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

The result was I would have speedied it. Grandmasterka 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Ship Freddy[edit]

Fun Ship Freddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable, nor verifiable. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. YechielMan 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Everything here is already included in Carnival Cruise Line. SkierRMH 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Included in Carnival Cruise Line. Bigtop 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Not notable enough to deserve, also it's length may not even meet the def. of 'stub'.Ganfon 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as sub-stub per Ganfon. -- MarcoTolo 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I guess this isn't really a speedy candidate since it does provide context (limited as it may be). Still !voting Delete as a non-useful sub-stub. -- MarcoTolo 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non-notable, non verifiable. --Ox-Puller 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable or veifiable -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Carnival Cruises. JIP | Talk 05:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable •CHILLDOUBT• 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, indeed. Coemgenus 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with User:JIP Delete or mergeDUBJAY04 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then possibly redirect to the cruise line. This needn't have gone to AFD, though - the redirect should have been done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to have no encyclopedic relevance.Tellyaddict^Talk 20:53

13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror[edit]

List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I can't begin to contemplate the number of ways this is unencyclopedic... juxtapositions of two different things to form a subject are rarely if even good ideas, to start with, and this one iks a textbook case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Being a tawdry list with ostensibly two items (yes, there are six names, but all from two episodes of TV programmes) doesn't help matters. Cruftcruftcruftycruftcruft. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pleclech 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless reliable sources emerge that these visits to the Reign of Terror took place (which would be notable). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete that's a pretty pointless list! --Canley 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unbelievable triviality. --Haemo 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow. WP:BAI. Mangojuice^talk 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment you know, you could have made the your point just as effectively without calling this cruft. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I calls it as I sees it. You saying it isn't cruft? Grutness...wha? 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't legitimate information. We might as well have a category for "How many and what types of blue socks are in my top dresser drawer" if this level of stuff gets added. Mens.Keper.Ra
• Delete, too specific and narrow subject makes this list useless. JIP | Talk 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Wow. came back to add a few more examples to something clearly labeled 'stub' and look what I find. This list was created because someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg to have verifiable information here, and if as Grutness, an alleged incrementalist, said, the complaint is partially that it is not very fleshed out, well it IS a two day old stub that is being worked on. sheesh. I am so damn sick of the Wikipedia anti-time travel list lobby/cabal - it's this cabal more than any other that is ruining the Wikipedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While information on what periods people have travelled to might be appropriate, perhaps you might want to start in a different direction, say by making a list of time travelers by era (or type. Sam Beckett is a different kind of time traveler than say the Protagonist of the book by Wells) instead of just concentrating on this singular example? At some point in time, I suppose the people who visited the Reing of Terror might be a large enough section of such a list to deserve a spin-off, but that is not yet demonstrated. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will likely do that... and I won't make the mistake I made here of putting it up early thinking other people will flesh it out while I'm still adding to it. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sure I'm an incrementalist - I even coined the term and wrote the metawiki article on it. Incrementalism doesn't support the idea that any tiny subject is appropriate at a given point in Wikipedia's development. Maybe, just maybe, when Wikipedia is ten times the size it is today, such an article will fit alongside articles of equal worth. But WP is yet to reach that stage, and this article doesn't fit with current expectations of what a Wikipedia article should be. As an incrementalist I agree with FrozenPurpleCube's comments on starting with a larger, more appropriate list, and only breaking out smaller subtypes as and when they become approriate. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm as pro-time-traveler-list as anybody, but this is clearly overcategorization, which is distinctly warned against. (Though I can't remember the document name) -- Y|yukichigai 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any more specific and they'd be visiting my house. How is visiting a location or event in any way notable? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This criterion does discriminate at least, but it is way too specific to provide anything useful to the readers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of how well referenced this might be able to become, it opens the door for as many List of fictional time travelers who have visited the foo period as we can name foo periods. There are a lot of foo periods. Let's deem this arbitrary and overcategorization and stop here. Serpent's Choice 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Credit where credit is due: this is one of the most absurdly trivial lists I have seen. I shudder at the infinite number of spins offs this list could generate if not stopped in its tracks. Perhaps all articles about historic events should have such a list attached? Shudder, WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for an article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm really not sure how this list is helpful or necessary, and the accusations of an "anti-time travel list cabal" really don't help that understanding. Seraphimblade 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too specific and unlikely to be expanded beyond the, really, only two examples. 23skidoo 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we could merge this article into another related one, it doesn't meet the priority for Wikipedia. But it could help add to an exsisting article. Rasillon 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Given that the first revision description is Clearly the most important article Wikipedia has ever produced - but needs fleshing out. and the author stated "someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world.", I'm guessing this is some kind of hoax or bad joke. Ha ha, we get it, you're bored. --Vossanova ^o< 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Was having fun with it, yes, but it was my brother working on an essay for school that mentioned that he looked in the Wikipedia for this info and couldn't find it. I suspected it wouldn't stand, and I admittedly was amused by it as I wrote the revision description, but it was not a joke, and was not a hoax, and was, as I said, added because I knew it was being looked for. I'd trot out AGF, but I can't exactly blame you for jumping to that conclusion, wrong as it is. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia -- Whpq 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete beyond trivial -- Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just silly, and I'd hate to set a precedent with similar lists for other events/time periods (time travellers who have visited prehistoric times, time travellers who have visited the JFK shooting, etc.) The Reign of Terror article has several sections about fictional treatments, this could easily be worked in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Wikipedia is ment to have information that a normal encylopedia might have. I often call it "The source of all knowledge". This certainly counts as knowledge ( as most stuff does). It is ridiculous to say that this is "unencyclooedic" when it isnt supposed to be! its supposed to be "Wikipedic" (cheesy, right?). Nick Scratch 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. However, this is not exactly a good example of an article that should be brought up as a martyr toward this end. "We want more diverse knowledge, like this!" "Oh yeah? Looks like trivial crap to me." (This is kind of like the "Save Betamax" campaign - People went "but I've already had VHS VCRs for the past decade or so, get on with the times" when the campaign was actually about the Betamax decision rather than Betamax itself...) I like diverse and even unusual information. However, this is not the information people really will need anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete About a month ago I nominated another list as the most banal list of all time. But I was wrong, because here is the champion. Wholly trivial, wholly pointless, grossly incomplete (quotes only two tv programmes),totally useless, completely non-wikipedic and why are we even talking about it? Make it go away!--Anthony.bradbury 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Odd idea, I give it that... but unlikely to be useful (in any sense of word) as a trivia list by any stretch of imagination. "Reign of Terror in popular culture" might be acceptable - this, I don't know... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The point of lists and categories is to make it easier to find articles on Wikipedia. If someone wants to find out about this, they can get there through articles like Time travel in fiction or Reign of Terror. Keeping this would open the door to lists like List of Star Wars characters who've visited Endor and List of politicians who've eaten at the George St McDonald's in Sydney. While verifiable, none of these things are particularly character-defining. Quack 688 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, only slightly less bizarrely, List of Hindi Film Stars who have been to Mauritius, which did once exist... Joe 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Silly or not, the subject is already adequately covered in Reign_of_Terror#Treatment_in_television Peter Grey 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated by nominator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahir13 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete - This is original research.. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 8474513[edit]

PMID 8474513 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Minor point is that the research paper's name is not the PubMed abstract number later given. this might suggest at least a rename/move.

• Furthermore PMID followed by a space is automatically externally linked by the wikimedia software and article names are not noramlly links offsite.

Major reason is that this is reporting of just one study, so:

• fails describe background to purpose of study (that screening might reduce rates of colon cancer)
• fails describe if advances knowledge or changes clinical practice (i.e. fails establish notability for inclusion in an encyclopaedia)
  • This of course needs great care as dewscribing how a large study is important or has changed clinical practice risks being personal opinion (i.e. fall foul of WP:No original research), unless one can cite reliable 3rd party sources to verify any claims made on behalf of the study's influence.
• Wikipedia is not a directory listings and that should include listing out all and any research papers.
• If this study has a major influence, then surely better as a footnoted citation in an updated Colorectal cancer or Fecal occult blood test articles.

These major points (re whether appropriate at all to have article on this paper) suggests to me an AfD David Ruben ^Talk 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article is very nicely wikified, but wikipedia is not a directory of journal articles. Wouldn't it be an ideal world if all journals were freely available and published in cross-reference wiki format? To paraphrase Jimbo Wales, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge... including scholarly research. Only problem is getting the print journals to allow concurrent publication in a wiki database. Dlodge 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the carefully laid-out points above. -- MarcoTolo 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. No WP:NOTABILITY asserted. What makes this particular study and paper (NB: not the broader scientific topic(s) in general) important beyond being a footnote or sentence in articles on the topic? DMacks 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the material to colon cancer. Andrew73 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Journal articles would belong on Wikisource if they satisfy its inclusion policy. John Vandenberg 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. As a result of my discussion with Badgettrg I am convinced that the topic is notable, and DGG has done the leg work to confirm the details. The current article text forms a good foundation for the expanded topic and it already also meets WP:V, so I dont see that the article must be rewritten before it is acceptable. I have added a todo list on the talk page listing a few of the suggestions that have been made during this Afd. John Vandenberg 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Brim 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep for the moment - I do not see a problem with an article that reports one study. In fact, WikiPedia has many such examples. Look at Framingham Heart Study, Tuskegee study, Nurses' Health Study, British Doctors Study, National Comorbidity Study, Middletown studies, Whitehall Study, Heart Protection Study, Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study, The Gothenburg Study of Children with DAMP, 1964 Chesapeake Bay crossing study. Admittedly some of these are noted for historical reasons, but many are not. Some suffer from not having their numeric results summarized in a standard way that may influence the decision making of doctors and patients. Because the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (that we are discussing), and many other studies report their benefit in relative terms only, they can be misleading (see research on reporting problems: PMID 8474513, PMID 14687273, PMID 10612327, etc). I am hoping that PMID 8474513 leads to a template on scientific reporting. A decision to delete here for WP:NOTABILITY seems an arbitrary value judgment. So WikiPedia can have subtle Star Trek and Andy Griffith trivia, but cannot have a report of an article that affected people's health? WK has templates for baseball scores, but not for scientific reporting? If you delete this for lack of notability, you start a slippery slope - where do you draw the line? Does everyone have the same values on WP:NOTABILITY as you?

To me as the author, the better question is how to fix what I have started. Does an article in its first 24 hours of life have to be perfect to avoid deletion? The shortcomings listed above are accurate and I will get to them. The toughest point to fix that you make is the naming of this article - the article probably needs renaming. Keeping the [PMID] in the name helps it be linked to related content around the web (like shopping on the web with a model number rather than a description). Should the name be be 'Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study' as done by the studies listed above? Problem is that are multiple publications from the study and so this would not be a unique name. How about 'Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID 7580661)'. This seems tedious, but better bibliographically.

This is a very interesting discussion. Regardless of the fate of this article, how is the current discussion archived? Please pardon any deviations I may take from WikiPedia norms, this is a new process to me.

Thanks - Badgettrg 11:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This study does not present itself as significantly notable enough to be compared with British Doctors Study, which has been running from 1951 to 2001. I'm sure the same applied to other studies you have mentioned. Note that British Doctors Study covers many publications related to the same study, rather than an individual publication on a topic. If the topic this article covers is comparable with the studies you have mentioned, the article needs to be expand to demonstrate this. A new article name will become apparent as a result of the expansion. John Vandenberg 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - When I go to British Doctors Study and judge their original source (BMJ 1954), it has 211 citations in other medical journals per Institute for Scientific Information. The more recent article cited (BMJ 2004) has 135 citations. The Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study that I am reporting has 1231 citations. While I am perseverating on this one imperfect metric, the point of it is subjective judgments of notability of this study are risky.Badgettrg 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. Those figures are a good start, but ground-breaking and scholarly are not sufficient to meet my notability yardstick. As the basis of my previous comment, I found 374 google hits on "British Doctors Study"; having briefly looked through those results, it appears that the study is referenced by govt agencies (other than the UK) and laymen, reinforcing its notability and reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've now done the same for "Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study" and found 343 hits, and they appear to put it in the same league.

  To a certain extent, inclusion will also be based on subjective judgements, and inclusion of this study will be used to justify the inclusion of others (if not on paper, it will certainly be used as rationale inside peoples heads). i.e. there is a slippery slope on the other side of this hill. I am definitely warming to this article being kept as Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.

  Also, perhaps you can provide some detail regarding the relationship between this study and The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota. John Vandenberg 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The current discussion is archived indefinitely at this URL. If the outcome is to delete the article, the article (not this discussion) will disappear completely, except that it can be viewed by admins. If you wish to preserve the effort put into this article (e.g. in order to use the text in another article), back up the text yourself on a user subpage. John Vandenberg 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - Thanks for the tip. I have now done so at user:Badgettrg.

• Delete. Journal articles are not inherently notable; notability needs to be shown by outside references like everything else. --Prosfilaes 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - I think it very risky to judge the WP:notability of this article without expertise in both the clinical topic (colorectal cancer screening) and in medical publishing. I would not judge WP:notability outside domains of my expertise such as physics. What is the basis for judging notability here? Do we have a means for measuring of the notability of this article? According to the Institute for Scientific Information, this article has been cited by other medical journals 1231 times as of today. This makes is a very impactful study. Please explain the basis for Wikipedia allowing an article on Aunt Bee and not on one of the most important studies of colorectal cancer screening [personally, I like the The Andy Griffith Show show very much, so no offense intended towards its aficionados]?

  Here is more explanation of the purpose of my wanting to summarize and individual study. Editing medical articles to the highest standards of evidence-based medicine is very hard and time consuming. Summarizing individual studies in a structured way can help users reading this topic, and in addition, can be building blocks to help experts write the larger topic (in this case, screening for colorectal cancer). The summary I am working on is based on the work of others(PMID 15588311, PMID 15579428, PMID 15204609, PMID 15105349, PMID 14728311, PMID 11702349). In case anyone is worried, I have no conflict of interest in promoting this article. Actually, my choosing this article is based on its combination of very high impact (WP:notability) and substandard reporting (reliance on relative measures of efficacy rather than absolute measures) on its original publication. thanks - Badgettrg 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply: I agree this is a very nice summary and is quite constructive on Wikipedia; however Wikipedia is not a directory of journal articles. Perhaps a Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study page would be more fitting, with a summary of each journal article derived from the project on a subpage. I think this would probably be better than incorporation into the colon cancer page (main or as a sub page). Dlodge 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur. Now we're talkin'. What's really important here...the article itself or the study it's reporting? The latter is more plausible in my mind, and is easier to support and more relevant to a wider audience. DMacks 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Delete the wiki is always asking for verifiable data and this is it, and page references could link to pages like this one. I guess that the editor is new to the wiki (please correct me if I am wrong), so I feel that allowances could be made for this. Presentation and readability could be improved, but it is a good idea in my opinion, for what it might become. In may be encyclopaedic to list notable papers. The wiki is not short of space. There is a science in summarising and evaluating research articles and the wiki should not ignore this science. It may be new to the wiki, but the techniques and methods of evaluating statistical medical papers is a science in its own right. It is wiki policy to start articles at a simple level and works up to a very technical level for technical readers and both general and technical readers might want to see some evidence, if it is well presented. If this is deleted perhaps the author should write a new page on an paper that is undoubtedly notable. Snowman 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink - It might be better as part of a meta-analyis of the subject in-the-round, probably not notable enough by itself, probably should be part of a discussion of the topic. Snowman 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete + move content. The study is significant-- but it doesn't meet the threshold of notable for WP IMHO. The content of the article belongs in the article fecal occult blood test. Nephron  T|C 01:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as proposer. David Ruben ^Talk 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study might be a worthy article but I can't judge that, nor should it be up to us editors to judge. If the study is widely referenced in review articles, textbooks and other media then it could be said to be important. This article is no more accessible than the original paper, making it too close to the primary source. In fact, the paper's abstract is more accessible – its concluding sentence contains the essential information that is just not apparent in the article. An encyclopedia must help to reader understand the significance of the results and probably the actual raw figures are not helpful to quote. Interpretation is vital but must draw on secondary sources rather than the editor's own abilities. Colin°^Talk 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep and Move to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study , about which there are, according of PubMed, 251 articles. A major long-term clinical study reported in NJEM is notable, since this is the most prestigeous international journal for the reports of these study--no. 1 in Impact Factor in medicine in Science Citation Reports for decades. (don't be put off by "New England"--it means, among other things "Harvard Medical School" and its affiliated hospitals.) We do not have to judge notability, because there are secondary sources to report: first, the editors and peer-reviewewrs of NEJM, second, the authors of all the 251 other articles; This is not OR, this a report in a prestigious journal of the results of research. as CH said, "if the study is widely referenced.." and so it is--of the articles about it 29 are review articles, iincluding a review for Annals of Internal medicine, & Archives of Internal medicine, the 2 top internal medicine journals, and JAMA. It does not belong in fecal occult blood test, although that is one of the topics studied. The only problem is that this WP article has been naively edited.

This particular paper would be one of the referebces, though the main one, because apparently --following the links in PubMed, it is the major publication of the results. Though we're not a medical encyclopedia, it meets the tests for science--under the name of the study of course. CH, either you or I could upgrade it--WP should have gotten this study in earlier. Please rethink and re-comment.DGG 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this AfD review, both the title and content are currently unsuitable for WP, so I still think delete is the appropriate choice. You make very a good case for Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. A newly created article would start with information from the review/book sources and work down to details from the original paper as and where necessary. The British Doctors Study would be a good model to follow but it could be longer with more detail if warranted. I'm not qualified to "upgrade this", nor do I have access to the journals and books required. WikiProject Medicine should be able to help, and I'd be happy to post a request there once this AfD review is complete. Colin°^Talk 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• move to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study and then fix other problems, expand, per above suggestions. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a more suitable article name. Clean up and expand article and add reliable references to establish article's notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete • Torches and pitchforks optional. :) More seriously, the article is incoherent, a single study, and probably constitutes original research. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Remember that episode of Simpsons wherein Chief Wiggum described a fleeing suspect as "hatless"? Yeah. Delete. DS 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socklessness[edit]

Though it was double prodded before, this article has not generated a single reference to show that is a notable cultural phenomenon. This belongs in Wikitionary, not here. If this is acceptable, then why not have articles on bralessness, hatlessness, ankle-braceletlessness, and countless others? Dar-Ape 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per nom. I'm surprised there's no reference to Einstein, a notorious non-sock-wearer, but I doubt that would be sufficient to bring it into notability. Tevildo 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If really necessary, couldn't particularly notable non-sock-wearers just be included in the sock article? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. The state of being sockless is not a phenomenon and none of the specific examples referred to here have verification - it's just an editor's musings on what s/he feels to be a phenomenon ("I've seen a bunch of ads with sockless models.") The article's title is a giveaway that it's just a pared down original essay. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. JIP | Talk 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My personal motto is "Wear Two Socks for Duty, No Socks for Pleasure... but One Sock Only for Ecstasy". Unverifiable article. No, does not belong in Wikitionary either Bwithh 10:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable and OR. Thank you for the visual, Bwithh. --Charlene 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any worthy information about fashion trends in sock-wearing, if properly cited, might well be merged to Sock. Coemgenus 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete both as A7. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashdist[edit]

Flashdist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This software's notability is dubious. YechielMan 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related software item for the same reason:[reply]

OpenSoekris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny khosa[edit]

Article fails to assert nobility; subject has done nothing notable, fails WP:BIO. Written poorly anyway. DoomsDay349 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete. The assertion of notability is made, but a couple of

Google searches can't turn up Khosa in connection with Big East basketball. I've tagged the "freshman of the year" assertion as ((dubious)), accordingly. I'm willing to give a little time for somebody to locate a reliable source; without one, this article is speedy deletion material. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I will second this motion. A Google Search yielded no results.Ganfon 03:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - A search of the Big East media guide records [8] reveals nothing. WP:HOAX - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would tend to err on the side of giving it just a little more time to find sources or see if the original writer(s) can shape it up, but if that doesn't happen by the time the AfD runs out, delete no doubt.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If he were a prominent college athlete, businessman, and recording artist, surely he would get more than zero Google hits. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If he were signed to Def Jam, there would be so many google hits and probably a MySpace to boot... let alone college athletic results. -- Greaser 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: I am the one who originally marked it for speedy deletion for being a non-notable biography. It hasn't gotten any better. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Zero Google hits? Allegedly played college ball? Should be a slam dunk for deletion. Coemgenus 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There didn't seem to me anything worth merging, and y'all were pretty vague about your wishes, but if anyone wants to merge let me know and I'll retrieve the content for you. Chick Bowen 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silverballer[edit]

The Silverballer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete or Merge The article's topic is not noteworthy enought for its own article. The AMT Hardballer article discusses the weapon enough, to boot. BishopTutu 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge There is already plenty of info on this weapon in the Codename 47 article. •CHILLDOUBT• 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Any peculiarity's applicable to the weapon within the game context should be dealt in the Hitman: Blood Money article itself. Veritas Panther 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance Abuse[edit]

Deleted on prod, disputed after the fact. Prod rationale was "This article does not follow NPOV. It contains blatant opinions, and/or original research." From myself I can add that there are WP:NEO and WP:COI issues in play as well, see [9]. Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous reasoning on prod and nomination. I don't see a possible way this could be made NPOV or be done without original research. Seraphimblade 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Never heard of the term, though I suppose the phenomenon it purports to describe has some relation to reality. If reliable sources are provided, I will reevaluate, of course, but I suspect there is unsalvageable original research here. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', as I originally suggested the delete 2 months ago...--Vox Rationis 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Note also that the title is incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I agree that the article creator's comments at [10] indicate violation of WP:COI in creating the article. Author has vested interest in spreading the use of the term. Doczilla 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates NPOV, possible original research, not encyclopedic. JIP | Talk 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Drake Dun 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I am familiar with the field, and have never seen this; there's nothing here that couldn't be addressed at, say, will contest or testamentary capacity. An inappropriate extension of psychobabble. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Smerdis; I'm an estates and trusts lawyer, and I've never heard the term "inheritance abuse". The concept could not possibly be NPOV. Coemgenus 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calderside Academy[edit]

Calderside Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

no assertion of notability, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnock High School Closure — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Only fact about the school is its location and that it's under construction. Everything else is unsupported opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - yes it is a total mess, but the claim of community controversy seems to suggest that this might be more notable than the average school (and let's not forget that some editors, though not me, are of the opinion that a school is automatically notable.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, those editors can make their case on this page. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would argue that this school is probably less notable than the average school, given that it doesn't even exist yet. Long-established schools tend to be more likely to have had some notable event or alumnus - this school makes no claim to either. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Write the article when the school is constructed. Shimeru 10:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources - school estimated to be 6 months away from being built. Once built and open, then notability would arguably be achieved and deserve its own article •CHILLDOUBT• 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to South Lanarkshire. Article is premature per WP:SCHOOL, but belongs as an issue discussed at the municipal level. Redirect will allow article to be recreated once additional material is available to satisfy notability. WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 agree on very little, other than the fact that consensus has been reached that non-notable articles be targets of a merge/redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge agree with Alansohn, this is premature... merge content and wait until enough material exists.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to South Lanarkshire per above until better sources are available. RFerreira 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete crystal ball, etc... Eusebeus 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Schools open and close all the time; this doesn't make them notable. The article is also inadequately referenced. WMMartin 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no references. Article can be created after construction. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara[edit]

More infant "actors". Their only claim to fame is appearing on Eastenders seven years ago. No credits, nothing to establish further notability, fail WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability and considerable precedent. Doczilla 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin K. F. Ng[edit]

Kevin K. F. Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unsourced, non-notable bio. No evidence of notability given. Fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Tagged as db-bio. Non-notable; 10 Google hits. Bigtop 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom., Bigtop. Even if sourced still isn't notable enough.Ganfon 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought about speedying it, but with all the initials I thought I'd give it the full AfD in case he's known by other variations of his name that others can find (ie "Kevin K Frank Ng" or Kevin K Ng") --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academic Programs/Course Offerings of the Divine Word Seminary[edit]

List of Academic Programs/Course Offerings of the Divine Word Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A list of program offerings. Wikipedia is not a college calendar. Denni^talk 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Contested prod Delete Denni^talk 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That is what the course catalog is for. --Sopoforic 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a school course catalogue. JIP | Talk 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, nor is it a course catalog. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor Retreball[edit]

Googling for "corridor retreball" (quotes included) produces 0 hits. As the article itself states, this was made up in school one day. Seraphimblade 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Haemo 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-verifiable original research --Pak21 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under which criterion? --Pak21 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article almost nominates itself for being made up in school. -- Whpq 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NFT has it on the nose. Coemgenus 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David ingram[edit]

David ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Person of dubious notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It's clearly a vanity article, which Mr. Ingram apparently scribbled himself last August and abandoned. I think deleting it would be a tremendous kindness to him. YechielMan 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting this VanCruft would also be a tremendous kindness to Wikipedians everywhere..... Delete as vanity, nn, etc. -- MarcoTolo 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vanity, nn, linkless, etc. Dlodge 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issues of sources was raised, and there exists rough consensus that these sources do not demonstrate notability. Suggestions were made to merge to an article that does not exist, and of course any deleted article can be restored if/when required for merging into another. (E.g. I'm not keeping this "in case" someone cares enough to merge it, but I'll bring it back if someone does the work first.) It should also be noted that *cough* very new accounts with *cough* under ten edits need to presetn comeplling arguments or bring references to a deletion debate if they would like their voice heard. This is not intended as an exclusionary measure, but is simply a pragmatic one, and anyone editor is always welcome to use my talk page if they would like to discuss it further. - brenneman 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old South Road[edit]

Old South Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional road. While of course Tolkien's works are notable, I fail to see how this particular road from the stories merits its own article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the general ground that we already have a very comprehensive and well-indexed collection of articles on all but the most trivial elements of Tolkien's works. However, I appreciate that policy may change; if so, I think we can expect a _very_ large number of Tolkien AfDs in the immediate future. Tevildo 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This is only an opinion and I fail to see a reason for deletion. It is mentioned repeately in The Lord of the Rings trillogy and other Tolkien works. If you feel that the longest road in Tolkien's fictional Middle Earth should be deleted, then why not delete places that are not mentioned or visited in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Roaddawg 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not-notable. And yes, why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Sancho McCann 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this road joins may other elements of the fictional landscape together. John Vandenberg 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I will vote delete one at a time if every other bit of trivia from LOTR gets nominated. At best this is worth a sentence or two in an article on the Geography of Middle Earth. "We can't delete this piece of trivia on X, because it will open the floodgates" doesn't hold much sway for me.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why delete this piece? It serves as an important part of Tolkien's work and is mentioned multiple times in his most notable works- Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. hereiam2 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete it are given above, rhetorical questions generally don't hold much water on AfDs.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it would be kept if it were in the real world, and being part of arguably one of the most well known fictional worlds of all time is enough for me. Jcuk 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per other above. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no sources cited, and for all the text, it is still jsut a fictional road from Middle Earth. -- Whpq 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with East Road, Old Forest Road and Greenway (Middle-earth) (and any other roads except the Straight Road into Tolkien's "Mt. Olympus") into Roads of Middle-earth, following Rivers of Middle-earth (a continent, not a planet/universe), Rivers of Beleriand (a lost continent) and Rivers of Gondor (a realm). Uthanc 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're citing precedent, it doesn't hold: some of those rivers have separate articles. I wouldn't mind combining some of the roads; Greenway (Middle-earth), for instance, is pretty short and would be better merged with Old South Road. You're right about combining all links into one easily-readble article though (Roads of Middle-earth). --Fang Aili ^talk 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a very good idea. I would far prefer these sorts of articles than a broken out series of them - those rivers that have their own articles ought to be merged as well, in my humble opinion. It seems like a good compromise between people who insist on having this info on wikipedia and people who insist that it shouldn't comprise dozens of articles.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some of those rivers have separate articles" - okay, my mistake. About merging the rest of the rivers, I'll bring this up to the project members. Uthanc 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast." Well, they're in Tolkien's other writings. Uthanc 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The road and its users and uses are described in full detail in the Tolkien trilogy. The road has no other reality. I do not see the need for or purpose of the article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Roads of Middle-earth per Uthanc. Tevildo 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Size of the article shows that something can be said about it, and all of this is sourceable in Tolkien's writings. I could accept a merge into a comprehensive 'Roads of Middle-Earth' article as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The road was important enough for Tolkien to mention multiple times and it is a major feature of his Middle-Earth. The more information in an encyclopedia the better. Milton 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP is not Tolkien Gateway or lotr.wikia.com. The above keep arguements would be valid at an afd at those wikis, but does anyone have a keep argument based in Wikipedia policy? How about delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.. WP:FICTION states: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." I'd be willing to reconsider if a secondary source is presented establishing the subject's impact or historical significance (in this world, of course). The closing admin doesn't just count votes, right? --maclean 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not established outside of the book itself and zero reliable sources. Naconkantari 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As this is really only one of two roads in middle earth (north-south and east-west), there is nothing really to merge it into. In the general spirit of user:Tevildo above, if this is deleted all Tolkien geographical elements must be as well- this is of the same strand of material. I see no AfDs on other geographical items from Tolkien's work (although I checked only those linking out of this article and the two mentioned above, (Eryn Varn, Andrast, etc.)- why is this one the only item listed? It just seems rather pointless to delete information that people will read, as it has obviously generated some interest as per this debate. Not to mention the fact that notability does not have to be established outside of the book itself based on the mulititude of other trivial articles concerning LOTR. Grainofsalt 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion (again), arguments of this type are most troubling because they acknowledge how problematic the article is but still suggest keeping it because altering it in any way would unleash some sort of biblically proportioned wave of subsequent AfDs, or at the very least, merges and redirects. Any one article being nominated is, in and of itself, automatically justification to keep them all, in a rather odd bit of circular logic (please note that I'm accusing you of bad faith in any way). Perhaps the LOTR/Tolkien project people should spend some much-needed and appreciated effort consolidating trivia into a truly well-written series of parent article instead of presiding over an endless spinning out of non-notable bits and pieces.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer the question two comments above "why is this one the only item listed?", it is the only one listed (of the Tolkien universe) because it is the only one that caught my eye during new page patrol. I have neither time to, nor interest in, seeking out other Tolkien related articles for scrutiny at the juncture. Not that this matters, of course. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:POKEMON and the fact that this is the longest road in the LOTR universe. MPS 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Greenway (Middle-earth) which is the same road. Note that third party, reliable sources actually do exist for this topic. It is covered in The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster ( ISBN 0-345-32436-6 ) where the main article is North Road and probably in Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth though I can't put my hands on that at the moment. Eluchil404 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greenway (Middle-earth) should be merged into Old South Road as the Greenway is only a portion of the much larger Old South Road. Regardless, I believe merging of the two roads is the best solution.--hereiam2 07:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's not clear to me what the ultimate name should be. As I said, Foster treats North Road as the primary name and says that Old South Road only applies to the stretch of it between Tharbad and Bree. Thus equating it with the Greenway. In any event, merging, renaming, or moving don't require an AfD so that discussion can be differed to project or Talk pages. Eluchil404 07:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for complete lack of third-party sourcing establishing notability. Until I see that, this (to me) is just a fictional road and nothing more. -- Kicking222 14:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that there are quite a few third party Tolkien sources that mention this item and many more items of smaller importance...for example:

John Howe & Brian Sibley's The Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth ISBN:0061055069

Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth

Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0345324366

Greg & Tim Hildebrandt's Tolkien's World from A-Z:The Complete Reference Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0739432974--Hobgarth 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I added the previously mentioned third-party references to the page. This should solve that problem, at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobgarth (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I must say, and I'm sure people will disagree, that mentions in "guides to middle earth" and fan-produced publications do not make the topic any more notable. It is still a sub-trivial article than should be merged into something larger. I think by now I need to just accept that there will always be parallel wikipedias for topics that have large computer-based fan followings and just give up on trying to participate in these topics.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hobgarth summed it up nicely. Multiple sources, which are unfairly trivialized by the above comment. I know that at least one of those books above has an article of its own. Irongargoyle 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The guides listed above by Hobgarth do not give any encyclopedic context whatsoever, nor has anyone bothered to cite the page number(s) which explicitly mention this road. RFerreira 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer we not give credence to these sources by asking for more specific citations, they are explicitly meant to be concordances that present entries on everything in Tolkien's work and as such do not seem to me to establish notability. No one is questioning whether this road "exists" in Tolkien's work.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, but as it is right now, this is a useless list of book titles and ISBNs. RFerreira 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Okay The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Therefore, there is not going to be any information on how the Old South Road applies to the contemporary world. The point of the article is to show the massive amount of Tolkien's work (stories, places, people, events) that are all connected by this major road. Each of the sources listed above does just that. I have read all of the entries on this page and it seems to me that there are some people who will never be satisfied no matter the justification. Articles such as this one (and this seems to be much more complete and profound than the works I am referring to) exist throughout Wikipedia and are there to enhance the knowledge of an individual about a specific topic. This is an encyclopedia. Everyone holds different interests, and the point of Wikipedia is to provide a place for everyone to gain more knowledge about a specific topic, fictional or non-fiction. --User:Lossoth 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to major article about the roads of Middle-Earth, or delete. I'm a Tolkien fan, but this is fancruft. We don't have to describe everything that is mentioned in LotR or his other writings in detail, there are other venues for this. A generic article may be helpful, but that's all that is needed. This is a solution that can be used for many of the Tolkien articles, by the way: if Culumalda does need a mention (which is highly debatable in itself), surely it can be done in a larger article on the trees of Middle-Earth? Fram 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - One of two main roads in LOTR. Notable aspect of LOTR. - Peregrine Fisher 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LOTR fancruft at its worst. Ok, maybe no worst, but pretty low. We don't need these LOTR forks on every bit of minutiae that LOTR fans can think up. Eusebeus 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well it may not be interesting to everyone, but there is obviously a high percentage of people out there who read these articles. Information is boundless and to put as much as possible on wikipedia is definately the way to go. Remember, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER! --User:Wofford 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Matthew Brown. It beats a pokemon for longevity.Garrie 05:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardboards[edit]

The Cardboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non notable band with no sources, couldn't find any when I looked. Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable band (WP:BAND) JRHorse 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Doczilla 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied Opabinia regalis 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APAC (construction company)[edit]

APAC (construction company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. YechielMan 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Tagged as such. Also should be removed from the APAC dab page if deleted. cab 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect without deletion. Too incoherent to be merged, but the content is here if someone wants to give it a shot. Chick Bowen 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halfa[edit]

Halfa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Danny Phantom fancruft; everything here could easily be stated in the main article. Quarma 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Danny Phantom, but not before a major brush-up. V-Man737 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per V-Man737—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn and Keep. Navou ^banter 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Articles section criteria #7. Qwertyca 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs in Belgium[edit]

EDIT - The author himself User:Sunnybondsinghjalwehra is a Sikh in Belgium and based on the name, is possibly related to one of the prominent figures mentioned in the article. Not that it matters, but it could possibly be WP:COI. Besides, the group isn't anything notable - they have not impacted the history or current affairs of Belgium, India, Punjab, Sikhism or Europe in any important way (unlike the comments about Muslims in Europe). Nor do they have any members of their community who have done anything notable (and if they do that should be listed on the page). Additionally, the article jumps from discussing a group in general to talking about the death of one of it's members without even mentioning who he is or why his death is in any way relevant to the article. -- Qwertyca 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Ok CanadianCaesar, that's a better article now. Thanks for your input. How do I un-nominate this from deletion? Admin if you're reading this please don't delete. Thanks. --Qwertyca 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep um, there should be no question about this. It's not a group, it's a minority group, and is paralleled with many articles such as Islam in the United States, Islam in Canada... CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By which I meant, no question about the notability. The article itself is clearly hurting. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I've now rewritten it as a stub. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I disagree that this fits the intent of CSD #7, I'll have to go with a Neutral, leaning towards keep (though it does need a notability statement desparately). Long term, this should probably be a section in a more comprehensive Sikhism in Europe entry.... -- MarcoTolo 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Keep per CanadianCaesar's edits. -- MarcoTolo 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a notable topic and it is a decent stub. John Vandenberg 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that this is misleading. It's not an article about sikhs in Belgium, it's an article, and a sketchy one at that, about one incident of violence which an editor has attempted to dress up by giving it this title and attempting to place it in a broader context, which might in itself constitute some form of OR.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on that a bit.--T. Anthony 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Merely a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 15:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting even though it is a stub. This article adds value to wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep encyclopedic... —dima/s-ko/ 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cody Prosser[edit]

Brian Cody Prosser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Completing unfinished AFD; nominated on notabiity grounds. — ERcheck (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being KIA in Afghanistan is not grounds enough for notability. Not every Soldier or Marine killed deserves their own page here. Also, the claim of "1st military intelligence soldier" is not notable in and off itself. There are not pages for the first casualty in every military occupational specialty.--Looper5920 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a declaration of notability at the bottom:

"Staff Sergeant Brian Cody Prosser is the namesake for the village in which the Army's Military Intelligence soldiers live during their training in Fort Huachuca, Arizona."

I'm not saying this makes the subject notable, just pointing it out. -- MarcoTolo 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Looper5920 and WP:NOT a memorial (nor is being memorialized, in almost all cases, itself notability -- and especially not by fellow soldiers, who do it for all their dead brethren). I think this article just misses speedy A7, but fails notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO Eusebeus 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstline Security[edit]

Firstline Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per G11 (blatant advertising), but doesn't qualify. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Corporate vanity, nn. Article creator (Dzabihaylo) appears to be Dave Zabihaylo, corporate shill [11]. -- MarcoTolo 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's spam, just not of the "blatant" variety. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Doczilla 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. Fails WP:CORP. And apparently their PR people need to learn the difference between it's and its. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. —dima/s-ko/ 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slice NY[edit]

Slice NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Notability is dubious, despite some press coverage. (See the discussion on the talk page. I'm just not convinced that a blog about pizza should concern anyone in Wikipedia. :) YechielMan 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the "press coverage" is highly dubious and appears to be nothing more than a fleeting mention on a trivial tabloid-type broadcast.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the single piece of coverage is just eh Yahoo 9 which grabs nine sites every single day for a viewer popularity poll/contest. -- Whpq 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blog. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Surely the best thing is for someone to move all of the stubs linked from CSIR India, including this one, into the parent article. Chick Bowen 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Leather Research Institute[edit]

Central Leather Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I give up. Read it and decide for yourself... YechielMan 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Weak Keep. This article from the Indian financial press (WARNING: Very high density of popups) does mention it, so it might just have a chance of scraping into WP:CORP. Although - "networking nationally and internationally for evolving a paradigm shift in the sector"? Not a phrase that immediately suggests notability. Tevildo 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another article. Different publication, but the above warning still applies. Tevildo 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally weak keep. Notable as part of Indian govt body CSIR India. Could be merged into CSIR India. John Vandenberg 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Will change to keep if notability asserted and demonstrated, which presently is not the case. Leather research is in my personal view not intrinsically notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CSIR is notable, as the National research organization corresponding to the NSF in the US. 17 of the 39 branches have WP articles, and someone knowledgable & who knows WP well enough to write appropriate articles should get to the others. To say that Leather research is not notable for intrinsic reasons is a POV. To not accord the major institutions of other countries status is chauvenism. I have added links to projects, including those from third parties. A simple google search was enough to find them. DGG 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you virtuous. Delete as a non-notable organisation. Eusebeus 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Vjdchauhan 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete unless notability asserted and facts referenced. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Nihonjoe. Tevildo 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gills Corp.[edit]

Gills Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A business with no assertion or evidence of notability. This article was deprodded by someone who claimed prod wasn't "the proper method" for deleting it, whatever that means. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A7 appears to be the "proper method" here. So tagged. Seraphimblade 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASPR[edit]

CASPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable paranormal research group in Arkansas. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Ghost Hunters for a similar situation with another non db-group candidate ghost hunting organization.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article does not assert notability. Naconkantari 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:RS (indeed no sources), WP:V, and WP:NOTE. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. The ghost hunting craze has driven many such hobbyist orgs (and individuals who are self-proclaimed "paranormal researchers") into a frenzy of self-publicity. This group is just one of many exploring WP as a means to self-publicize. See also other questionable articles:

• Central_Oklahoma_Paranormal_Studies
• Janice_Oberding
• Vincent_Wilson
• PSICAN
• Brent_Fair
• Jimmy_Lowery
• Ghost_Tours_UK
• AGHOST
• Chip_Coffey
• Supernatural_Summit_Ghost_Hunter_Conference_Batavia_NY
• Paranormal_Society

--- LuckyLouie 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean this CASPR, which issued a press release when Larry Flaxman got himself listed on wikipedia ? Delete per Flaxman (Flaxman was speedy deleted 3 times). It does not seem to have any notability except at a local level. All but one press article is trivial, and the organisation seems only to rear its head most at halloween time on local radio stations. Ohconfucius 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article nominated... unless some evidence that the group passes some kind of basic notability test. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

• Delete - Poor non-notable ‘paranormal investigation’ articles undermine the importance of the parapsychology subject area on Wikipedia. - Solar 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Ohconfucius's PDF of Flaxman's press release. That's just plain exploitative, and I'm actually for some paranormal groups being listed (the notable ones). --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Ohconfucius. Not big enough to be notable. Totnesmartin 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the AGHOST entry. It has been recommended by Steel359 that I plead my case for the AGHOST entry here, as it's recently been deleted. I've read the notability guidelines thoroughly, and unlike many of the other "ghost hunting" or "paranormal research" groups out there I believe AGHOST actually has established significant notability in its field. The group has existed for more than 5-years and is a non-profit organization, which is unique among these groups. It also has had a great deal of press, including national (US) press, links to which I added to the article specifically to establish notability. The page http://www.aghost.us/106.html from the organization's website lists links to some of the media attention it has received. Briefly, some of media includes the Seattle Times, the Oregonian, and ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1347154). Thanks, Obsid 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Gamma Phi[edit]

Pi Gamma Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Organization with no assertion of notability. Húsönd 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to the creation of a better article later. If this is a nationally organized fraternity in some country it may be worthy of an article. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:V by WP:RS as well as WP:OR. Even with the links, I can't find any sort of external verification that this is an organization with more than a couple of chapters, and even those chapters are not reliably sourced; all the information are from their "offical" chapter pages hosted on freewebs. The origin isn't reliably sourced. That said I have no predjudice against recreation provided external sourcing is produced (or keeping the article if those sources turn up before the end of the AfD). If kept it needs a complete rewrite though because right now it is basically a member list and image host.--Isotope23 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable. No reliable sources, either. --SunStar Net^talk 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inspirational magazines[edit]

List of Inspirational magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

An arbitrary, niche topical list of redlinks. If the author intends to use this as a to-do list, it should be on a user page. Otherwise, it is devoid of content. Salad Days 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subjective article title. What is inspirational for one person might be rubbish to the next. All but one of the links are redlinks, and no sources. VegaDark 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Inspirational" in the North American publishing world usually doesn't mean "inspiring"; it almost always means "Christian". If this were "List of Christian-themed magazines", AND if the list was reliably sourced, AND if the bulk of the entries were blue links, I'd vote keep. Unfortunately, I see no reliable sources, the title is POV (non-Christians don't generally use "inspirational" to mean "religious"), and all but one of the links are red. This appears to me to be an unsourced list of indiscriminate information, and I therefore vote to delete. --Charlene 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I have several friends who find Playboy inspirational and I'm pretty sure that's not what this list is intended for. Always going to be a subjective list of indiscriminate information. The Rambling Man 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective title, arbitrary listing, and possibly listcruft. --SunStar Net^talk 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "uninspiring" and indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete not WP material at all NBeale 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Biased listcruft. Metrackle 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YA Entertainment (Entertainment Company)[edit]

YA Entertainment (Entertainment Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Created by user:KatieFlanagan who is listed on the company's website in charge of "media contact," who I think has created other accounts, (sock puppets/accounts, TK52 & Drama950 which were created today after the discussion on the talk page according to their user logs and claims user:YAE is the only person who works for the company when the account was created today), to make edits to the page to make it seem like it was being created by neutral editors. Also, user has since moved the page after blanking the old page, YA Entertainment. Really strange behaviour. Anyway, user/article appears to be using wikipedia to advertise their company, only making edits to Korean dramas associated with said company. See the talk page for further and detailed info. Oncamera 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The article fails both WP:COI & WP:CORP as the shortened version of what is above. Oncamera 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is close to a speedy delete as advertisement or no notability assertion. Definitely a delete in any case. Seraphimblade 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I give Oncamera props for a) doing the detective work, and b) being classy about it. Oncamera has been fair and polite, but KatieFlanagan insists that she is simply a fan. Anyway, I vote delete, as YAE is simply a North American distributor of Korean dramas subtitled in English; it can perhaps be noted on the Korean drama page, if it seems tirhg to do so. SKS2K6 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oncamera's research. No reliable sources given for any of the information in this article, from what I see. --Charlene 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.Ganfon 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable group of students. NawlinWiki 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore Sizzle[edit]

Sophomore Sizzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable list of sophomores at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology Jhinman 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not non-notable, please give it a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staylor21 (talk • contribs)

• Strongest possible delete for the obvious reason that it's a vast wasteland of POV original research and unencyclopedic jokes relating to a bunch of 15-year-olds. In fact, aside from the fact that they go to a good high school, there is no notability asserted, so this should be speedied by ((db-group)). -- Kicking222 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7, so tagged. Major POV and notability issues. The article is turning into a blog. JRHorse 03:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina 1-A Conference[edit]

Carolina 1-A Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another editor had tagged it with ((prod)), but the template was removed without any real improvement to the article to address the concerns raised in the prod. Non-notable organization that asserts little, if any, encyclopedic value. Agent 86 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable per WP:ORG and lacks any sources to show any notability. Jayden54 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article shows signs of steady going improvement, with new showing of source credibility. --Daniel ellis 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)— Daniel ellis, the creator of this article, has made few or no other edits outside this topic and Rosewood High School.[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "newspaper coverage" is box-score type stuff or a mention in passing in articles about other subjects (trivial coverage). WP:N requires nontrivial coverage from multiple sources. Seraphimblade 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability and non-trivial sourcing. -- Kicking222 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is a valuable source for finding which NC schools are members of conference. Valuable as accessory to other articles. See Rosewood High School chocklitsnoman 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)chocklitsnoman — chocklitsnoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of high school athletic conferences, so what's so special about this one ? For there to be an article we need to see why it's notable, and this isn't made clear. Simply being an athletic conference is not enough - there are plenty of them: tell us why we should know about this one. WMMartin 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy Stench[edit]

Messy Stench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N. The article itself is full of weasel phrases . . . for example, "Her show is notorious . . .." but the only sources are two of her personal websites and her MySpace page. janejellyroll 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very little reason to believe subject is notable, no assertions in article are sourced. Seraphimblade 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I've found some interviews with her [12] [13][14], but I'm not sure if these sources are reliable enough to assert notability for this young lady. --Charlene 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If notability could be better asserted, I could see keeping this. Is the radio show somehow notable? Charlene, I share your doubt about whether those sources are reliable enough. delldot | talk 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 24.210.149.163 made an edit to this article without adding text but with an edit summary that read: "I am as of now writing an article of Messy Stench by the Wikipedia guidelines; please refrain from deletion until I am finished and it is posted. Thank you." [15] delldot | talk 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Charlene's references do establish more reliable sources than the nom's concerns of only personal websites and her myspace page being used as references. --Oakshade 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Charlene's links demonstrate she exists, but I'm not convinced they are compliant with WP:RS... Addhoc 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. This is either a user who is unfamiliar with wikipeida notability guidelines or it's a sockpuppet of some kind. I'm going to declare this a snowball in hell and end the debate early. If any regular wikipedia editor disagrees, contact me on my talk page and I'll re-open it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks[edit]

Wikileaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

non notable website, alexa traffic rank 414,669.[16] T-y-g3 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep I've never heard of Wikileaks, but judging by the incredible amount of in-depth third-party coverage from highly reliable sources, maybe I'll start hearing more about it soon. Easily passes WP:WEB per independent coverage. -- Kicking222 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the nominator has zero edits aside from creating this AfD, so while I will certainly attempt to assume good faith, it's a bit difficult. -- Kicking222 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Clear notability established. Also, nominator may be a throw-away SPA account. No other edits but this nom. F.F.McGurk 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established and verified; may be a bad-faith nomination. JRHorse 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Featured on slashdot today (or yesterday?) --froth^{T C} 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today. F.F.McGurk 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon elephants[edit]

Cannon elephants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable unit from a computer game (Medieval II: Total War). Contradicts another article (War elephant); as mentioned in article's talk, it appears the whole thing stems from a misunderstanding. Prod'ed, but prod notice removed without discussion by anon-IP (their only edit). DarthBinky 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable --froth^{T C} 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to have its own article. Information should be added to Medieval II: Total War. JRHorse 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just curious- what information from this article is actually worth merging? --DarthBinky 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: - You're right... if its part of the game it should probably be mentioned, then again, on Google there are very few hits on it. JRHorse 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DarthBinky --Dreaded Walrus 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Addhoc 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers that have been shot[edit]

List of rappers that have been shot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unmaintained listcruft. I picked a rapper at random from the list, Lil' Wayne, and nowhere in the article is "being shot" mentioned. Salad Days 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit because it's looking like a "no consensus" consensus is going to be the last word... but the page itself could still use some help. Most AfDs I have initiated which have been kept have been because someone bothered to clean them up, but in this case, no one who has voted keep has made any attempt to add references or otherwise improve the list. Thus, I'm still leaning towards delete on this one, simply because while the article itself is possibly worthy of being kept due to the newsworthy nature of rappers being shot, the article itself is totally unmaintained and in need of references. Perhaps it could be left on a temporary basis pending expansion? Salad Days 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am going to make an article called Celebrities who have been pied if this lives. Salad Days 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. OK, you guilted me into adding sources for most of the entries. I'll get around to the rest if no-one beats me to it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's an orphaned, uncategorized page- no surprise that it's "unmaintained." Anyway, I -de-prodded the article because I know that this is information some people are interested in, and no category directly covers the same subject. Questions over one entry aren't enough to throw it out entirely. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to shorter list List of rappers that haven't been shot. —Brim 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another pointless collection of information. I cannot think of a reason we should have articles of the form List of x who have Y. No more useful as an article than List of rappers who have half naked women in their videos - Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unimpassioned Keep or Recreate as Category - Sad as it is, were this for any other type of musical performer this list would be pointless trivia and overcategorization. As it is, getting shot is an important and status-building event in many circles of the rap community. It is useful information to many, as is it interesting to those same people. -- Y|yukichigai 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a potentially encyclopedic topic that is actually somewhat likely to be looked up. The problem is, the current content is almost non-existent and there are no sources. I wouldn't be opposed to what is currently there being deleted, without prejudice of recreation with reliable sources. However, If someone wants to salvage this before the run of this AfD I would likely support keeping the article, provided that it lists more information than a category could provide. VegaDark 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is maintainable, encyclopedic, verifiable, etc etc. as well as being a list that many users might actually use (which so many of them can not claim to be.) It obviously needs work.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'm open to a List of musicians who have been shot and then arranging it by genre. ("Who" because I think when referring to people you use "who") Specifying one genre seems to be subtly pushing a POV, which, even if based on reality, is not what we do here.--T. Anthony 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, actually--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of musicians who have been shot and expand. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename List of musicians who have been shot so as not to indicate bias against specific musician type. Wryspy 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even given the name change and expanding it to musicians, is it really that useful? What about stabbings, poisonings, "pushed down the stairs", general maiming injuries? And what of other entertainers and notable people apart from musicians? You may just as well have a list of notable gunshot victims over the ages (which I think may be a real category). Lists are IMO the bane of Wikipedia, people claim that they are "useful" when its just a matter of WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Eqdoktor 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are areas where a list is useful or even better than a category. My print encyclopedia from 1969 has an article called "naval terms", but it's basically just a List of naval terms. (It's far far more extensive than the Wikipedia list I linked to, it goes on for pages) It's not an article discussing naval terminology and what it means in history, it's just an annoted list that explains varied terms. Likewise areas that need more explanation than a category can provide are good in list form. See List of people with epilepsy or many other things in Wikipedia:Featured lists. Still I just said I'd be open to a List of musicians who have been shot, I'm still open to going against it too, and I voted delete on this list.--T. Anthony 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What next - list of policemen who have won a lottery gah -Doc^g 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename as per suggestions above. Although a case could be made that more rappers per capita have been victims of gun violence, I agree that to single out one particular group over another is POV and, not only that, could attract not-very-helpful edits from people with potential agendas. Expanding to include other genres works for me. 23skidoo 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a list that will be hard to maintain. Also, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. --SunStar Net^talk 13:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. Akihabara 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the reasons that exist to delete this, I don't think it can really be classified as indiscriminate.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per inherent silliness in lists of occupation/injury combinations. Bassists with knee abrasions or Tuba players who have been given wedgies, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fan the flames of potential OR, but you don't read major news coverage seemingly once a month of yet another world-famous tuba player who got a wedgie.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More's the shame .... I'd enjoy news like that - Peripitus (Talk) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT--Ac1983fan 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of musicians who have been shot. --- RockMFR 03:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Addhoc 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate - anything which is along the lines of : [[List of people/professions who have been past participle]]. There are endless such permutations. Ohconfucius 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is arguable that musicians, and particularly though not exclusively rappers, who have been victims (or perpetrators) of violence are notable as part of a social phenomenon that undoubtedly influences their music. A list like this is just a directory of examples, and I don't think it is either indiscriminate nor does it push a POV.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly rename per above suggestions. The scope of the list is sufficiently defined so as to be maintanable and it establishes a notable connection between the people on the list. You can make reductio ad absurdum arguments about almost every list on WP, but this list does relate to a newsworthy social phenomenon. If there were anti-tuba vigilantes running around giving wedgies to famous tuba players, I think a list of tuba players who got wedgies would probably be notable.--Kubigula (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind ::mikmt 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep rappers being shot is a prominent part of culture and a big status symbol. If the list was anything but rappers it would have to go, but this is absolutely notable, no question about it. An article shouldn't be deleted merely because it needs clean-up. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nose game (2nd nomination)[edit]

Nose game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

1st VfD, from July 2005

After 18 months, this article still hasn't done much for Wikipedia. It is poorly written and not correctly wikified (AfD is not cleanup) and describes a game that does not need to be documented here.

This was deleted per the first VfD, but was recreated on 28 December 2006 by User:Bigdanoneill (talk/contribs). As such, it may also qualify for CSD G4. TRKtvtce 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very poor aticle, fails google search for notability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not sufficiently notable and lacking in sourcing. However, let it be known that I frequently use this process, which my friends and I call "Nose Goes", to decide who has to do crap. Still... non-notable. -- Kicking222 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if verified, such information doesn't deserve its own article. Surely, Iona Opie has documented this method, or something much like it. The information belongs with articles concerning children's games or folklore. Nick Graves 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverified, non-notable game. JIP | Talk 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I've heard of it, but no sources, et cetera. Not even a game, really. Mangojuice^talk 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sure, there are thousands of such games, does it mean Wikipedia has to include them all? You should also submit some of the List of traditional children's games entries if you're at it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does this game actually exist? Sounds suspiciously like something made up in school one day. I'd think Rock, Paper, Scissors (now, thats a well sourced article) would be THE game to play in choosing someone to do something nasty. Anyways, it looks to be original research, does not cite sources for external reference. --Eqdoktor 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not as dumb as I thought it would be, but unreferenced and not quite article material either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Selection methods. It is a known game^[1][2], but does not justify an article. I would like someone searching for it on wikipedia to find something. AntiVan 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 and NaCl - crz crztalk 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OO17[edit]

OO17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Disputed speedy. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB, speedied but continued recreation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and Salt no notability, etc. _SUBWAYguy 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shaken, Stirred, and Speedy A7. JRHorse 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable --froth^{T C} 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt , Youtube videos are patently not-notable. Google search shows solo hit to the YouTube page, so there is no outside treatement in reliable sources, and it's likely, based on triple re-creation, that this will be up again tomorrow if not salted.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and salt A7 Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Jameelah[edit]

Maryam Jameelah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Ancient article, but for the life of me I don't see verifiable notability from reliable sources. This isn't some sectarian thing - I'll be happy to withdraw this if I'm wrong - but I think we should delete. - crz crztalk 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. - crz crztalk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom. this is about the closest thing I can find to an official biography. It doesn't really take us any further than what's in the article already; she's a journalist and writer, a convert from Judaism to Islam. I can't find any independent reviews of her books (other than on Amazon etc, which I don't think count as "independent") or any other sources that can prove her notability. Of course, if such sources do exist, the article can stay. Tevildo 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep: One of the most important converts to Islam in 20th centuary. --Suchmuch 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of references for that assertion would be a great help. Tevildo 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can search on google to go through her profile. Check the list of her books on Amazon[17], & WorldCat [18]. --Suchmuch 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that proves she's a writer. We need to prove that she's a notable writer: that she's "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work", to quote WP:BIO. Tevildo 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to argue on this any more. I don't remember her appearing on the cover of Times. --Suchmuch 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to be on the cover of Times to be notable. What a most western biased view of the world one needs to have in order to hold such a claim--Striver - talk 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if we ignore the list of Muslim sites that view her notable, and even if you ignore her long list of works that are available on amazon and google books, you still see that islam-haters like Daniel Pipes [19], John L. Esposito [20]and even bigots like Ali Sina on Faith Freedom International [21] view her notable enough to use as examples. --Striver - talk 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we also have her long correspondence with Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi [22]--Striver - talk 10:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pipes and Faith Freedom references are literally trivial mentions. And the Esposito is a straight assassination piece! We can't possibly use that to write the article. I still don't see a single normal work about her life and/or about her work/significance. - crz crztalk 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but the line "essayist, poet, journalist and author" seems like puffery. I can't find any evidence that she's a poet or a journalist. Essayist/author can be better summed as up as writer. I'm going ahead with that change. If anyone comes up with evidence that she's a poet or a journalist in a substantial way (i.e. not just having a few poems in her books and not just a couple of random pieces printed somewhere and not implying that an opinion piece is the same as journalism), of course make changes again Bwithh 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there was already another line saying she is an author of X number of books. So I just left it at that. The convert bit is the first thing now, which makes more sense. She hasn't written on any other subject it seems Bwithh 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but expand and put some more independent sources in it or we will have another AfD within a month Alf photoman 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm unable to find any useful non-trivial mentions from independent sources and none of te ones given above qualify. JoshuaZ 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep She has been discussed as one of the most prominent figure in Islamism in the following scholarly paper:

S. V. R. Nasr, Islamist Intellectuals of South Asia: The Origins and Development of a Tradition of Discourse, Studies in Contemporary Islam, 1 (1999), 2:16–43

I can't see the reason to delete the biography, although I agree that the article should be expanded. TruthSpreader^reply 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This person had some press, particularly in the early 70's due to her conversion. Alot of articles I've found are subscription only, but they are there. [23]. --Oakshade 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Municipal Council[edit]

Colombo Municipal Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Maybe someone can check their website for a reason to keep this organization in Wikipedia. I didn't find anything. YechielMan 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the municipal council of a countries capital must be notable without having to look for sources. The council has been in existance since the 1860's. a few seconds of Googling shows at least 4 news articles in the last month and almost 15,000 hits on google. The article is awful at the moment nonetheless Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strangely, I agree with Peripitus that the city council of a city as large as Colombo is notable. However, the article consists of a "vision" and "mission statement" and no body of real encyclopedic text. In its present form I cannot condone keeping this since cleaning it up would mean removing almost everything and starting from scratch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Rewritten now into an ok stub - luckily there was little to remove and the work of minutes to rewrite. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah what a difference! This is a brand new article. Keep. Well done! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my nomination. Nicely done! YechielMan 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]