEAN UP. the notability of the subject is not questionable but the article is a mess. --RebSkii 19:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Investigate & reduce to a stub People in high positions do have links on Google, at least with respect to the organizations they are associated with. I notice that every one of the affiliations listed is one that is not available online. Almost every one of the awards listed will have a list of holders of some sort, and I think in these circumstances they have to be checked. We may find ourselves having made a mistake here. The proposed course of action will be to stubbify the article, and add data only as it becomes available. Has anyone checked the Times article, which is not available to me--the link is just to the Times website. It would at least demonstrate the existence of a person. by that name. The Evening Standard may or may not be a RS in general, but the material here is from the society gossip column, and sounds very much as if he wrote the press release. He claims one single million pound fee, but it does not say for what. Read the article sentence by sentence. The Painting & Patronage web site, designed by his company, mentions him only in passing as a member of the advisory board. The Foreign Policy Centre seems to have the nest documentation for him--a brief bio. at http://fpc.org.uk/search/anthony+bailey/
Comment I have looked again at the homepage of the Painting and Patronage site and in the first paragraph it lists him as the founding chairman together with the Saudi Arabian Prince and in the advisory boards of each initiative as the Chairman of the Advisory Board which consists of very many notables including foreign and other ministers. -- Seisal^[Talk]

Eligo, his company, also makes charitable contributions and boasts about them on its website. Any company doing this makes very sure they get newspaper coverage. (And they don't just do diplomacy; they also do website design) The company site claims that he was Anthony Bailey appointed to the UK’s Ministerial Task Force on Gifted and Talented Education in Jan 07. Such appointments are announced. It isn't in google. The best positive evidence so far is photographs on the Eligo web site, which seem to show him with world leaders. Have we ever accepted that as a RS for N? DGG 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if part of the problem is that most of his contributions are in the Middle East. The media in these countries won't be accessible to english-language search engines. This is so frustrating, because this guy may indeed be notable, but I can't prove it. I also can't prove that he's not. What I do know is that he is listed as an owner or major contributer to nearly every site that talks about him. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and see [47] and [48] and [49] and [50] and [51] and [52], which corroborate his noteworthiness, and his extensive reputation in certain circles. Tricky 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - he seems OK at self-promotion. That is his job. Still nn. - Kittybrewster 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources bar one are about some aristocratic religious club - I don't see wikipedia's notability guidelines indicating that as a cast iron reason to have article space. The other references simply indicates he owns a PR firm - again not any sort of reason for notability. The phrase "self publicist" jumps out at me with this case - and when phrases like that are about I am very careful about fuelling ego's - especially when they own a PR firm and there is a very high probability that the editors involved in creating this article have a COI. SFC9394 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked further into this and find the following additional links which reinforce his notability:

- Re: Three Faith Forum he is a joint signature with its founders at [53].
- Bailey's Syrian award is listed on the Women-in-Business Syrian conference site at [54].
- Bailey's own Eligo website shows pictures of him actually receiving his awards from the King of Morocco, Presidents of Lebanon, Yemen, Costa Rica and Panama and the reasons for the awards [55].
- His Papal knighthoods ie KCSS and KHS are listed on the Association of Papal Knights in Great Britain official website at [56].
- His Portuguese knighthood is shown alongside a picture with the Portuguese Foreign Minister at [57] and also referred to in The Independent Newspaper (together with his Moroccan and Vatican gongs) at [58] -- and also if you search for him at Portugal News at [59].
- His Labour Party roles and notability are referred to in and have reference to his appointment to ministeral bodies in a letter by the Chairman of the Labour Party Hazel Blears MP which is downloadable at [60].
- His role as Patron of the All-Party Pro-life Group is listed on their website at [61].
- His role with the Foundation of Reconciliation in the Middle East is listed on their website at [62].
- Bailey's Moroccan award was given also to the Warden of the St Antony's College Oxford and is listed at this following site which refers to the announcement by the official Moroccan news agency (MAP). Its in English. [63].

The Times also refer to his various roles and awards:

- Re Constantinian Order see [64] and [65]
- Re: Panama President award to Bailey see [66].
- Re: President of Lebanon award and reason featured at[67];
- Re: :President of Yemen award referred to at [68].
- Re:President of Syria awarded listed at [69].
- Re: President of Costa Rica award listed at [70].
- Re: King of Morocco award see [71];
- Re: Pope John Paul II award see [72]. -- Seisal^[Talk]
Comment. OK, but then the article should properly reflect these citations as footnotes each time, and only if they are NOT deriving from his Eligo or related websites (avoid COI). See WP:LIVING. Furthermore, the article should bring out more tangibly the nature of the ostensible concrete achievements that have meritted his many awards. His notability can be enhanced by better reference to his achievements, and these should be verifiable; see WP:BIO. Bailey definitely qualifies as notable as he currently meets two criteria required out of three possible under WP:NOBLE (Lesser nobility and gentry), in that he is gentry, but is an Ambassador, and also is a member of more than one national order.Tricky 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added all the references and links I could find to the revised text. >[Talk]

Comment WP:NOBLE, is a proposal, it has not gained community consensus as a guideline, so meeting those proposed criteria doesn't necessarily mean an individual is "notable" for article purposes.--Isotope23 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes but the primary criterion on WP:BIO is also disputed, and a guideline anyhow is only that; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. The Bailey article regardless of whether it originated as a vanity item, has generated such controversy that if its reduced content is finally deemed factual on grounds of acceptable verification, then the combination of his characteristics renders him notable enough - and if and when he marries his Princess, then even more so.Tricky 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment eh, the dispute at WP:BIO is a whole other can of worms... and you are right, it is a guideline, not a rule, so it is subject to interpretation. I am just saying that I don't know if I would put too much stock in an individual meeting a proposed guideline because it is my experience that proposals are not given much weight without community consensus. For the record, I have no opinion on this particular individual other than that the article needs sourcing or a good hard edit to remove everything that is unsourced.--Isotope23 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment. Could I suggest that now I and others have sourced so many of the facts that others in the community had at first quite rightly called into question in my proposed article on Anthony Bailey that you move forward with any additional changes you feel are appropraite. As I said this is very much a learning curve for me. . I have added all the references and links I could find to the revised text. --Seisal
  - Comment. I suggest you revise the Education section to reflect his own (previously included), i.e. UCL, Budapest, and Sofia degrees, and not his work in the Education sector. You could also add a section on his actual accomplishments, as I advised before, e.g. what funds has he helped raise, and to what social or community benefit (impact on Passage Homeless Center? Impact of his assistance to Nuncio in Serbia? etc). What has been the impact of his particular diplomatic/brokerage activities, and can this be demonstrated verifiably? He presumably did not get his various knighthoods or awards just for being good at PR, but rather for having distinguished himself - so how did he do that, and what was/were its verifiable result/s? Also, he has been the object of some media controversy, e.g. his dealings with mid-east states and his one-time funding offer to the Labour Party, which was rejected at that time. How have these controversies been resolved? Why did he accept to become an Ambassador (to Europe) for Gambia, given the peculiarities of the latter's Prez and his so-called herbal cure for AIDS? Is that an honorary post or remunerated? And how does he square that with his foreign policy advisory role to Labour's FPC - is that not a COI? These issues are in the public domain already, and should be addressed via NPOV Tricky 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for your valuable comments. I have revised the article considerably again to reflect your opinions and added backed his education background and researched his various other roles and put why he got each honour in the relevant section where I could fine it from non Eligo sources. His education role seems quite considerable as it crosses into his fundraising and Middle Eastern roles as well as some of the honours he has received either for related work within the UK or abroad. I have sourced several national newspaper articles which refer to the £8m raised for city academies and added this into the article and linked it to some of his existing education roles. The United Learning Trust role is important since it directly links him to the two sheffield academies he fundraised and he sits of their board along side the like of Lord Carey of Clifton, Dame Angela Rumbold and Sir Anthony Greener. Interestingly the more I research him the more I can see that his PR role is very much secondry to his inter-religious, philtantropic and education roles. This is also backed up in the Sunday Times article which says he cleared just over £100k in one year through PR. I have had to be quite careful when refering to this article since it is subject to legal action and denied by the Prime Minister and others. Should I remove it all together or can I keep it as it is. I can only assume that the many other charitbale roles he has are also in the field of event organisation, protocol and fundraising although I cannot find verifiable proof as to which. Knowing of the problems of Serbia and Montenegro the work for the Holy See for which he was knighted is also related to inter-religious work and there is a picture of him with some muslims and jews on the official papal knights website. I cannot find anything on his Gambian role except one article which I have referred to from a Gambian paper shortly before his appointment as Ambassador. No idea of the AIDS herbal cure! What madness! Doubt he is getting paid to be an Ambassador at Large and the Gambian article I found seems to suggest he was in the ocuntry originally to assist business in the Gambia and therefore assume the Ambassadorial role relates to this somehow or the African Union summit which Gambia hosted last year. Very little in this regard at least in English. Believe I have answered now most of the points raised by the community and ignored some of the unnecessary personal attacks on Bailey himself in relation to politics and his future wife and suggest that it is a considered for ~~speedy keep~~ now unless there are other comments. Seisal

Comment and ~~keep~~ if it decided to keep I think I may have made a mistake with his name as he is know by all accounts as Anthony Bailey and not Anthony John Bailey as I first thought. Can you advise me on this. Seisal

Seisal, what is your interest in or connection to Bailey? -Kittybrewster 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any connection to Bailey but became interested in his inter-religious work as a British Catholic and have seen articles on him in the past in the Catholic press in this country. I too felt orginally that at his age it must be too good to be true but his story does stack up even when you remove all the eligo references. When I read in January his engagement to the Austrian Princess in the newspaper I was already aware through history books of the Hohenberg anti-Nazi role during the Second World War and saw that this was not properly reflected on the Wikipedia entry on the Family so added some. The connection between the two led me to start to investigate Bailey some more and I started adding to the existing page on him. I have never played a role on wikipedia before and so started to change articles without being properly qualified in terms of the community's requirements. Yes I made many mistakes but my persistence with this article is that I believe him to be notable in many circles but at the same time have learnt a great deal as to how wikipedia works and what is expected of it and I hope the community will understand - even those that seem to suggest that whatever I do on Bailey and spend so long to correct my mistakes and get it right in the end are unwilling to accept. It seems one or two in community have grudges against him for be a Labour Party supporter or for other reasons but that should not affect my work or indeed some of their comments in relation to the context of this article. Seisal

Don't worry the result shan't be keep, as he's non-notable. --Couter-revolutionary 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but he is indeed notable, we've already established that - albeit not without controversy - otherwise why would you be taking such interest? But, the article still needs further polishing. so, ~~Keep~~, and improve (but without Eligo references) Tricky 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please only add a keep or delete' once per discussion.--Isotope23 17:12, 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 delete. but if anyone has new information (e.g. sources, going to notability) I will consider undeletion. W.marsh 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger (Hilary Duff song)[edit]

This as-yet non-notable track from a forthcoming Hilary Duff album was previewed on the New York City radio station Z-100 (hence its debut on the Mediabase airplay chart), but contrary to what the article says, it has not been released as a single, nor is it currently planned to be. Extraordinary Machine 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no proof (as of yet) that this album track will be a Hilary Duff single. Tipexcom2 23:53, 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 per no assertion of notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.C.O.U.R.G.E.[edit]

Non-notable. Wokinlone 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmmmm, I have to disagree, If more information on the article was provided (and cited), it could become a well put-together article. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ change to Weak Keep per my Comment to Witchinghour: There is indeed no assertion of notability, but a knowledgeable editor or project might be queried to see if they can determine whether it has notability or not; if it does, then keep, otherwise delete. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: For the record I don't play the game and I don't even have it installed. I created the article because it is a nethack clone, much like the other games that I have listed in the see also section, all of which don't have any sources listed. Those games are notable just because they are nethack clones. Well this game is a nethack clone and is 3D, while the others are just 2D. I first came across this game thru a british published magazine, that I bought while I was in the U.S. a few years back, so it was mentioned in print at somepoint, I don't have the magazine but now I know that it's called Linux Format [[73]]. I really don't understand what's the beef against this game. so as much a user would go thru the trouble of creating an account just for nominating an article for deletion, is there something going on that I'm not aware of? thanx. --Witchinghour 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then you may want to clarify in the article that it is the only(?) 3D clone, which would give it at least a statement of notoriety. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This game is NOT a NetHack clone. The only thing this game and NetHack have in common is being roguelikes. Everything else is completely different. 65.99.214.90 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now. There have been requests on the talk page asking for some sort of source to indicate the notability, and it has not been forthcoming. Joyous! | Talk 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might be an up-and-coming game, but from the sources provided here, there is nothing to show that. Consider re-creating this article if evidence can be provided to show either (1) this game is judged by reliable sources to be better than others currently out there, or (2) this game is widely played. EdJohnston 19:50, 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 no consensus. Proto ► 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of World Liberty Index[edit]

Non-notable list of countries and their "liberty." Has no reliable sources or references to the "index". Appears to have been made up by one person and it fails WP:NFT. Earlier prod deleted. Selket ^Talk 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~. The first problem I have with this here is that it's been covered (at least, so says the article), but there's nothing to back it up. The second part I have is that it's also rather opinionated - as it comes from a Libertarian POV, it is going to be easy to violate WP:NPOV here. I think, though, that if the first problem is taken care of, eventually the second problem will take care of itself. Solve the first one and I'll change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote has changed to Keep. Notability and verifiability are established, but there's that pesky POV thing. Clean it up. --Dennisthe2 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, let me say that the index itself (and not the article) is quite POV (see here for methodology). That being said, here are two sources that have cited it: [74] and [75]. -- Black Falcon 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think I can work with this. Changing the vote. Let's put these links on there.
Delete It seems to have a strong POV to capitalist based western living, in that its point bases is based on people being able to do capitalist things such as personally buying land, that simply don't apply in other ecenomic based counteries. It seems to be a private (and poor) attempt at measuring living standards by captialist freedom. Reguardless of that, the web site itself does not pass WP:WEB and the index itself is not notable (mainly due to no one using it as per the above POV issues it has).--155.144.251.120 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks quite interesting to me. But include a table, with flags, wiklinks, etc., to make the whole thing more visual, and easier to follow. Turgidson 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article in order to allow Wikipedia readers to access information which I feel is valuable and interesting. Furthermore, the information presented is verifiable (by looking at the project webpage and looking at secondary sources, which can be found with a Google search). Regarding the POV comments, please note Black Falcon's statement above that the Index is POV, not the article (just like an article about the Klu Klux Klan, for example). Also, the objections explicitly raised in the nomination are invalid:

The Index webpage is linked to multiple times in the article text and as an E.L... a pretty valid source when the question at hand is the content of the Index. (contra: "Has no reliable sources or references to the 'index'.")
The article certainly does not fail WP:NFT -- it is mentioned and cited by numerous sources.

However, an implicit objection was made which might be valid: non-notability. ("Appears to have been made up by one person". Note, however, that the theory of relativity and Ulysses were made up by one person.) I don't know on what criteria "notability" ought to be evaluated in this case, but I invite those editors who have not yet done so to read Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability before voting against the article on that basis (and also to perform a Google search and note the numerous references to the Index). Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note also that Notability is not a specified requirement for Wikipedia articles. Articles are only required to be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, and this article meets all of those qualifications. The "Notability" criterion which is often brought up in deletion discussions is done so (legitimately) usually because of concerns relating to the Verifiability requirement, but since the article only attempts to report on the contents of the Index (and these can be easily verified at the project webpage, which is linked from the article), such a non-notability criticism is not legitimate in this context. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments and have changed my "comment" to a "keep". -- Black Falcon 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:Turgidson. --Zelse81 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ this article badly fails WP:NPOV currently due to the "Libretarian Philosophy" section. Also, Dave_Runger, please be aware that your arguments on the inclusion criteria are somewhat suspect. First of all, while WP:NOTABILITY is not in itself an ABSOLUTE requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is an ABSOLUTELY valid reason for deletion as well as a guideline accepted by the majority of Wikipedia editors for both purposes. Further, google hits are not an accurate gauge of notability, they should only be used as anecdotal evidence in concert with other sources of information. Also note that WP:ILIKEIT explains that "valuable and interesting" (as you and another have described the article in this discussion) are not themselves valid reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if we momentarily accept the premise of your argument, this article still fails WP:V. Sources must be from reliable, third-party published sources, especially in a case like this in which the subject matter concerns a global review and is based on other, similar lists (which do, by the way, satisfy WP:V). If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted. However as it stands right now, I have to say delete. I can very easily create an index of similar sorts, that measures some arbitrary concept, find real research to back up my rankings, and calculate the index based on that evidence. Then I could just as easily plant this information online, maybe spread it around a bit, have it cited by some blogs, create a wikipedia entry for it, and maybe submit it to Digg or Fark. Even if I do all of these things, it would still not fit into an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the "Libertarian Philosophy" section POV? The index website itself says that it is libertarian-oriented. The index was created by "Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party". That section is not stating anything that the website itself does not admit to. -- Black Falcon 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has a point of view. It is not saying that the founder is Libretarian, or that the index is Libretarian, it is saying a combination of those things intended to put forth a point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if this were not the case, I believe the article has further problems, thank you for only addressing one of them and ignoring the rest. --IRelayer 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for sarcasm. I still don't see how the section is POV. "Pro-individual freedom, pro-economic freedom and pro-limited government stance" are, in fact, the very tenets of libertarianism. If it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck, it's not POV to call it a duck. However, to satisfy the concerns you've raised, I will replace it with a more neutral and better-sourced section tomorrow. Also, I did not "ignore the rest", but rather focused on what I perceived to be the most important. So, to reply to the other points you've raised:

WP:Notability is a guideline which I belive should be followed (my agreement with User:Dave Runger above was about the frequent conflation of notability and verifiability. However, this index is noted in a number of sources, which I will add to the article (again, tomorrow). However, as a Google search will show, the index and its rankings are discussed by a number of sources (in my opinion unforunately as I believe the index to be a terrible cross-national indicator of "liberty").
WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not sure to whom you were referring, but I personally don't like the index. In any case, this is a a criticism of "keep" votes rather than a reason to delete (and I think you have appropriately used it as the former).
WP:V is about "verifiability" rather than being "verified". Most of the information in the article is in fact already verified, and that which is not is certainly verifiable.

In all fairness, you did state that "If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted." My comment was not intended to dismiss your arguments, but rather to try to understand why you perceived that section to be POV. I hope you will take a look at the revised version of the article and re-evaluate your position in light of its new state. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes, and in all fairness, I'm like to see these sort of things handled with tagging rather than AfD...but this isn't a perfect world. Black Falcon, thank you for your timely efforts to correct the article. I believe this article now meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Notability is a different issue.--IRelayer 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - subjective measurement will never be anything but POV. Espousing it as fact (or implying that it is valid) is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is espousing that it is valid (or invalid). The index itself is POV, I agree, but it is notable and the article is not POV. Please do not confuse the quality of the article with that of the index itself. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cannot comment on the real notability or relevance of the index, but I find it an interesting ranking and it's hardly on an obscure topic so I think it's safe to say others would be interested as well. I strongly disagree with the POV issues: as has been pointed out already, the index may be biased but its article is neutral. Mushroom Pi 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My point was, that if I make up Selket's world technology index and rank all of the countries by their deployment of technology, Selket's world technology index doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because nobody reputable recognizes it. This has nothing to do with POV or validity of the index, my complaint is that this whole thing is published by some guy in his garage. --Selket ^Talk 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selket, even if your analogy is a good one (and I'm not saying it is, as you might be hard-pressed to find as many sources citing Selket's world technology index as the number that cite the State of World Liberty Index), I fail to understand what would be so bad about having a Wikipedia article about something some guy published in his garage. This article only represents the subjective evaluation of the State of World Liberty Project's founder. Therefore, his published views on the internet and citations of the Index by other sources is quite enough to establish verifiably that the Wikipedia article is, in fact, accurate in the claims it makes. The Wikipedia article is written in a NPOV, even if the index is not. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not a piece of original research. (The article merely reports on research/analysis done by the State of World Liberty Project, which in turn is based on the work of reputable organizations such as The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal, Freedom House Reporters Without Borders, etc.). I believe that I have demonstrated that the article meets the three qualifications demanded of Wikipedia article. Deletion votes seem to be based either on the erroneous belief that notability is a necessary quality of Wikipedia articles (though the Index might be "notable" anyhow) and a misunderstanding that a NPOV policy means that the subjects described in articles must have a NPOV. This is utterly false; the articles themselves are, however, required to be written with no POV. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selket, if your Selket's world technology index was noted in multiple published sources (like this index), then yes, it should have a Wikipedia page. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is not "published sources", it's "reliable published sources." The two "news organizations" linked from the article are Aruzza (a self titled consulting company) and the Turkmenistan project. --Selket ^Talk 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the standard is multiple, published, reliable sources. However, nothing you have indicated puts into question the reliability of the two sources (also, it's not the Turkmenistan project, but Eurasia.net). In any case, how about these other sources: GlobalHRNews, Bank DnB Nord, a pro-democracy organisation, the American Latvian Association, a non-profit international "Chamber of Commerce", an Armenian news agency, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia? I think these should suffice. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An index that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources by an organisation (State of World Liberty Project) that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO as a product of the organisation. Nuttah68 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1,900,000 Google hits, looks notable enough. I found this article via a link from the North Korea article. (Not surprisingly, they rank last). The index itself is quite POV (not sure why Australia isn't in the top ten, we have plenty of freedom) but that doesn't mean the article about it should be deleted. --Candy-Panda 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have removed (rather than rewritten) the possibly POV section of the article and will make further changes (independent sourcing, additional information, etc.) shortly. -- Black Falcon 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My further 2 cents: The page is looking better and better! Just keep on truckin'! Turgidson 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added 10 more sources (government and news reports) about the index to the article. However, I am hesitant to continue working on the article until this AfD is finished. There have been several comments about the article being POV, but no one has noted exactly where the POV is. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Nuttah68, not to mention its presentation of a very specific POV -- from the first sentence onward -- as if it were objective and factual. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify, I'm very confused. I'm working on trying to improve the article and just can't see where the hell the POV in the article is. The first paragraph is this:

The State of World Liberty Index is a ranking of countries according to the degree of economic and personal freedoms which their citizens enjoy; each country is given a score between 0 and 100. The Index defines freedom as "the ability for the individual to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same." Only one report (the 2006 State of World Liberty Index, released 12 August 2006) has yet been produced by the State of World Liberty Project, but the organization has stated that it will continue to release updated reports annually.[1] 159 countries were ranked in the 2006 report.

Where is the POV? It is a ranking of countries according to freedom. Maybe it's not a good ranking, but it's a ranking nonetheless. The definition of "freedom" is a quote. And only one report has been produced--that's a fact as well. I'm not sure where you see it as presented "as if it were objective and factual". I do not think this is a good index, but I can't see what problem people are having with the article. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dave Runger. TheQuandry 18:12, 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.