< May 17	May 19 >

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip W. Morrow[edit]

A self-proclaimed write in candidate for US president in 2008. Anybody can virtually run for president if they want, and this guy has no shot of winning at all. Most write in candidates don't have articles, and neither should this guy. Borjon22 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking online, pretty much all I could find (other than Morrow's own site) was one blogger ridiculing Morrow's already-written inauguration speech. Out!!! Brianyoumans 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable nobody. Maybe worth a mention at 2008 United States third party presidential candidates, but there's nothing that can be used to write a full article. --- RockMFR 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems non-notable, but other write in candidates have articles as well. Frank McEnulty is an article as well! My stance for now is delete though. 11kowrom 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there aren't really any sources to justify his own article. Somebody change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite notable enough or enough sources to write from. Gutworth 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2008 United States third party presidential candidates as suggested by RockMFR. Horologium talk - contrib 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someone who proclaims himself a write-in candidate more than a year before the election is saying that he isn't even going to try to get on the ballot, and thus isn't going to be running a serious campaign. --Metropolitan90 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. No coverage. No hope. No article. DarkAudit 04:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no sources of this information,Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else I will run my cat as a write-in candidate and post an article about him. Realkyhick 16:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're lucky I wasn't drinking at the time, otherwise I would've done a spit take on my monitor... which would then mean shorting out my computer... which would then mean I'd have to ask you to pay me for a new iBook. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. And possible lack of brains on the subject's part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pretty narcissistic if you ask me. He's unheard of, non-notable. Why not speedied? JodyB_talk 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly per RockMFR. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Useight 01:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orderinchaos 12:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Borg[edit]

A re-created speedy deleted article. The article is poorly sourced and is a vanity project. I am not convinced that a 16 year old kart racer meets notability guidelines. Mattinbgn/^talk 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand where you are coming from, however, this young karter is well-known throughout the Australian karting scene and is about to move into the Formula Renault UK Championship. This championship has had current Formula One drivers compete in it and coming from Australia, Aaron is going to be big news in both Australia and the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.171.220 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. The argument "we should keep this because he will be notable soon" doesn't really hold water. Charlie 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable teenager, with no reliable sources. --Haemo 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think he has made enough of a stir yet; qualifying 6th at the National Championships? Not very impressive. We don't need obsessive coverage of a lesser sport like karting. Brianyoumans 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not suitable for an encyclopedia at this stage of his career; needs to have won at a nationally recognised level (i.e. on free to air weekend sport TV programs). John Vandenberg 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not currently notable (as already mentioned, 6th in national championships is best result). Future notability is possible but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An internet search reveals multiple mentions but the majority are either incidental (eg. lists of contestants) or press releases from the Aaron Borg website. Euryalus 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Is currently a long way short of the notability criteria. —Moondyne 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unsourced and as clear signs of conflict of interest such as references to I. A quick Google News Archive comes up with no references to him at all. [1]. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Page reads like an ad or a promo website. Orderinchaos 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. I don't think karting.net can be used to establish wider notability of karting racers - it seems to be a primary source in this area. Even if it can be used to assert notability, it is the only source and he would need at least two.Ga rr ie 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged with db-bio, clearly does not meet notability and as per nom it's a vanity project. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, holy moly, vanity piece on a nn kid who races karts. Also, how many times is "Aaron Borg" spelled out in the opening paragraph? Lankiveil 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Marxist-Leninist[edit]

Non-notable American political group that suceeded the US-Albania Friendship Society Google News Archives turns up nothing. Plain vanilla Google gives 32 hits, none of them from reliable sources. The main point of the article seems to be that the organization is Hoxhaist and not really orthodox Marxist-Leninist, even though it says it is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem pretty obscure. In that scene in Life of Brian, I think this group would be the one guy sitting off by himself. Out! Brianyoumans 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to the People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front had occured to me too. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Working People's Association. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy sitting by himself is the 'popular front' Nick mallory 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Splinter!" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion of notability. Akradecki 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Mardavich 08:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Freedom for Tooting!. BTLizard 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notebale. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTE. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nexis found one passing mention in the Montreal, Quebec Gazette dated 27 Feb 2003. However I don't think that makes for sufficient notability. JodyB_talk 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Facts[edit]

Contested prod. Nothing but a list of trivia. --Finngall ^talk 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate information, Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia, etc. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - here is a collection of trivia related to Big Brother. --Haemo 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ObiterDicta, indiscriminate list of information. Probably nothing worth merging either.-- Mithent 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trivia may be appropriate under some circumstances. A list of random trivia isn't. -- Seed 2.0 00:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. --Mardavich 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Trivia is BAD! G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Thunderwing 13:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Ack! Information overload! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least some of the information can be gleaned and put on the real article Big Brother (TV series). Useight 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete trivial and facts information, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a trivial list of facts. Regards — The Sunshine Man 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amorphous list of "firsts", mostly trivial. -- MightyWarrior 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Realkyhick 16:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is wrong with a completely unreferenced article that merely lists various random and unimportant facts about a game show as it has progressed over the past eight years while not relating the cultural impact of said facts in regards to the various countries where the show is produced? Well... everything. And this is looking a bit snowy. --Cyrus Andiron 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not merge. Too listy; this is the kind of stuff we're trying to rid the project of. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As an indiscrimate list of information. Acalamari 22:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia, WP:NOT. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per virtually all the above. Trivia, listcruft, indiscriminate info, you name it. - fchd 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chibchan Women[edit]

Personal essay written a number of months ago, then abandoned. Originally prodded by myself, but de-prodded with edit reason "This is far too elaborate and interesting to delete without debate. In fact, I'm not sure why the rationale given justifies deletion at all." Proposing for deletion to gather opinions from others. RTucker 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chunks of this make sense, but taken as a whole, it is incoherent, lacks context, and is pretty much useless, I would say. Anyone knowledgeable enough to save this could probably rewrite it, so let's get rid of it. Brianyoumans 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm almost inclined to say ((db-nocontext)), but the biggest problem I have is that it rambles, and only briefly touches on the subject title. It reads like a badly written school essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little context here, as Dennis says. If there was another article on the parent culture, portions might be mergable to there, but I really can't see saving this. Akradecki 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though some parts are somewhat interesting. Think maybe someday we'll have an EssayWiki? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not much context in the Article.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger delete. Essay, highly WP:OR, writer needs to find a different soapbox, and his smarmy reaction to prod almost guarantees my vote to delete. Realkyhick 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bledug kuwu[edit]

Non-notable, violation of WP:NOT, WP:OR in some areas. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fun read but entirely OR. the_undertow ^talk 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference could be made in Purwodadi Grobogan, but not notable for a separate article. Akradecki 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Reference IS made in Purwodadi Grobogan under Tourism. So if there's anything worth saving on Bledug kuwu, move it there. Canuckle 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Also, it should be noted that the external link provided is to a page which has been removed. Charlie 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to incoming links and plausible search term. W.marsh 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot's Best and Worst of the Year Winners[edit]

This article [2] is essentially a data dump of information from GameSpot. The awards themselves are barely notable. --- RockMFR 01:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These awards can be merged into the respective video games, but this is just a list that should remain on GameSpot. the_undertow ^talk 02:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Prune~~. Actually, I guess I should just do that now.... --Stratadrake 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GameSpot. In its newly stubbed form there isn't much worth saving, but it's a sub-topic of GameSpot.com so it should be mentioned there. --Stratadrake 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't even mention the winners.....I'd expect that AT LEAST. G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 10:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree. It should be merged with Gamespot. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stratadrake. Realkyhick 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above users; this should stick to GameSpot. Why is it that video games are so susceptible to cruft anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, why aren't the winners even there? The reason for all the useless video game stuff is because of fanboys who don't take an objective and reasonable approach to console gaming. Useight 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I was bold and pruned them (see prior revision). --Stratadrake 14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with the above. Acalamari 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gamespot.--カラム 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - nothing in particular needs merged with the main article. The full list is certainly not wanted, and a brief description of the awards is already in the article. --- RockMFR 03:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As many have mentioned above the articles doesn't even contain the winner's of the award. This makes the article useless and unneeded on Wikipedia. Xtreme racer 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ashley[edit]

Non notable and of minor local interest only. Google hits amount to around 3 on first 2 pages Regan123 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability at all. Akradecki 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not assert how this individual meets WP:BAND in any way. Charlie 06:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Temple[edit]

Originally listed at AfD by 68.219.212.254 without a proper discussion. Also was prodded but removed. It's a web forum which doesn't meet WP:WEB. Phony Saint 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, non-notable website with zero sources, let alone non-trivial third party sources. Burntsauce 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. This information hasn't and probably won't ever be confirmed by reliable third-party sources. Pascal.Tesson 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN fan site. the_undertow ^talk 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, original research, no sources. Charlie 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Regions of the Dominican Republic[edit]

No such region exists in the Dominican Republic. For actually existing regions see this two links: [3] and [4]. VirtualDelight 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge upon the judgement on somebody with more knowledge on the topic. Corpx 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons and refs supplied by nom. Akradecki 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The provinces of the Dominican Republic are indeed grouped into administrative regions for convenience. However, this particular article seems to be about a "super-region" composed of 5 of the 9 official regions. Unless this grouping is somehow in common or official use, there is probably a good reason to delete. --Polaron | Talk 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SilkTork 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Warner[edit]

This was previously deleted through AfD. DRV overturned in light of a new evidence. Please consult the DRV before commenting here: the question is "Do the credits of celebrity photographs count as reliable sources of the gentleman's notability?" This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like Mr Warner himself wrote the page. Corpx 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispamcruftisement. 65.241.15.131 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Mr. Warner is a notable jeweler, certainly there is some reliable source backing this up; currently, however, the article contains no such sources. *** Crotalus *** 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting patrons, but come on. Have at least one source that works. nn. Sens08 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Mr Warner is getting quite the name around the fashion industry. He is as deserving of being included as a lot of people found in Wikipedia. Greetingsfromla 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Greetingsfromla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - (if I get a vote). So, I would argue that in a visual information age, the definition of what constitutes a valid source should not be restricted to written material. Clearly a radio or TV news personality would be considered notable simply because they are featured on a public medium, so why should a jeweler who is very well know among celebrities and other jewelry industry types not be considered notable? If you were to argue that Josh Warner is not notable because you have not heard the name, I would suggest that you visit the jewelry section of Barneys in New York, Boston, Chicago ... or perhaps Traffic in Los Angeles or Louis in Boston. It is easy to dismiss someone as not notable in an industry that you have no affiliation to, but to a collector (like myself) or others in the industry Josh Warner is clearly notable. Shaunco 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see any problem with sourcing from non written sources, but this isn't done in the article. Editors can say that he is the most improtant person in the jewelry world, but without a single source to back it up it doesn't do all that much. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course you can chime in, Shaunco, but I think you're missing the point. Most of us can't visit the jewelry sections of Barneys in New York (or Boston or Chicago or Dallas or... ) because we don't live there, so we rely on independent, verifiable, third-party sources. I would certainly judge non-written sources, such as photographs, along with written words, but where are those photographs? The article reads like an advertisement for his business instead of an encyclopedia entry about the person himself, and as I write this there isn't a single photo of anything or anyone on the page. The only cited source is about his grandfather's accounting firm, for goodness sake, and that's incomplete (and it's irrelevant to the subject anyway). It's a shame to waste a successful deletion review decision about non-written sources by not providing such sources in the article. Link to photos, upload photos, find magazine articles about Warner – give us sources before time runs out. Wikipedians are a fair bunch, but there aren't many options for unsourced entries. KrakatoaKatie 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok Katie, that was really harsh. If you look at the original deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May you will see that I posted a nice sized list of photos - which is what led to this secondary review, and these photos ARE the topic of discussion.Shaunco 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry you think I was harsh, and I did see that list in the DRV discussion – but I and other editors are trying to tell you that you need to put these sources in the article, not just here or the DRV page. For example, the article claims Morrissey wears the jewelry; provide an EL to a photo of Morrissey wearing Josh Warner jewelry, and so on down the list of celebrity claims. Does Barneys sell online? If so, provide an EL to that page. If nothing changes, the closing admin may delete this article again with a statement like "article remains unsourced after deletion review," and we don't want that to happen if it's not necessary. WP:EL and WP:CITE will help, and any of the commenters here, especially me, will be glad to help or answer questions. KrakatoaKatie 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, that is exactly what I needed (guidance). I didn't think I was allowed to modify the page while it was in deletion review. I have added a bunch of sources and will continue to add more as I find them. Shaunco 04:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How on earth do I know that the jewelry in the images is made by Warner? I'm not questioning your integrity, Shaunco, I do believe that they are. But how do I know for fact, and how can I prove that without going to Warner's website? Lacks verification by reliable sources of notability. The burden is on the author, not the reader so if I can't get to a big city to check out out his boutique displays then frankly that isn't my problem. Teke 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the photos on wire image show Josh Warner, with the jewelry AND the celebrities wearing it. That is pretty clear that he makes it (or at least that he is the exclusive seller of it). Also, the photo that is (now back) on the page (from lit magazine) shows Josh in his workshop, hands dirty, making jewelry. I have also added a fifth "further reading" item that is another article that I just found that cites Josh Warner, Good Art HLYWD, and him making jewelry in addition to a block post from Annie Duke that references Josh making jewelry. Shaunco 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shaunco, I and I am sure other editors appreciate your civility and efforts in trying to fit the article for Wikipeida. Now speaking for myself, I just don't see a way to make it encyclopedic. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and I don't believe that this gentlemen, while successful in his industry, merits an article. I have no prejudice against a recreation in the future, but it is my opinion that the article just doesn't work. Teke 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Teke, per Wikipedia:Notability (people) under Creative professionals, both the first and third articles hold true ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - see newly added references). Perhaps I should add the ((expert-subject)) to this WP:BIO, as it is clear that you must be somehow involved in the jewelry industry to know who is notable and who is not. I do believe that the whole point of Wikipedia is to allow people to write articles in subjects that they are experts in so that others, who are not experts in the field, can learn... is it not? Shaunco 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I want to see is an article in LA Magazine or whatever writing up this guy, not a bunch of photo captions which are very often essentially product placements. The civility and effort of Shaunco are appreciated, but I have to say no. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zap it immediately per G12. The subject did write the article himself, and it was lifted from his website Ohconfucius 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the subject wrote it himself, and posted the content on his own website as well as submitting it here under the GFDL, how is it a "blatant copyright infringement"? --Stormie 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Josh Warner, founder of Good Art HLYWD. One of my customers told me about this article, so I decided to come here and check it out. I do not have a problem with this article being somewhat copied from my site, how do I go about giving Wikipedia permission to use this content? Josh Warner 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources listed on the page are primarily first party sources in that they come from the company's website. I need to see something concrete from non trivial secondary sources to properly assert notabiity. --Cyrus Andiron 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cites sources. Seems noteable enough. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but tone down the overly praising language. Seems to have enough sources, more than most. Going against my natural deletionist leanings here. Realkyhick 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the 1 to 10% of it that is notable and sourced (are there no jewelry trade mags? celebrity fashion columns?. Photos of celebrities with artist only acceptable as reference for them as clients. Canuckle 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't see any real source aside from some press releases from the subject, being mentioned by Annie Duke doesn't really count towards notability. Having pictures of celebrity wearing jewelry doesn't give us any sourced content in the article and thus doesn't count towards notability in the wiki sense. There are plenty of Jewerly magazines which would have article on the subject if they were notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability through association, plus non-notable.--Whs tchy 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I saw his stuff in GQ, and went to Barney's online about a year ago. They had his stuff listed at that time (although it it no longer listed). While I am not a reliable secondary source, I have seen his stuff in Barney's store in New York & LA and at Traffic LA. I now own several pieces of his jewelery. I can't find any sources online other than those referenced in this discussion. Part of the allure of this particular type of product is its scarcity; it is (relatively) hard to get, and it is expensive. If it had tons of publicity and awareness, it would be less interesting to collectors and celebrities who like to have things that other people don't have, and don't know about. Suggest keeping the article, but toning down the flowery language that makes it seem like it was from the artist himself. --Rowantrollope 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed User:Daniel J. Leivick's clear attempt at retaliation for another wiki user disagreeing with him. User:Rowantrollope is clearly not a single purpose account. User:Daniel J. Leivick also defaced the Rowan Trollope page in return for Rowan's comments on this matter. Also, how can one claim that this users sole purpose on Wikipedia is to comment on the Josh Warner article, when their account has been around for almost 8 months, and the Josh Warner article has only been here for 6 weeks? Shaunco 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability through association doesn't fly: it doesn't mean a fig, for personal items, whether your customers are celebrities or streetwalkers. Drew Carey's hat, George Clooney's socks, or Lindsay Lohan's underwear don't become famous merely by association with their owners, whether or not you have photographs of them using them. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant death[edit]

Article has no citations, and doesn't seem to be on an encyclopedic subject. It has been on the cleanup list for over 2 years - should it even be kept around anymore? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned it up a bit and it's looking a bit better than it did. The list it's on is static, so it won't update even if the tag is removed from the article. Nardman1 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still needs work. Nardman1 09:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete edited article. Unattributed. POV that instant death is necessarily accidental or homicidal and therefore messy (in actuality, it often isn't). Seems to be more appropriate (in terms of attribution, especially) for rotten.com, not Wikipedia. I'm not seeing any sources on searches, either, that deal with "instant death" as a journalistic term. --Charlene 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is it looking cleaned up, it must have been scary before. You may need to refresh your browser cache to clear the list it is on Nardman1. Slavlin 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, this might be a good source to start with. Currently, the article has no sourcing at all. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a guide of minor journalistic terms. Akradecki 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR-ish, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Original Research Thunderwing 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to recreation, or stubify. Most of what's there seems somewhat speculative, I agree, although sources can likely be found. There are other avenues of expansion for this. I remember an extended discussion in Philippe Aries' L'homme devant la mort about the relative desirability of sudden death. (In short, medieval Europeans feared sudden death because it potentially deprived them of the chance to be shriven by a priest; moderns thought it somewhat desirable because protracted illness is avoided.) - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point - the article right now is on the medical aspect of sudden death, when it could be about the cultural perspectives on the topic. I'd be in favour of keeping a sourced article on the latter - although this isn't what we have right now. I'll still suggest it's better to delete this one, and allow someone to create a good article in its stead sometime in the future. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless sources can be found. Useight 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - why is sourcing sufficient, btw? I.e., is this topic notable, do you think? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC

Sources are usually sufficient to establish that somebody, or rather, enough somebodies, care about the subject, which means it is not only verifiable, but notable. Not always, but I can see in this case where it might be convincing if there were good sources. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per as all above R_Orange 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sourcing, no verification. Realkyhick 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instant Delete as a failure of WP:V. A bit WP:ORish too. I doubt it's known outside the journalism world too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 09:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Elrith 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUI7[edit]

Claims to be the development team of OpenVistA (a notable piece of software). Now I don't really know whether the 7 people mentioned in the article really had the role that is claimed there but what I do know is that there does not seem to be any reliable source that uses the name HUI7, nor is there any reliable source using the name HUI6. It's also clear by the talk page discussion that the article has conflict of interest concerns and that Wikipedia is being used as a free provider of webspace in this instance. Pascal.Tesson 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in every industry, there are countless teams that develop things. What makes this group notable? Akradecki 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, accomplishment is not the same thing as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Adrian M. H. 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above Kernel Saunters 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Xoloz 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.A.F.[edit]

Delete as this is probably a prank. Unsourced and unverifiable per WP:V. pinotgris 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods, this is something I'd see on Myspace. Ick. Nuclear-strength delete, and I'm going to look for a speedy reason as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...found it. It was A7. It is ostensibly a group of people, and they are not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double shot of Speedy Delete as non notable and utter crap. DarkAudit 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauler RÖV-20[edit]

A three-line article that's been dormant for a year, probably can't be expanded upon, about a fictional gun in Macross, and therefore completely not notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for something fictional to have an encyclopedia article takes some serious notability...which this doesn't have. Akradecki 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first glance my reaction was to redirect to VF-1 Valkyrie which seems a better article, but turns out that one is completely unsourced and needs a lot of work itself or it's likely going to wind up here on AfD as well so it's not a suitable redirect target. Possibly redirect to Macross but as an unlikely search term, just delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An article about a fictional gun that is part of a fictional vehicle? Oh good grief! Adrian M. H. 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of metal songs featured in horror films[edit]

List of loosely-related topics, a list of unrelated "metal songs" that just happen to have been featured in unrelated horror films. Indiscriminate reason for a ist of songs, and sets a bad precedent for endless combinations of these "music genre X in film genre Y" type of lists - List of hip-hop songs featured in action films, List of pop songs featured in comedy films, etc. Masaruemoto 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. There is no need for this list, songs featured in movies are already listed on the movie page (or its soundtrack page). Songs that appear in multiple movies will likely have there own Wiki Article, and the info on movies they appear in should be on that page. Black Harry (T|C) 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. The songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have been chosen by someone to be on a movie soundtrack. Otto4711 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too broad of a list Akradecki 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm looking forward to List of Satanic death metal songs featured in Disney films and List of happy hardcore songs featured in psychological thrillers. Confusing Manifestation 04:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Item not required, if they are notable then the songs are already listed on the films' pages. Also this article is original research, and since the songs have nothing in common other than their selection for use in (lots of different) films) this is also listcruft. And, as stated above, if we let it stand we'll end up with all sorts of strange lists. Anyone for List of electropop used in documentaries about Communist East Germany? A1octopus 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and a far-too-pigeonholed category. I hate metal and horror films too, but that's beside the point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear violation of WP:NOT. And careful about the WP:BEANS, folks .. don't want to give people ideas. :) Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only does it violate WP:NOT, I personally don't see what purpose it dould possibly serve, aside from helping Time Life make yet another compilation album. Jezebel Parks 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of loosely-related songs. --Dezidor 14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominated in error. Let this article be nominated for deletion by someone with a valid reason to believe it needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique A. Pollack[edit]

DRV overturned a G4 deletion of this article, finding new sources for notability were present. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to procedural nomination. So far as I can see, next to nobody disputed that the newest sources are plenty to establish notability. I say to keep, in case it isn't obvious. -Amarkov moo! 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. If the AfD is now closed because of your objection, and someone later returns to object to that closure, all our heads explode. :) It is noted that you were among those endorsing deletion at DRV, but I see no reason not to leave the matter open for five days, to see if anyone finds the new sources unsatisfactory. Xoloz 02:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to leave it open, definitely. Discussion can't hurt. -Amarkov moo! 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new sources seem to establish notability, no reason to delete now. Charlie 06:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Presidential write-in run is not a "remotely plausible" claim of notability. Xoloz 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McEnulty[edit]

Notable only for being a write-in candidate for the 2008 Presidential election, and write-ins don't have the slightest chance of winning. If he raises some important issues later on and gets media attention, then he might warrant an article, but right now he does not. Fails WP:BIO without a doubt.-- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was replace with the rewrite. There seems general agreement that Wikipedia should say something on this topic, and further agreement that the rewritten version is a superior treatment. I'm going to go ahead and delete the present article--as I understand it Uncle G's rewrite is an original creation so we don't need the first for GFDL compliance. If someone feels different we can always merge the histories. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men in skirts[edit]

DRV overturned a G4 speedy-deletion of this page, finding that it is different from the infamous "Male Unbifurcated Garment". This new text is submitted to AfD for consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think this is a great idea! It's wonderful! Unfortunately, there aren't that many resources that say that it's notable - despite my hearing about this through the grapevine, and the grapevine is certainly not reliable. So, I'm going for a ~~weak delete~~, but if somebody can change my mind, that would be really cool. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep per the rewrite. Sounds much better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, Dennis, but I just couldn't help laughing at that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to expand. I don't remember or care about what may have been there before, but it's obvious that an encyclopedic treatment on the topic can be done. For some clarification, I'm not sure if this is the proper title for it, but the topic itself is apparently writable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Skirt and dress#Male wear, where the encyclopaedic meat is covered without the undue weight we see here. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest your conclusion of WP:UNDUE. The subject is notable and merits a separate article. Bards 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article consists of original research because its primary assertion — that there is a notable movement to get modern-day Western men to wear skirts — has no sources listed. The only sources are for unrelated or tangentially-related facts: men in some non-Anglo-American cultures wear (or once wore) unbifurcated clothing, some young boys were once dressed in skirts because their parents couldn't afford male-specific clothing, and one school in England had to change their dress code because of a lawsuit. This article isn't describing a trend; it is making a case for something the authors want to happen, but hasn't yet happened or even received any prominent attention yet. If this alleged phenomenon itself is actually written up in reliable sources, re-create the article then, and make it sound less like a soapbox. Oh, and remove the silly Star Trek trivia. *** Crotalus *** 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Haemo below (next in the list): references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the primary assertion, and indeed, the entire crux of the article is totally unsupported by reliable sources. All the references provided only tangentially relate to the topic in question, and certainly don't support, or assert any notability of the subject material. It's all original research. --Haemo 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I researched a long list of references and, originally, added them to the end of the article. It was my intention for them to be absorbed into the article as it developed. (I have yet more refs offline.) The list was moved to the talk page; then deleted with the article by JzG. He has not seen fit to restore them. I have done so, and you can examine them here: User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-deleted-talkpage. Bards 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More potential sources are now available, although not studied in depth. here. Bards 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and refocus on skirts as a fashion item for men. Certainly there are sources for skirts as a fashion choice, the history of male skirts in fashion and the like. If sources develop regarding a "skirts for men" political movement that at that point the article should reflect them. Otto4711 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Skirt and dress#Male wear, where it is covered with sources and the weight appropriate to its significance, i.e. virtually none. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these ridiculous procedural listings. This piece is obviously an essay, not an article, and shouldn't be on Wikipedia because it's against the Neutral point of view. It may be possible to write an article on men in skirts but this isn't it. The original speedy deletion should not have been overturned, for that reason. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewrite at Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite is a very well written article and I would love to see it take the place of the version listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stuff about the "MIS movement" is completely unsourced, and is pretty much a rehash of the "Male Unbifurcated Garment"/"Men's Fashion Freedom" silliness that's been deleted many times over. Much of the remaining content, namely the Legal Position in the UK section, contains a lot of original research via synthesis. WarpstarRider 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Haemo above: references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did someone say that there were no sources documenting this? How about pages 143–146 of ISBN 0415931584, which discuss a "Bravehearts: Men In Skirts" exhibition, exploring "the skirt as the future of menswear", that was put on at the New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art? Or ISBN 0810965585, the book by one of the people that organized that exhibition? Or the interesting contrary viewpoint on page 169 of ISBN 185973782X? I'm ignoring the sources that argue that a smock-frock is a man in a skirt, by the way. Uncle G 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Perhaps it is plausible that a decent article could be written on the subject — but this isn't it. The article as it exists doesn't cite the above source (probably the most plausible), and it is chock-full of soapboxing original research. *** Crotalus *** 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A decent article could be written but this isn't it." is almost always a cue for cleanup, not deletion, in particular ((cleanup-rewrite)) such as this: Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite. Uncle G 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article is probably acceptable. It might be a good idea to wait for this version to be deleted (which it probably will be), and then post your version at the article title. Because of this possibility, I recommend that the article not be salted so Uncle G can create a neutral, sourced version once this one is deleted. *** Crotalus *** 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. Does taking photos of men wearing skirts in public constitute research that the concept of Men in Skirts does exist?--Allyn 04:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it constitutes research that the general concept of men wearing skirts exists, but it still wouldn't save this article because (a) it doesn't show that there's an actual movement of men wearing skirts, and (b) we don't allow original research. Confusing Manifestation 04:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It's an essay, it's pushing a point of view, and there's no real evidence of this "movement" which is still well below 1% of men, maybe 0.1% of men. To the extent that male skirt/kilt use is increasing, it is not notable as a "movement". --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Haemo above: references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete with fire. Not only is it a personal essay masquerading as an article, it's also a POV fork (whether deliberate or not) of the small section in skirt and dress which contains this topic without the undue weight, neologistic usage, original research and occasional bits of complete bollocks we see here. Previous debates in respect of Male Unbifurcated Garment and Men's Fashioon Freedom show the way to go here: we have kilt, we have cross-dressing, and we have a very tiny residual presence of men who wear skirts "just because", which is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear. I agree with Tony Sidaway: listing this is process wonkery and a positive magnet for puppetry - the forum members will almost certainly be along any minute. The article serves mainly to advance an agenda, the assertions of trends in prevalence of this "movement" originate solely for a very small number of web-based forums devoted to it. Walk around even a very cosmopolitan city like London and you will recognise within minutes that the so-called "MIS" movement (~200 unique Googles, of which a fair number seem to be discussing the defeminisation of women in the business world) is not in any way significant. We have been resisting this POV pushing for over a year, let's not stop now, shall we? Guy (Help!) 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely undue weight applies only to within a particular article? In fact, it specifically says "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". So if anything, this is an argument of putting it in its own article, as moving to skirt and dress may lead to undue weight in that article. Previous debates are not valid here, as many deletes referred to the terms being neologisms, and not the content (including my own delete vote, where I specifically stated that this should not be taken to mean I would vote against other articles with similar content). I agree with the bits about it being a movement, but we can remove those bits (and I have mostly done so now), without deleting the article. Mdwh 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not ready to give up my pants, but I did see the Bravehearts exhibit at the Met. It convinced me that real companies with real money would like to expand the male market for kilts and skirts. I don't know whether they're succeeding or not, but shouldn't a complete encyclopedia record this effort? So far, it seems like only men who are personally interested in wearing skirts are interested in editing this article, so right now it's one-sided. But where are the other editors? We don't kill articles just because they emphasize one point of view. We balance them. I vote to keep this article and clean it up. –Shoaler (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite for a complete rewrite. Uncle G 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Men's skirts and use the rewrite by Uncle G. --Ezeu 10:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the parts referring to this as a movement, so this cannot be a primary objection to the article anymore (though there are probably other parts that should be removed too). Another example of this sort of article (but done better) is at Pantyhose for men - perhaps this should be renamed as Skirts for men (or Men's skirts, as suggested above)? Whilst we do have skirt and kilt, the problem is that this may involve duplicating material in several articles, or giving undue weight (imagine if pantyhose for men was made a section in pantyhose?) Cross-dressing is certainly not appropriate here, as it is POV to suggest that a man in such a garment is cross-dressing (and wouldn't at all be true in some cases, e.g., kilts in Scotland). Mdwh 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
salt POV fork/undue weight - use existing articles Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps replacing with the rewrite proposed above, possibly also renmaing to Skirts for men or Men's skirts. There are no appropriate existing articles. Undue weight does not apply here, it only applies to sections within an article (so in other words, that's an argument against using any existing articles), see my comment above. See Pantyhose for men for a similar kind of article - should that be merged into Pantyhose? Mdwh 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A guideline similar to Undue weight applies to entire articles. See WP:POVFORK. However, I agree with you that the rewrite appears to qualify as an acceptable spinout. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mdwh. I must say I'm interested in this myself, but you ain't ever gonna see me in a skirt... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, replace with the rewrite. At the time I post this, every paragraph of the rewrite has a source. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blathery WP:OR, but replace with the good rewrite. We'll be able to cut down on this stuff in the main articles, then. Sandstein 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rewrite, and Rename. The article needs more sources and a new title, but it is a topic that I think should be here. It's a legitimate movement, albeit a small one. I think quite a bit of work needs to be done here. Useight 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, special pleading. This topic has already been through consensus as non-notable. Yeah, men wear skirts. So what? It's not a fashion statement. This should not have been overturned. Corvus cornix 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first time this article has gone through AfD; nothing is being overturned. Mdwh 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See that link up at the top of the page? The one called "DRV overturned"? That's what should not have been overturned. Corvus cornix 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was speedy deleted, but was there a previous AfD for the article where a consensus was reached? Mdwh 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite and rename to Men's skirts. The topic is notable enough for its own article, as demonstrated by the references included in the rewrite, but the original article is not sufficiently neutral. I think the rewrite corrects the focus and counters the original research criticism. --David Edgar 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that content at skirt and dress#Male wear and kilt. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the sections in the rewrite about the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition, and Wicca and neo-paganism? I don't see those covered at all in the articles you refer to (and neither should they be - they are much more appropriate to a more dedicated article such as this). --David Edgar 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a systemic bias that needs addressing regarding the wearing of unbifurcated garments. The main article about the subject appears to be Skirt and dress, but this has been written almost entirely from a Western-world perspective. English Wikipedia is not about the Western world, it is about the entire world. This article, if allowed to develop, can go some way towards addressing the bias. Long term, I think the best approach is an article Unbifurcated garment, about the garments worn by both men and women throughout the world. Alan Pascoe 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be absurd. We don't counter systemic bias by pretending that a virtually non-existent movement is significant, especially when it's already covered at skirt and dress#Male wear and kilt. and where virtually the entire contents of the article supposedly addressing that bias is original research because there are no reliable sources about it because it's so insignificant. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. That's the worst approach. We don't want to repeat Male Unbifurcated Garment (AfD discussion) all over again. The idea of an overarching "unbifurcated garment" concept is original research, which is forbidden here. There are, as can be seen at Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite, several sources that discuss men's skirts, the largely failed efforts of Gaultier and the like, and the social and moral aspects of men wearing skirts. Not a single one of them espouses an "unbifurcated garment" concept. That's just something that a vanishingly small group of people made up off the tops of their heads in web discussion fora, that nobody else acknowledges. Moreover, there is no systemic bias here to address. That there are cultures where the issues raised by men wearing skirts are not present is not a case of systemic bias. Systemic bias is bias in coverage on the parts of Wikipedia editors, not bias in how things actually are in the world at large. We no more need to make an overarching concept extending the men's skirts concept outside of Western culture to embrace everything else than our coverage of kaftans, sarongs, kilts, lungis, and djellabas needs to make in depth mention of countries where those garments are not worn.
  Discussing history and ideas that are specific to certain countries or cultures without discussing the places where they are irrelevant is not systemic bias, and inventing a new "unbifurcated garment" concept that doesn't exist at all in any reliable sources is original research. Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite notes the relationship of men's skirts in Western cultures to other garments in other cultures as a minor point because that's what the sources do. Uncle G 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but on one condition - that the the rewrite is used in the new version. The history should be kept for GFDL compliance. There is no need to delete this, as we can easily replace the text with the rewritten version, since this was undeleted already. The title Men's skirts should be a redirect. If you agree with this suggestion leave a note on my talk page, and I'll copy-paste the rewrite over. Hopefully this will help --SunStar Net ^talk 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Much of the current article is undersourced, and some of it is PoV. But some of its content should IMO remain. The current sources make it clear that there is soemthing notable here. I have added a "popularity" section to the article, and it adds 5 source citations to major news outlets. Ultimately the version in the "rewrite" should probably be merged with (not just replace) the version in the currrent article, but that is an editorial matter. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That which is not "under sourced" (i.e. original research) is already covered in skirt and dress#Male wear and kilt. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found 5 significant references in reliable sources in about an hour. This suggests to me that there may well be more sources out there, and that one cannot concluyde with certianty that there are not. DES ^(talk) 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use rewrite instead under better title. The article as currently written needs to disappear as well as the abhorrent title of "men in skirts". The rewrite is much, much better and should be titled something like Skirt (male). -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Replace with Uncle G's rewrite. I accept that some of the aticle is WP:SYN (as stated by User:WarpstarRider above), which I didn't realise was against the rules when I wrote it - particularly the legal section. It is not an essay of original research; most of it is a description of a real subculture, which has scores of outposts, POVish sites, forums, etc on the web, acting as proxies and meeting points. That subculture could be mentioned with due weight in the new article, or not, if good sources can be provided. Furthermore: * I propose we initiate a separate debate over whether this subject constitutes a "movement". * Make the deleted article available for a period (eg. within my user pages) as a resource for contributors, eg. the list of fashion designers is relevant; along with links to this discussion and the (completed) deletion review. * If this discussion concludes 'delete' or 'replace' or similar, salt the movement-related namespaces to prevent rewrites by other innocent parties (there will undoubtedly be many of them, like me). I would also like discussion re. "notable manufacturers" such as Midas Clothing and Menintime, and other related articles, where dissenters can raise their hackles before any effort is put into writing articles for them. Bards 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (original author of Men in skirts)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Looks like Uncle G is on the right track. Frise 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a good starting point. The name of the article is a little dubious thouguh. —Pengo 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Uncle G's rewrite. Whatever the previous articles may have looked like, this redesign/rewrite looks good. Uncle G should go into clothing? And yes, the page name sounds like an alternate movie title. Shenme 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Arbustoo 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current version; a strange essay on non-notable movement, full of unsourced opinions... definitely not an encyclopedic article. I have no opinion on the rewritten version, though. Henrik Ebeltoft 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Issue of men not being able to indiscriminately wear skirts and dresses in Western society, along with movements to overcome this issues and male wear of unbifurcated garments in general is notable and too wide topic to be only in one section under article skirt and dress. It might be good idea to rename article to more generic name such as Men's skirts, and to carefully merge with above mentioned rewrite while saving both versions as source of useful information. --193.198.16.211 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep General subject, wide literature, -- especially as re-written expertly by Uncle G. DGG 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not wide literature. Wide literature on kilts (on which we therefore have an article), wide literature on cross-dressing (on which we have an article), some literature and one exhibition once on the fashion of male skirt wearing, which is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear and has been for some time, complete with pretty much all the references in this article, but very very restricted literature on the movement for male skirt wearing, which is tiny, and for that reason has been deleted under at least two titles. No reliable sources that I can find for that, other than a novel synthesis from Utikilt's sales figures. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantive difference from the previously deleted articles on this non notable topic, and Skirt and dress#Male wear gives adequate coverage at this time. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard (not being able to view the previous articles), this article is very substantially different, longer, and better sourced than the previous articles. This was one of the arguments put forward by a respected admin in the recent deletion review. I suspect you had better check your facts before blindly supporting your mates. Bards 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume you know what I did and didn't check, and please also don't jump to assumptions about my motives for doing so, thanks. The topic has sufficient coverage in other articles, as outlined, and Wikipedia does not exist to give notability to non notable things. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Thank god we're not those bastions of non notability, the Metropolitan Museum [5], [6] and the V&A [7]. --JJay 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously an important societal subject as shown by the significant references and the extensive work of editors such as Uncle G. The fact that certain users dislike the subject, and want to see it remain buried in a the skirt article, is completely inadequate to justify deletion. JJay 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a false assertion. The references to kilt, which is significant, are in kilt. The references to cross-dressing, which is significant, are in cross-dressing. The fashion trend of the 80s and early 90s is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear. The global movement for Western men to wear skirts is there, too, because the movement is pretty much insignificant and lacks any documentation outside a few forums, so we already deleted several attempts ot pretend otherwise and prmoote these neologistic terms. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why any relevant content should be included in this article. And I must also say I am extremely disapointed that you are defending an entirely unsourced and inferior subsection such as skirt and dress#Male wear. Furthermore, cross-dressing is a totally unrelated issue. We are not dealing with drag queens here.JJay 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, your persistently vague and dismissive arm-waving does not help your case. "MUG" was deleted last year mainly as a neologism. If you think something relevant to this discussion is also a neologism, you should be specific. Bards 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourced sections, IF there isn't too much overlap with kilt and skirt and dress#Male wear, Delete the OR and unsourced sections, and strongly consider Rename, though I don't have a distinct preference for which name to change it to. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the BLF article this is a serious article about current fashions and their political implications, SqueakBox 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy G12. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Peyrache[edit]

I originally tagged this for proposed deletion but there has been an objection on the talk page. I think it's a poorly sourced article and it seems to be primarily promotional. I could have got it wrong. Further discussion would be good, so here we are. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - reading through it (though with the bad writing, that's not easy!) it does seem that this person is notable in his field. Bad writing isn't criteria for deletion, though. Maybe it can be brought to the attention of one of the martial arts projects, where someone knowledgeable can clean it up.... Akradecki 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:CSD#G12, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 09:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seed of Abraham[edit]

Delete How exactly is this notable enough for an article? And are we to list every verse in the Bible where the children of Israel are called the Children of Abraham or where Abraham is listed as their forefather? Avi 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to your questions: One, it isn't. Two, no. We aren't a bible study mechanism; I recommend Our Daily Bread if you want that. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not...um...a guide to the Bible. Someguy1221 08:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of quotations without any indication of... well, anything. BTLizard 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abraham and redirect. Probably NN on its own, but may be searched for.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as indiscriminate information. We have concordances for such trivia. YechielMan 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abraham. Redirects are cheap and accomplishes the same goal. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abraham per Shinmawa.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abraham and redirect there. This one is a no-brainer - a one-paragraph stub that belongs back with its parent. I could imagine someone hearing the expression Seed of Abraham in some religious media and wondering "what is that" and coming to us (Wikipedia) for an answer. By itself the article has no context or foundation, and may be rather non-neutral, leaning strongly towards Christianity, and ignoring Abraham's true heritage. The stub does not even appear to link to Abraham as a cross reference! For all an uninitiated novice would know it could be Abraham Lincoln. But placed the information in the context of Abraham's article, in an appropriate section, it would start to make sense. Cut and paste, redirect and done. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete as patent nonsense under CSD G1.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flogbert[edit]

Article appears to be a hoax. I can find no substantiation on the internet or McDonald's website that Flogbert was another name for Grimace, who is a very well known character in McDonald's marketing campaigns. Original author of this article has no other edits. Article fits in a genre (children's pop culture) that is a frequent target of WP vandals.Professor marginalia 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. This is complete balls anyway. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (translated) as nom withdrawn. Exists at University of Birjand. utcursch | talk 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

دانشگاه بیرجند[edit]

Foreign language article, listed at WP:PNT for 4 weeks (per PNT, after 2 weeks, articles should be listed at AfD). Akradecki 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs to be on the Arabic wikipedia. (That is Arabic, yesno?) No speedy, since if this isn't copied yet, I want to give it some time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously no interest in translating this article. Resolute 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Persian language; it's about the University of Birjand in Birjand, Iran. Currently there's no University of Birjand page to redirect it to, and I don't know whether the university is notable or not; let me do some research. cab 04:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, hopefully it's worth translating. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per as nom R_Orange 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep,Translated, but may not be notable.Waiting for AliBaBa's resaerch
- Comment - generally, all universities are considered notable. Too bad it took an AfD for someone to do the translation. I'm willing to withdraw the nom if others are in agreement Akradecki 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if translated per above comments. Should be notable enough. Adrian M. H. 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/nom withdrawn - Article is now translated, at University of Birjand; this article now redirects there. Akradecki 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. YechielMan 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikortsminda[edit]

Listed on WP:PNT since April 19; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the untranslated Georgian text (obviously if someone with abilities in that language happens along, all the better) and started work on a replacement page. Essentially, we're dealing with a place which contains a very famous and very attractive church and which also doubles as an archbishopric. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changes by BigHaz. No reason to delete it anymore. Someguy1221 08:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course, and hats off to BigHaz for a nice display of initiative. I suggest this afd be withdrawn or closed early. nadav 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per as nom and all above R_Orange 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw nom - too bad it took an AfD to get someone to do this. It was listed at WP:PNT for about a month with no action. Akradecki 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A2 / WP:SNOW) Zsinj^Talk 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ბოდბის მონასტერი[edit]

Listed on WP:PNT since April 19; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Work permit 06:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the article originator isn't interested in translating it into the language of this Wikipedia then kill it. This is the English language Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even know what is says. Someguy1221 08:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in Georgian, and I believe it is about some church, whose notability I am uncertain of. Whatever the case, its already got a page at the Georgian Wikipedia.[8] Serpent's Choice 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Apparently no interest in translating this article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc 1864 Cuba Libre! 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the English Wikipedia. Re-introduce if translated into English. It already has a page at the Georgian Wikipedia. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a page specifically to request translations of texts in other wikipedias. How can we go about getting it more visible so this stops happening? Any ideas? -Yupik 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you, Yupik; it is not very easy to find. Pop over to VPR and raise the issue there, and also mention it at Wikipedia talk:Translation. That should get some attention. Adrian M. H. 22:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A2). Tagged. MER-C 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Truong[edit]

Listed on WP:PNT since April 23; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the English WP, put it in English or in the trash. In the current form, it is useless as anyone that can read it can read it on another language WP. Slavlin 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author said an English translation was "coming soon" three weeks ago. I think we've waited long enough. Someguy1221 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 Tizio 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheSkippy.net[edit]

Website with no documentation of notability. Prod contested. Alvestrand 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable website. Akradecki 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, just another website. --Bongwarrior 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 - does not assert the importance or significance of its subject CIreland 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7, does not assert why this website is notable per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, so tagged. Charlie 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan F. Vujanovic[edit]

Listed on WP:PNT since April 23; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No comment. Someguy1221 08:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The formatting of the article makes me suspect a copyvio, but I can't find from where so I can't tag it as such. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio from printed sources. Namely Glas Javnosti [9] (section titled "Istinit događaj iz pera policajca" is a short summary of the actual article from the printed version of the newspaper) and Politika newspaper. Some of the citations are probably from the book itself (the article talks more about the book than its author even though the article is named by the author of the book), but Im not buying the book just to verify that. Maybe, if the article creator could be taught the difference between copying entire source and just referencing the source a good article might be made. (Although Im not sure of the actually notability) Shinhan 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reliable reference citied as well. Hydrogen Iodide 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wales, Aberystwyth Debating Union[edit]

Notability of this university debating organization appears to be extremly iffy. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The origins of the society date back to early October, 2006... now that's what I call chutzpah! Maybe worth a mention in University of Wales, Aberystwyth, but that's it. BTLizard 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a student group directory. Antonrojo 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, a brief mention on main university is all it merits. Davewild 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If they were notable debaters, they'd be in here winning this battle... Canuckle 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyadic communication[edit]

Article contains no information. Terms used are too vague to be useful and stub does not seem to have any scope of growth. It is a communication article, although labelled in Rhetoric, there appears to be another relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chris_Babiarz. Regards, xC | ☎ 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While a google search seems to indicate this is a valid topic, the article right now has zero context and is something of a head scratcher. No prejudice against recreating as a valid stub/article, of course, but what is here is useless. If someone more knowledgable is able to "fix" the article prior to the end of this AfD I'll happily retract my !vote. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Interpersonal communication Canuckle 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or in other words merge into interpersonal communication. Can be completely covered there as a subsection.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Bleach (manga).

I realize this is not standard closing procedures, since even WP:SNOW closes are usually given more than just a couple hours to sit. However, since the page under discussion is simply a duplicate of the existing article Bleach (manga), this discussion needn't have been brought to AfD in the first place. Since the page title is a potential search term, I'm ignoring a rule here to save trouble and closing the debate now as redirect. The nominator has agreed with me as well (see User talk:Haggawaga - Oegawagga#Bleach duplicate article AFD).

Feel free to come beat me with rubber hoses on my talk page if you for some reason disagree with this. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach (anime series)[edit]

Article with information about the anime already exists here Stormin' Foreman 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats about the manga, no about the series! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely about the manga. At the bottom of the page there is a table that has information about the entire Bleach franchise, including a list of Bleach episode summaries

Note: This AFD was incomplete, so I've listed it under deletions for today (the 18th). -- Ned Scott 05:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely redundant to Bleach (manga). WP:ANIME naming conventions suggest using (manga) because it was the first format the story was on, but the article contains information about both, which is the norm for such articles. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bleach (manga), this doesn't even need to be on AfD. --tjstrf talk 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article about the manga, which appears to contain all the material related to this franchise. -- saberwyn 08:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White furniture company[edit]

Appears abandoned by its creator. In its current form, the article asserts notability but doesn't show it. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hadn't noticed the article before, but I'll take over the updating and wikifying it. --Folic Acid 11:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage here at least gives me some idea that this company might meet the standards of WP:ORG, though I may have my doubts about getting enough reliable sources. FrozenPurpleCube 00:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. The article gave the impression that there were 4 references, but it had none. If kept, rename to White Furniture Company. Vegaswikian 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move to White Furniture Company per Vegas. I'm not 100% satisfied it meets WP:Org, but seem reasonable to let Folic Acid ad the contributor expand the article. It does need more references, but so do many WP articles. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Khorrami[edit]

Does Not meet WP:PROF. No independent, reliable sources establishing him as a significant expert or important figure in his field. His publications do not appear to be the basis of a significant number of independent works. Nor does it appear he's won a significant award. He's recently (2004) been promoted to full professor. Work permit 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. The article describes him as "prolific." Is there no indication in physics or Iranian circles that this is so? His English-language CV lists 70 published research papers and his site links to an Algebra textbook in Persian (written by him?) Canuckle 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 70 papers are mostly in journals of the highest possible quality: Physical Review or Nuclear Physics B. There might be some question due to our unfortunate lack of area knowledge about Alzahra University, Tehran, but there is no doubt about the quality of the internationally known journals in which he has published. Fortunately, we not do our own peer-review: the peer reviews of these journals have done it for us. If the referees of those journals think so many of his works notable, he's notable. DGG
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ Work Permit 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone active in Iranian academic studies or the relevant fields of physics can show that he has lacks awards and prestige. There is a systematic bias in Wikipedia towards discounting sources not in English or a few other languages commonly studied in English-speaking countries. Seventy published papers in notable even in physics where higher paper counts are common (few of these papers have more than three authors, suggesting his involvement is substantial). I too would like to see a list of awards and invitations to speak at foreign universities, etc., but not being able to read the Persian CV, I can't comment further. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 70 papers including some in first-class journals is sufficient proof that the first four criteria of WP:PROF are satisfied. --Zero^talk 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the requirements of PROF. John Vandenberg 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael ocean[edit]

Vanity ZayZayEM 05:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No refs, no commercially released records, and the record label he created returns zero google hits. Appears to be an unremarkable basement musician. --Bongwarrior 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7, appears to be WP:COI/WP:AUTO, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. Created his own record label and then released an album on it... not quite an assertion of notability, IMHO. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I think it asserts notability enough to pass speedy, though, so I'm removing that tag. Mango juice^talk 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has conflict of interest concerns and doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Addhoc 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 does seem to be a copyvio of [10]. If something is a copyvio, you don't need to use AFD by the way... see WP:CV and WP:CSD. W.marsh 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outworlds Alliance[edit]

This fictional organization doesn't seem to be notable, and the text appears to be highly suspiciously something taken from a copyrighted source. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Nlu's assesment, as the material appears to have been copy-pasted from another document, with no attempts to implement wikiformatting. It is written from an in-universe perspective, which is contrary to the Manual of Style for writing about fiction. No sources for information external to the fictional nation... heck, no source full stop. Delete unless the notability of this fictional nation can be demonstrated through the use of sourced material external to the BattleTech Universe or the people/organisations directly responsible for producing the fictional works that make up the BattleTech Universe. -- saberwyn 08:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Radiata Stories[edit]

This article about the Radiata Stories characters appears to be ... well, too much information. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Radiata Stories, the game features "over 300 characters and 177 recruitable NPC's", which seems hefty. Why is this character article more loathsome than the Final Fantasy character articles, for instance? QuagmireDog 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I tend to agree with the above comment. The article needs major work and needs to be cut way down, but I don't think that means it has to be deleted. --Chuck Sirloin 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Beautician and the Beast. History is still there if anyone wants to merge in more content. W.marsh 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovetzian[edit]

This fictional language is not significant enough for its own article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beautician and the Beast. Also, if possible, merge any useful content there, as that article could benefit from expansion, such as some properly sourced information from here. However, the amount of secondary information out there (i.e., excluding original research based on viewing the movie itself) probably does not lend to a standalone article that would pass WP:FICTION. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this article for speedy deletion, but the author asked for more time to work on the article, so I removed the speedy and added the underconstruction tag. He hasn't worked on it in more than a month and no progress seems imminent, so it's time to delete and merge any relevant information into the main movie article. Realkyhick 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. Doesn't merit an article of its own. Clarityfiend 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not redirect worthy. Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There doesn't seem to be sufficient outside analysis of the language compared to those of Star Wars. Hence it isn't that notable. IT should be merged into the article of the film.--Kylohk 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnightly Review[edit]

Abandoned by its creator, and there's insufficient information about its notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So notable even I have heard of it! Article is completely insufficient, but The Fortnightly Review was published for nearly 90 years and has articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed), The Oxford Companion to English Literature (4th Ed) and the Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, and I've only the checked books on the bookshelf near my computer. Maegara 07:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't even reach for the bookshelf, I just found several sources by Google Books; picked the easiest-reading one since I'm no expert in this area (e.g. none of the names ring any bells with me, I have to look them all up) and started expanding it a bit. cab 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a famous literary magazine, founded by like some old writer type dude name of Anthony Trollope among others, and notable even if it does date from the dim and distant days before Nintendo and reality TV. It published 3 novels by Trollope in serial form, 2 by George Meredith and poets ranging from Algernon Swinburne and Rossetti to Yeats and Pound. The article's been expanded now. Nick mallory 09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abandoned or not, there's more than enough here already to underwrite the magazine's notability. Ach, die Jugend von heute! BTLizard 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auf gut Deutsch da liegt der Hund begraben. Nick mallory 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, excellent save. Corvus cornix 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Trampolining Club[edit]

University club with no assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete varsity trampolining. Not "the boat race". This takes the biscuit! Ohconfucius 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a student group directory. Antonrojo 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. YechielMan 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until some member has won a major national gymnastic competition or joined the Olympic squad, etc. The club is not notable.--Kylohk 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and expand. Sr 13 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Want That![edit]

Usually, I'd rarely consider a TV show non-notable, but this was previously tagged for speedy delettion, and then the speedy deletion tag was removed without explanation. Right now, there is very little information in this article. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and expand. I plugged "I Want That!" and "HGTV" into Google and got over 140K hits, many of which seem to assert notability. I'm don't watch TV much, so I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I'll see what I can do to this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article in its present form is nearly worthless, but the show itself is notable, as it is still in production and runs weekly on a widely-available cable network in the United States, in three different flavors:I Want That! Kitchens, I Want That! Baths and I Want That! Tech Toys. Horologium talk - contrib 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming article is expanded and sourced prior to the close of this AfD. I have no knowledge of the show so I can't do much for it, myself, but as stated above a search seems to establish notability. If, however, no work is done by the close then my recommendation is to delete with no prejudice against valid re-creation. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I orginally removed the speedy from this, because while the entry itself was almost nonexistent, the notability of this television program is clear (it is popular enough to have inspired several spin-offs). I prompted the original author to expand the text, but that hasn't happened. I guess one of us will have to roll up our sleeves and fill this puppy out (personally, I don't want to, as I'm not a big fan of TV). If Ten Pound Hammer is up to it, I'll applaud. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Kloppenborg[edit]

Lots of published works listed, but they don't seem to be past the genre of "what a tenured professor is supposed to write anyway" and therefore don't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination makes very little sense. I would expect a notable scholar in the field of New Testament studies to have written in the genre of "scholarly publications in the field of New Testament studies". How does that make him non-notable? Does a New Testament scholar have to publish political thrillers or porn novels to be notable? If you want to argue that he is not a notable New Testament scholar you need to make a case for that, not claim that he is non-notable because he doesn't do something else. (BTW, Kloppenborg is cited and linked to in several Wikipedia articles on New Testament topics.) Pharamond 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, acccording to WP:N, you don't simply find a professor notable based on published works, because every professor does that. The question is -- is Kloppenborg significantly more notable than the average professor, and if so, how so? The article hasn't shown it. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The really important issue is obviously what influence his work has had, to what extent it is cited and discussed by others. At least here on Wikipedia, he is cited in a number of articles. It is possible that his views are given undue weight in these places. If that is the case, we may have a systemic problem that should be taken care of by people who have some competence in the area. (Are there any actual New Testament scholars on Wikipedia, rather than just religious or anti-religious people with an axe to grind? I hope there are.) But if that is not the case, I think it is of interest to Wikipedia's readers to have an article on him, giving an overview of his scholarship. The article does not look finished, but few articles around here do, and some editors have been working actively on it during the last few weeks. Pharamond 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, respected expert/writer/translator. John Vandenberg 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't my field, but even I recognize the quality of the journals in which he has published. The average professor does not publish a dozen books and 50 or so peer-reviewed journal articles! Those who do not know the journals can at least recognize the University of Toronto as a research university of the very highest standing. Such universities do not hire "average professors" in the first place, and most certainly elevate only the exceptional to full professor. Nlu, the article shows the quality be giving his rank and university. They did the quality screening. We just acknowledge it/DGG 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a specious nomination, and I suggest that it be withdrawn. He easily passes WP:PROF. See also participation in Slate debate: [11]. nadav 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant publications, augmented by citations on Wikipedia itself. JamesMLane t c 09:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep In addition to factors already mentioned, Kloppenberg's notability is based on his original and groundbreaking research into the origins of and his studies of the Q document. He is frequently cited by other authors in regard to this document and interpretations of it and it is helpful to anyone seeing those citations to be able to look up Kloppenberg. I do intend to expand the article more, as I better feel comfortable that I truly understand Kloppenberg's point of view and signifigance in the field.Markisgreen 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- a deletion of this article would say that almost no academic could be notable. Far beyond the average professor, almost certainly in the top 1%. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Myke Cuthbert said it all. --Zero^talk 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as CSD A7 by TexasAndroid. --Xnuala (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TechWarrior[edit]

There's no assertion of notability for this RPG, and the company that developed it has no article. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable web content. MER-C 08:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Mardavich 08:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though cleanup would not go amiss. Moreschi ^Talk 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quake done Quick[edit]

Fails WP:N: does not have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. It only has two fan sources (Slashdot, which people themselves write the stories; and the Speedrun demo archive, another fan site). No magazine reviews, major gaming site coverage to speak of (couldn't find anything with a quick Google search). hbdragon88 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hbdragon88 06:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seminal piece of speedrunning/machinima. I'm not sure if this link works, but its on Google Books [12], and is covered by online articles such as this one on Speedrunning at Der Spiegel. These have definitely been covered by magazines, as when I first watched them, it must have been off some cover disk as I had not yet got a steady online connection then. - hahnch e n 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: WP:NOTABILITY. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other." I have not found anything that fulfills this. --Teggles 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral: Voters have shown this has a fair bit of a notability, and it's clear that deletion would not be the best thing. However, I still have problems with the notability, it seems almost everything to discuss it is a low-popularity magazine or Internet website. --Teggles 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading hahnchen's vote, my statement might be partially incorrect, but I still would not consider what he has given as a pass of WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a multitude of articles around that don't have anything like this kind of media coverage, and yet they're allowed to exist. Some of the Pokémon articles come to mind. So we've got a book that dedicates 4 pages to this speedrun, multiple scholarly references, and articles by rather large news companies and some of the bigger game news websites, but yet it's still considered to be not notable? There is no other speedrun that has been given so much attention, and I think that counts for something. —msikma (user, talk) 09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't pull a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on me. Not to mention I am trying to get most of the Pokémon articles merged/deleted. One of the scholarly references simply lists Quake Done Quick in a list of links, and the other can't be viewed, so it is impossible to decide if it's focused. --Teggles 19:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can view the book chapter on-line here. It devotes quite a lot of time to QdQ. — brighterorange (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of multiple nontrivial media coverage, see google news archive results and google books result (one of three) and multiple google scholar results. You can see a draft of one of the papers here, it spends about four pages talking about the QDQ team as some of the first speedrunners. The article needs a rewrite to make their importance clear, since it mostly focuses on simple statistics. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Popularity is not notability; most of those "sources" merely mention QDQ, rather than cover it, if I'm not mistaken. Find something major. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- four pages in a published peer reviewed paper is a mere mention? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, one. That being said, that source probably merits it for a merge into Electronic sports or Speedruns itself. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Among those results, we find one book that talks about it for four pages and includes two images, and one scholarly article that cites Quake Done Quick as a reference (which should give it at least some credit). These two results are strong, because they are published and peer-reviewed. The other results are also strong, although they only mention Quake Done Quick. However, just mentioning it (instead of mentioning any other machinima movie or speedrun) means that it is notable in some way. There are also about 28300 results on Google, mainly sites that have written articles about it or have mirrored the video. The fact that it's mirrored so often means that people have taken the content and uploaded it themselves, independently of the authors of the movie. Some of the results via Google are also very high-ranked, as the Wikipedia page for Quake Done Quick does not appear until the second page. All in all, I'd say that the web too would agree that this isn't just an ordinary temporary Internet phenomenon. It has reached some point of significance. —msikma (user, talk) 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slashdot may have people themselves right the stories, but there's still an editorial selection process involved in what articles do appear. Perhaps a merge to speedrun might be appropriate (thoug that article is being rewritten, so it'd be best to talk about it first). And I'm not entirely sure, but I believe demos of this may have been included on PC Gamer Demo discs? Or Boot/Maximum PC? That could establish some notability too. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Very trivial article, and not very encyclopedic. People do speedruns for just about any video game: that certainly doesn't mean they need articles here on Wikipedia. While somewhat interesting, it's not a decent article for this Wikipedia. Try a video game wiki of some sort. RobJ1981 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe that it should be rewritten to be more decent (in which case I would simply disagree with deletion; time will improve articles), or that it's unencyclopedic and should not be included? With the caliber of the articles and books mentioning this run, I would say that it's quite a far stretch to just shrug this article off as "yet an other unnecessary fan-made article". I won't hide the fact that I'm a fan of speedrunning, but I think that this article is still a good idea, as it's a specific example of speedrunning that's been featured enough to be at least of adequate notability, as that alone is quite rare for what is essentially (partially) an Internet phenomenon. —msikma (user, talk) 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably the most famous speedrun out there. Sources are adequate (since when is Slashdot a "fan site"?), especially considering the additional ones found by hanchen and night gyr. — brighterorange (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fancruft. --Oscarthecat 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have written this article after initially including it in speedrun. The reason for the split was the same for this particular run being mentioned in the speedrun article at some point: it's a very notable example that has been covered extensively (for a speedrun). One can also find discussion on this subject in various books, as shown by Night Gyr, as well as scholarly articles. There are also many passing references in various works (such as magazines), which too should account for at least some notability. I even still have a PC Gamer CD from 1997 which contains the run. Although the article is currently not very well written (it's been quite some time since I extensively edited it), I think that all it needs is a bit of work to bring it up to a good standard. There's no real reason for deletion here, I believe, because WP:N is not being violated. —msikma (user, talk) 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be quite surprised if there's never been a page or two spread on QdQ in some gaming magazines, in fact; did the PC Gamer issue have some coverage or was it "just" on the cover CD? — brighterorange (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, certainly, the magazine did dedicate a full page to it. I remember that there was something along the lines of an interview too, although I don't remember with whom. It's unfortunate that it was so long ago, since game magazines usually don't put their really old content online. It's for this reason that there are relatively few sources of coverage from such magazines online right now. —msikma (user, talk) 10:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A print magazine is certainly a reliable source though, even if it is not as useful for on-line readers of Wikipedia. — brighterorange (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yes, it's much more difficult to get a print resource published than an online resource. It's undergone more rigorous editing and review. The book source that was recently added to the article is excellent. I also feel that even though this article might get deleted (even though I strongly disagree with that at this point), it can be recreated later in case we do find some of these sources, which would certainly end the notability debate once and for all. They're out there, as this speedrun has certainly had enough limelight (back in its day, at least). —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Speedrun article (section 5.1) has all the relevant bits of this article sans the obvious COI element. This article is redundant and, on its own, does not rise to the level of deserving an article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? COI element? There's no such thing. I made this article because I felt that it was notable enough for inclusion. I didn't create the Quake Done Quick runs, and don't have any affiliation with the group. Note that WP:COI states: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." - I'm certainly an expert on the subject of speedrunning, I would say, and it's for this reason that I felt I could contribute to this particular article. It does not imply that I'm only here to bolster that which I'm a fan of, and I find it a bit alarming that you would say I am. —msikma (user, talk) 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources. Download websites, google hits, and primary source material are NOT replacements for credible secondary sources! Wickethewok 04:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has dedicated four pages of his book to this speedrun, and there are multiple scholarly references to it. Do you believe that these aren't secondary sources? They have nothing to do with the original authors of the speedrun. —msikma (user, talk) 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...scholarly references to Quake Done Quick? That's going to need a link. --Teggles 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the links posted above, among them this one. —msikma (user, talk) 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen this mentioned over and over again when discussing speedrunning and Quake movies in general, especially when these first came out (yep, Slashdot at least, as mentioned in the article). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be popular in its own community, but does it mean it is noticed by other gamers? I checked the search engine, and can't a single gaming magazine or other media mentioning it. Most sources are blog like in nature. Hence it fails WP:N.--Kylohk 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arbitrary decisions as to what people are interested in and what they are not are too arrogant to be made, even on Wikipedia. Just because there are no academic essays on QDQ doesn't mean it's not notable. Reliable sources have already been mentioned. Plus, games magazines (paper) would have to be checked and evaluated for coverage. I recall a few polish magazine issues covering speedrunning, with the explicit mention of QDQ. Mikael GRizzly 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the links posted above, here are some more for sources that cover the Quake done Quick series:
- Showcase: Quake done Quicker at machinima.com, an article detailing the history of the series.
- Interview: Hugh Hancock of Strange Company] from Eurogamer, dated from 2000. Here, Hancock — the founder of Strange Company, one of the more well-known machinima groups — talks about QdQ for a paragraph or so.
- The Running Men: The website of Computer and Video Games spends a few paragraphs describing QdQ's role in speedrunning.
- Speed Thrills: The Escapist, mostly citing Lowood's paper on "High-Performance Play", describes QdQ's role in the development of machinima.
— TKD::Talk 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it deserves mention it should be on the main Quake article in the form of a line or paragraph, a full article is nothing more than cruft. --凶 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you consider it not notable enough to have its own article even after seeing the links provided by hahnch and TKD? —msikma (user, talk) 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TKD's references. There seem to be reliable notability-establishing sources to be found in the Escapist and possibly some of the others. We don't need to make any value judgements here. But in case anyone wants to, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and as such can include articles appropriate for a specific-subject encyclopedia. This would be fine for a video game encyclopedia, without becoming cruft, as a notable example of speed runs. Ichibani 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need yet another article about a non notable trick that a few people can do in video games. At least, that's what I gather the article is about (rewrite if it stays, for the love of god). As far as I can see, this article is not notable. G1ggy! 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of the first sentence in the article states clearly "Quake done Quick is a series of machinima and speedrun movies [...]". This article is not about "a trick that some people can do", and it's the only article of its kind (about a speedrun production) on the entire wiki as far as I'm aware. I don't see where you seem to have gotten that impression. You should give articles about a subject that you don't know anything about a chance, and not just suggest that they should be deleted because you don't really know what it seems to be. (I get the impression that people are less willing to do the necessary research to determine whether an article should stay or not when it concerns a niche subject, although this should not matter at all, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.) —msikma (user, talk) 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD A3. Stormie 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solanum arcanum[edit]

Abandoned by its creator, and in its current form consists of only a single external link. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3, as the sole content of the article throughout its entire edit history has been an external link and a single line description of the external link's usefulness as a source. -- saberwyn 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3, no content other than external links, If this article was going to be expanded it's had two weeks. So tagged. Hut 8.5 07:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to Dragonmarked house. I believe g0rg0n has the content, but if anything else is needed please ask. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Cannith[edit]

This article about a house in the Eberron setting seems to be simply too much information, as Wikipedia is not a game manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following articles for deletion for the same reason:

House Deneith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Ghallanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Jorasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Kundarak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Lyrandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Medani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Orien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Phiarlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Sivis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Tarkanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Tharashk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Thuranni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Vadalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House Vol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~~Keep~~ - Eberron is the latest setting for Dungeons and Dragons, the largest and best selling RPG in the world. These house articles don't read as a game manual and are pivotal to the Eberron setting. I'm not proposing we keep all the articles for all RPG settings, but these ones happen to be important for the understanding of this setting and it's not all going to fit into the Eberron article. Could do with a tidy to remove redlinks that are never going to have articles (at least not ones that won't be AFDd).Ben W Bell talk 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Upon consideration I think it's probably best that these articles are all trimmed down and then merged into a single "Dragonmarked houses (Eberron)" article or some such instead of having an article each. They are important for the understanding of the setting, but not important enough to support an article each. Also I'm not convinced the copyright notice on the logo images counts for made up organisations and artwork. Ben W Bell talk 10:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible it is wrong, i referenced prior articles such as the Rogue Squadron crest. Any suggestions? --g0rg0n 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can tag logos for fictional organisations as ((non-free logo|fictional logos)), which will categorize them into Category:Fictional logos. However, these images were previously deleted ([13]), and I'm not sure that they qualify for fair use here. --Muchness 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ben W Bell's original statement, but I would not be adverse to having the articles trimmed down ~~slightly~~ and merged into a (ungoly massive) List of Houses of Eberron or similar. -- saberwyn 08:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) updated -- saberwyn 10:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually yes a merge into just one article with the excess fat trimmed off may be a better idea. Ben W Bell talk 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I concur with the AfD proposer that these articles go overboard. Ben W Bell's argument is specious: D&D may be the largest and best-selling RPG in the world, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a universal comprehensive compendium. Dungeons & Dragons and Eberron more than do justice to the subject at hand. Groupthink 09:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. If in fact the best bits of all of these articles can be boiled down to a concise entry, I'd be OK with a "Houses of Eberron" page, but I'd much rather these pages were deleted in favor of a subsection on the current Eberron page. Groupthink 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - There is nothing warranting an article on every single one of these houses. Merge if notability is proven (just because it's in DoD doesn't make it notable), if not delete it. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 09:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and strongly trim. In their current state, articles like House Deneith are also badly lacking in context, so merge Dragonmarked house and all the above articles to a new Houses of Eberron. Context and notability could be established per WP:NOTE, since Eberron has been the subject of published works, awards, etc. Clicketyclack 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a reasonably significant aspect of the Eberron setting, and has generated its fair share of discussion. A sourceable article should be possible without difficulty at either Dragonmarked House or Houses of Eberron (editorial discretion). But individual pages for each house? Too much detail. Serpent's Choice 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Remove NPOV. At least the latest article is rife with self praise. Antonrojo 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I will go ahead and remerge all the documents and trim them up this weekend since i was the one to write the articles in the first place, it seems apropriate. Since this is my first project i appreciate your feedback and your patience. --g0rg0n 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this information but trim it heavily. A lot of the content is not encyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after a thorough purge. A brief coverage of the houses is encyclopedic, but further details should either remain in Eberron books or go on some Eberron Wiki. FrozenPurpleCube 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should we close this as a merge under Snowball? Ben W Bell talk 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, cold and frosty is what I say! Charlie 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed up and merged with the Dragonmarked house article, ive kept the text in these articles in a personal file so that i may use them to perhaps expand the house descriptions in the main article a bit. Please feel free to delete the individual house articles. I personally have no idea how article deletion works. --g0rg0n 07:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion describes how it's done. Quick summary: some Wikipedia:Administrators check that agreed process has been followed, and that there's been reasonable consultation and a consensus arrived at (like here), then they delete the article(s). Clicketyclack 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a mergefrom-multiple tag at the top of Eberron. Groupthink 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were planning on merging them into a separate article, not the Eberron article. Ben W Bell talk 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. I'll move the merge-multiple tag from Eberron to Dragonmarked house. Groupthink 07:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden sombrero[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I realize it's bad form to just quote policy, but I can think of no better argument for deleting this article than: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." -Groupthink 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd normally agree with you but this seems to have some significance referred to in the second paragraph. If it were simply "a golden sombrero is X", I'd say delete it, but as it stands now, it is probably verifiable and encyclopedic (though barely). -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced It appears that the term is in use among sportswriters. On the hunt for more sources. DarkAudit 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some sources. The Rocky Mountain News cites Dickinson Baseball Dictionary, but the only ghit for that was the Rocky Mountain News article itself. It's not listed at amazon, either. DarkAudit 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if better sourced and trimmed. This is why I hate baseball, they are consummate statistics fanatics and seem to have records for every imaginable statistic. The list of players who have "acheived" this feat seems unecessary as well. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The list of players who have "acheived" this feat seems unecessary as well." - especially since it is the list of players not who have achieved the "feat" described in the article title, but indeed gone one better (worse?) - fchd 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there's no doubt that term is actually used, I don't think it passes WP:NEO. To quote the policy, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.. While one of the links comes close, it's a brief bit in a larger article and doesn't show that the term is notable beyond a certain people. Ytny (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering that players like Don Baylor were using the term ten or twenty years ago, I would submit that the phrase is old enough to not really be a neologism. DarkAudit 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concede that neologism is the wrong descriptor but I still question whether it meets the notability criteria and the argument against using non-notable neologism applies to this not-neologism. Again, I'm not questioning whether the term is in use. The question is whether the term and the concept are important enough for an encyclopedia article. While it may be an established term among baseball players and writers, what importance does it have for people who aren't involved in baseball? And as Ksy92003 points out, the article is nothing more than the definition and players who have "achieved" the feat, and I can't imagine it'll expand beyond that. Ytny (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known term in baseball, and decidedly not a neologism. Corvus cornix 23:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is simply a definition followed by a list to demonstrate how often the feat has occured. Even more of a reason for deletion is it isn't an official term. It's not a term officially regonized my Major League Baseball. It's baseball lingo around the baseball community, but it isn't an officially recognized term by league offices. Therefore, I don't think it deserves article space on Wikipedia.

Secondly, the bulk of the article is a list of players who have achieved this "feat." Not only are lists not appropriate in mainspace (this is what categories are for), but why is Bert Blyleven on the list? He's a pitcher, and pitchers most likely won't achieve a hitting accomplishment like this. --Ksy92003 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blyleven is on the list for the same reason as Lefty Grove--because he did accomplish the feat. And back before the advent of the DH and the demise of the complete game, I expect that pitchers would be more likely to do it.

And who cares if it's an official term? Is WP supposed to be subservient to Bud Selig's whims? Unofficial terms in many fields have legitimate articles here. Matchups 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that Grand slam (baseball) should be an AfD for the same reason. For a grand slam, what can you say? The only thing I can think of for the entire article is "A grand slam in baseball occurs when a batter hits a home run when there is a baserunner on first, second, and third base." What else can you say about a grand slam? That article consists of a definition and statistics. Such statistics include the following:

"In the 2005 major league season, grand slams accounted for 132 of the 5017 total home runs hit (2.6 %)."

The difference is notoriety and context. Firstly, "Grand Slam" is a far more well-known term. 9 out of 10 average citizens could tell you that a "Grand Slam" is a remarkable baseball play, even if they couldn't describe exactly what it was. Secondly, "Grand Slam" can be and has been used as a sports analogy in a non-baseball context (e.g., "I'd say not only did he knock it out of the park with that speech; he hit a grand slam." Neither of these applies to "Golden sombrero"; no one outside of baseball has used the term nor knows wtf it means. Groupthink 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which describes an event, object, etc. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, which unfortunately is what the Grand Slam article is, minus some statistics. Now, let's look at the "Golden Sombrero."

What can you say for a Golden sombrero? The only thing I could say is "'Golden sombrero' is a baseball term slang for the occurrence of a batter striking out [X many] times in a single game." There isn't any background for the terminology, there isn't any secondary source or any source of any sort to give any support for any information related to the terminology. What else can be said about this? --Ksy92003 04:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the article was just the definition of the term, then I could see the case for deleting it. However, the article goes into more detail and describes the origin of the term and identifies the individual players that "accomplished" the feat. Because of that, I put this article on par with Hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. I definitely think those articles, and this article, belong on wikipedia. X96lee15 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But hitting for the cycle and no-hitters are significant accomplishments that receive substantial coverage and even casual baseball fans are aware of. The golden sombrero is a statistical footnote that has little cache beyond baseball insiders and experts. I think a better comparison is the Mendoza Line, but at least that term is used outside of baseball. --Ytny (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only baseball insiders and experts would cache info on the G.S., but it also has little cachet too. ;-) Groupthink 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has information well beyond a dictionary and well suited for an article. Current lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion. If you could show that sourcing were impossible, then deletion would be reasonable. Here's an RS that might help from the Sporting News. Matchups 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition component of the article is well within the scope of a dictionary or slang/jargon/usage guide. The rest of the article, as mentioned above, is a mere stat listing. This isn't a sourcing problem, it's a worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia problem. Groupthink 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary?[edit]

Look, it's not that I dislike America's pasttime, but why does GS have to be a Wikipedia article? Why can't everything that's in this article be merged with the Wiktionary entry, where IMHO it belongs? Groupthink 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redwall Online Community[edit]

Completely uncited, non-notable furry/Redwall/forum-cruft. Term is not used in any reliable sources, and this fandom in general is not discussed in any either. No ghits on term outside of forums. In essence, what we have here is absolutely nothing verifiable, notable, or of interest to a general audience, at least from the research I have done. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete. That is a stunningly classic example of WP:CSD#A7 created by a contributor list of dead user names and anon IP addresses. Kill it before it grows. Groupthink 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything that we could verify in reliable sources, I can't find it. The current article appears to be hopelessly original research. They have a very nice Wikia setup that contains most of this information, and that's where it belongs. William Pietri 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Leuko 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AllAdvantage[edit]

This does not seem notable: WP:N G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is dangerously close to WP:CSD#G11. Weak keep, but only if notoriety is much better established and backed with cites, and promotional/advert type passages eliminated. Otherwise, delete. Groupthink 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, now I feel old. ;) AllAdvantage was for a while synonymous with 'Paid to surf' advertising and, long before there even was Google Adsense, essentially pioneered the entire genre and pushed it into the mainstream. This was the stuff everybody was talking about in IT and VC circles back in 1999. This wasn't just some obscure niche, run-of-the-mill banner ad service - AllAdvantage was huge during the bubble and pretty much symbolize everything that was wrong with this particular business model (if you even want to call it that). I guess you could legitimately claim that we have these guys to thank for the rise of adware, as well as a bunch of other failed business models (free dial-up Internet service with ads, the free-pc.coms of this world, sponsored webtv service). I'd say they're definitely notable. It's just that the article could do a better job of establishing that. -- Seed 2.0 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be fairly well sourced. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps you should look at [[14]] which I think clearly indicates some notability. The current sources may be a tad more dubious, but I think the Washington post doing a front-page story on anything makes it notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many more cites would you like? There's about a dozen substantive citations there. The article does indeed discuss the impact the company had on the advertising markeplace and the industry as a whole (a mention of its role in popularizing the adware, as suggested above). Finally, I don't get this "it sounds like advertising" thing. The company doesn't exist any more! Check out the articles for some existing companies and there's far more promotional content in those pieces; speaking kindly of the dead isn't advertising. 71.202.86.94 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On 20 November 2006, it was reported that several AllAdvantage founders were reincarnating the business under a new company, AGLOCO (which stands for "A Global Community")." Promoting the resurrection of a corporate entity is too advertising. Groupthink 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion page for the article, some have argued that that one sentence is relevant, but some have suggested removing that one sentence. I think to label one factual, sourced, and arguably relevant sentence as inappropriate "promotion" is being a bit hypersensitive. But that's a discussion for the discussion page of the article itself. However it doesn't seem that the existence of one sentence merits the deletion of the article.71.202.86.94 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I argue for a weak/conditional keep. Groupthink 22:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pffft. Not notable? AllAdvantage is almost a canonical cautionary example of a dot-com bubble story. ("I've got a great idea, let's pay users for surfing the web." "Very good. How do we get money?" "Eh... *dies*") It was clearly a notable company back in the day and clearly worthy of a cautionary tale or two here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It indeed encapsulates a notable industry that may one day be nothing more than history. --MaTrIx 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Sorry to jump in late here, but thought I'd mention: the company was notable enough for a sitting United States President and 15 Members of Congress to attend the company's anniversary party in the CEO's backyard [[15]]. Yeah, it was the "go-go" "dotcom" days, but if the President showing up for a party ain't notable in your world, you're traveling in a different plane of existence. Admittedly I'm biased. :) Rayeverettchurch 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Keep after the article was improved. Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure. G1 ggy! 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Ensor[edit]

WP:N, I see nothing significant on Google. It also may have WP:BLP issues G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blp: "Born in Marseille on 11th August 1885..." MER-C 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ this bio of a non-notable person that makes no assertions of importance. Groupthink 11:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google (and Google Books) actually gives some hits in academic journals and on other academic websites that seem to confirm her importance in theosophical education in the period between the wars. It is very difficult to understand why it was so urgent to nominate this article for deletion (it was created only yesterday) or how anybody can consider it appropriate to slap a "speedy deletion" tag on it. Helping the author with wiki-esoterica like how to make footnotes and citing sources would have been more constructive. Pharamond 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that I erred with that speedy tag, which is why I retracted it. However, an AfD nomination for this article was perfectly appropriate as a gate-keeper action. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which this article initally lacked. Fortunately, an AfD discussion can serve as a crucible to strengthen an article, but such buttressing is the responsibility of the page creator, not the content reviewers. Now on the discussion page for the article, I did point the original author in the direction of Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:BIO. It is up to the page creator, however, to do the initial legwork and come up with better source material than the official Mormon magazine. Do you really expect content reviewers to Google every single claim that's made on a Wikipedia page? I'm not going to do the author's work for her or him, but I will give her/him the benefit of the doubt and change my recommendation to a ~~conditional~~ keep. I do think "under construction" templates would be appropriate, however. Groupthink 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pharamond - a voice of reason. I feel like I've been jumped on from a great height by the thought police. I am a Wikipedia virgin and need help rather than knee jerk reactions threatening immediate sanctions. They don't seem to think that UNESCO approved organisations of 83 years standing are a reliable sourceEnsojer 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I do not find reliable is New Era magazine. You need to cite materials from secondary academic sources documenting Beatrice Ensor's role in founding her UNESCO-approved organization of 83 year's standing. Groupthink 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for her theosophical activities. Needs citations but it looks as if those will be forthcoming. BTLizard 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for founding schools (St. Christopher School, Letchworth and Frensham Heights School [16]) and societies[17]. BLP? the subject died in 1974? John Vandenberg 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further links for viewing: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/neille.PDF

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/obarae.pdf

http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=9347&9347_0=15400

http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/FERNIG_2.PDF

http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/erhise/ECER2002.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GGIR%2CGGIR%3A2007-14%2CGGIR%3Aen&q=%22beatrice+ensor%22+hungary&meta=

http://www.montessori-ami.org/ - AMI History Milestones World Conference on New Education, 1929 Ensojer 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those first five citations are exactly what I was looking for, a nice mix of reliable primary and secondary sources. Nice work -- make sure you add those in the appropriate places to the article. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Groupthink 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete the farming details. Clarityfiend 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep' and condense. The saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is not applicable. Extraordinary claims means something outside the ordinary course of nature and human experience, & this is an article about a notable woman in her own field on endeavor. If the article had stated that she levitated, or became an Olympic runner in her maturity, or something of the sort, that's what meant by extraordinary. DGG 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. While the "extraordinary requires extraordinary" argument is certainly most frequently made in reference to claims of the paranormal or supernatural, it's not limited to that scope. "Norbert Qwijibo revolutionized the field of widget manufacturing," is an extraordinary claim, "the elephant population in Africa has recently tripled," is an extraordinary claim, and "John Hanson was really the first President of the United States," is an extraordinary claim. "Extraordinary" means that it contradicts a body of well-established knowledge, requiring the re-examination of allegedly established facts. When somebody says, "This woman was a notable historical figure," and she's not frequently mentioned in history texts, then you're well within your rights to say "Oh yeah? Prove it. Give me quality evidence." At the time this article was AfD'd, no such evidence had been provided, ergo the assertions of the article were extraordinary. I'll say it again: this article, at the time it was proposed for AfD, had not yet established notability. Groupthink 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly notable, don't afd when you just want cleanup. --Buridan 15:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that User:G1ggy just wanted cleanup? Groupthink 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when i looked at the article the material was a mess, but clearly demonstrated notability. she says notability re

google, which others easily found, thus i concluded that the state of the article was likely more of an issue than its notability. this one needed cleanup, notability and citation needed tags, not... afd at this stage.--Buridan 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on User_talk:G1ggy asking him to withdraw his AfD nom. Groupthink 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody - have done a fair amount of work over this weekend adding citations, references and photographs. Please advise if this OK and how I can improve it further? Thanks for your helpEnsojer 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Groupthink. G1 ggy! 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by TexasAndroid. Groupthink 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Christian Academy[edit]

Non-notable primary school. Emeraude 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete stub page for non-notable institution. Groupthink 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YechielMan 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves Off[edit]

This is a non-notable show on a STUDENT television channel of the University of Salford, a very minor British university in a suburb of Manchester. It is not available outside of the immediate area and viewership is extremely small. It is most emphatically not a nationally syndicated show. The show is produced by media students from the university (From its own website- "Produced by journalism and production students at the International Media Centre, Salford University, Gloves Off is...". The prosecution rests. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminate with extreme prejudice, as nominator. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prejudice, per nom G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 00:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert notability. Charlie 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am somewhat put off by the nominator's claim of "extreme prejudice" (AfD should be about rationale arguments, not prejudice), but I agree that this show doesn't seem to be notable enough for an encyclopaedia page. Being a student show doesn't necessarily mean that a show is automatically not notable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be anything particularly special or unique about the show. It's already listed on the page about the TV station, and I think that's sufficient. A separate page is not justified. Dorange 10:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke of a form often seen in AfD discussions. By the same token, I am somewhat annoyed that the credibility of our encyclopaedia is being ruined by the inclusion of this kind of self-serving, vanity crap. The only prejudice that I have is towards WP:N and the other policies, guidelines and ethos of Wikipedia. Hopefully all users regulate their AfD !votes according to those criteria, although sadly I doubt if that is the case sometimes. Badgerpatrol 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meaningfully assert notbility. It may be "an invaluable tool, but don't see how it could be notable. Ohconfucius 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Nerd[edit]

Magazine created this month. Definitely nn. Admission of vanispamcruftisement on the talk page. Contested prod. MER-C 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, combined with an assertion of self-promotion. --Stormie 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, WP:VSCA, promo piece. Mr Stephen 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very new publication which has not established encyclopaedic notability (not yet at least). Dorange 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. - 52 Pickup 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is still there a year later and has managed to establish itself in popular culture it may warrant an article. But Wikipedia is no room for publication announcements! Particularly for non-notable publications. User:Dimadick
Delete as Tomfoolery, self-promotional stub about a non-notable magazine. Most importantly, as unsourced Ohconfucius 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author has achieved something by keeping this nonsense on Wiki for the length of time it takes for this process to be completed. SilkTork 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 conditional to rewrite. If the article does not improve, redirect to elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical phenomenon[edit]

This article is composed of two parts: a misleading one and a dictionary definition.

A "Physical phenomenon" is a observable event describable by physics -- this is quite literally everything observed, minus some miracles.

Pjacobi 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see what purpose this article would serve. Anville 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be much more here than a simple dictionary definition. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to phenomenon. That page has a much simpler and equally informing explanation. Someguy1221 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some basic refresher courses in philosophy are called for all around, here.
Connes (ISBN 0691004056) defines a physical phenomenon as the result of an experiment whose outcome is the same every time, assuming specified initial conditions; and that lack of reproducibility or lack of ability to convey the initial conditions, precludes something from being a physical phenomenon. Our article on Léon Teisserenc de Bort explains why that definition is important. And contrary to the implication of the nomination above there are quite a few things that are not physical phenomena, or are held not to be, and physical phenomena are not the only kinds of phenomena. There are philosophers such as Mugur-Schächter (ISBN 1402011202) who assert that spacetime is not a physical phenomenon. In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume holds causation not to be a physical phenomenon, but a psychological one. Naylor, in ISBN 0897894782, defines the concepts of species and fruit as mental phenomena, not physical ones. Nuttin, in ISBN 0898593328, draws a distinction between rain as a physical phenomenon and rain as a psychological phenomenon. Cunningham, in ISBN 0872205185, states that if one applies the duck test to a zombie that is physically identical to onesself, and still concludes that the zombie is conscious, then one has concluded that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon.
I could go on.
The problem here is that these articles are exceedingly bad at explaining the philosophy. They haven't seen any real improvement since 2002. However, that is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason for editors to pick up the aforementioned sources (and many others) and finally improve the articles. The above arguments, that are hung solely from a bad definition given by a poor article rather than from what sources actually say, are flawed. Keep. Uncle G 15:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is pretty bad, but the topic itself is legitimate. Many philosophers (Plato and Aristotle not the least notable among them) have scores of pages recording their ponderings about the nature of physical phenomena: see, e.g., Metaphysics, The Republic, Monadology. A little research can turn this into a decent standalone article. If no one eventually does that, we can just turn it into a redirect to Ontology. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest that the article be rewritten to something more closely resembling Uncle G's comment above. That comment convinces me that the topic is notable. The article as written doesn't. —David Eppstein 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a (redirect), phenomenon and ontology are too general, both in their current state and, i believe, when more developped. So is Category of being. Maybe Philosophy of Physics will serve as a good target (i linked it in the meanwhile). Regarding the future, Uncle G's hints are mostly negative, so if they are compiled into one text, it is better merged into a context (the above, physicalism, materialism or something in the philosophy of science might be good). Know nothing, trespassers william 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to physics unless this article is substantially expanded and improved soon. Overall, I am not sure what can be said here that is not already better said in the physics article. --EMS | Talk 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest the article is rewritten to reflect different views of phylosophy of physics. Dan Gluck 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There already is a philosophy of physics article. Maybe redirect this title to there? --EMS | Talk 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Philosophy of physics. This article does not at all address the discussion that it would need to, whereas Philosophy of physics hits the topic almost right on the head. Ichibani 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phenomenon G1 ggy! 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an obvious hoax. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Elliott[edit]

Hoax, no record of member at Australian Parliamentary website (http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/search_main.aspx) Grahamec 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a lot of trouble to go to to create a hoax unless the name is copied over someone else's bio. No record of this person as an Australian politician, Google turns up zero relevant hits other than mirrors of this page. Euryalus 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, an well written but obvious hoax (I have a good knowledge of Liberal Party history) and there as never been an MHR by that name or even background. Teiresias84 12:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax speedy delete according to http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/name.asp#searchtabs and National archives of Australia there are no service records for a Josiah Elliott between 1938 and 1950. Gnan garra 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear hoax, there have never even been any candidates for either house of Parliament by this name: [18]. --bainer (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, and move disambig page to Wannabe. Sr 13 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe[edit]

Dicdef with little prospect of expansion. PC78 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a well known term -- I'm not sure how it could easily be expanded, but I think the potential for expansion is there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move Wannabe (disambiguation) to Wannabe. All potential expansion of the article is already covered in the disambiguation page and wiktionary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with disambig per DDG. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete> It's in Wictionary, which is all it really needs. Horologium talk - contrib 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if sources could be found. At one level it is just an adjective -- "wannabe actor" -- but at another level, certainly in the 1980s, it represented something more about identity. Madonna's "wannabes" didn't just want to be pop singers, they wanted to be Madonna. I think there's a potential article here on that aspect of subculture. I know it was written about extensively at the time. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, search first. We have Madonna wannabe, which is in a sorry state, and doesn't cover the broader phenomenon, but I guess we don't need two articles. Delete. Preferably move Madonna wannabe here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with disambig per DDG. - 52 Pickup 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with disambig seems to be a dictionary entry. If many specific -wannabe articles start to pop up then maybe we'll need an article then. —Pengo 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs it is now the term seems vague and there is no info on its introduction and popularization. No real information presented here. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result was redirect to François Fillon. Redirect is a type of keep, and it has been pointed out that the content of this article is already available at the target article. Suggest reinstating as a standalone article when and if more sourced information about her (independent of her husband) is made avaiable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Fillon[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) - any claim to notability based purely on association, in this case with husband. Mais oui! 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to François Fillon, this entire text is already in that article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to François Fillon per EliminatorJR for now, with no prejudice to creating an article if her term as the PM's wife leads to her doing something notable and worthy of inclusion in her own right. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wife of the Prime minister of France V1^t 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked the six predecessors of Fillon and none of their spouses have articles. The wife of the President is notable as a French First Lady equivalent, but the wives of Prime Ministers seem to play no public role by default. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also accept a merge and redirect to her husband's article.--Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to François Fillon. Her husband is notable. She is not notable by herself. However it's appropraite for an article on a major national leader like Fillon to have some mention of his family in his article. Dorange 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as she was in the UK press yesterday and may at some stage become notable in her own right. Tim! 11:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's entirely and solely because she's Welsh by birth, not because she's done anything.--Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wife of the Prime Minister of France... Nze 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the logic of the nomination Cherie Blair, Norma Major and Denis Thatcher should be deleted. --Philip Stevens 10:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No - they all pass WP:BIO in their own right. She may do at some point, but she doesn't now. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Mme. Fillon was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph and other British media and has also attracted media attention in the U.S. Moreover, given the question marks about Cecilia Sarkozy's relationship with her husband, Mme. Fillon is already something of a de facto first lady. The fact that she of Welsh background and English speaking also greatly raises her profile without any action on her part - think Jacqueline Kennedy speaking French and Spanish on state visits. WikiFlier 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as second lady of France and sole subject of many press press articles this last few days, interviewed in Libération and — if I read above — in UK press . Therefore notable. Hektor 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she is notable not only as France's "second lady" but also as the first British-born spouse of a French prime minister. -- Picapica 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I stand by my belief that a redirect is the best option, I would greatly prefer a "keep" over a "delete." youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neoboard Avatars[edit]

This page has been previously speedily deleted before, the information is already covered at Neopets#Avatars, and is not notable. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was watching the page and waiting a bit more to see where it was going, but well :). Delete per lack of encyclopedic content. And the final article would probably not be notable by itself. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's... nothing there. Even if there was, the topic (avatars on the Neopets message board) is totally non-notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is nearly void of notable material. Hydrogen Iodide 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lear[edit]

Delete This is a might-have-been opera, a project which never took off. According to Julian Budden (who wrote a three volume work on the composer) Verdi never wrote any music and it's unlikely that Cammarano ever did more than a few rough drafts. Nothing remains of his work. (Another librettist actually did more.) (This is explained in more detail on the talk page.) It is an interesting subject that deserves to be covered in detail on the composers' biography page, however it would be confusing to everybody to have an article on it and have it listed among his works. If we had an article on every project considered by every composer, writer etc. WP would be unusable. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Kleinzach. It's operatic fancruft. We scarcely need an article on an unfinished libretto that no one ever wrote any music for. Moreschi ^Talk 10:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Giuseppe Verdi. There is a good case for keeping articles on some unfinished works of art, particularly if they were later completed or were sufficiently advanced that they could be completed if someone had the inclination. It's hard to devise a firm rule for those situations, but an article on a work here where nothing survives is likely to be worth keeping only if it has already received substantial coverage elsewhere (for example if its non-completion became a career-defining issue with patrons or collaborators). However, per the discussion at Talk:Re_Lear, this one doesn't seem to come anywhere near that sort of significance threshold, but it probably still deserves a brief mention in his bio, hence the merge and redirect !vote --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~This is delete rather than merge and redirect because (1) there is nothing to merge. The present brief article doesn't have any useful or correct information~~, and (2) a redirect from Re Lear to Guseppe Verdi would be potentially confusing. -- Kleinzach 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (Article has now been revised to include some worthwhile information.) -- Kleinzach 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (or DAB if necessary) per BHG. It looks like it figured enough in his life to merit a mention somewhere, but not enough to have an article. I can see someone reading through a bio or letters of his and coming across the name and wondering what happened to the opera, and he's a major enough guy that, although not every sneeze is notable, I think at least some of his unfinished works are mentionable. Mak (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; first, it passes the main notability criterion: [19] [20]. Second, a merge target is not as obvious as it may appear. Since the libretto was written by Cammarano, it should be merged there rather than to the Verdi article. Tizio 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The libretto wasn't written by Cammarano, or if it was it's disappeared. After Cammarano died in 1852 Verdi approached Antonio Somma. Somma did apparently finish the libretto. I don't know if it still exists. (I don't believe any composer has ever used it.)

Delete Never even started, rather than unfinished. It falls into the same category as Debussy's As You Like It (the poet Paul-Jean Toulet was too doped up on opium to write a line of the libretto) and Berlioz's projected Anthony and Cleopatra (a passing idea mentioned in his letters). Interesting to speculate why these were all taken from Shakespeare, but none of them deserve an article to themselves. Might be worth mentioning Re Lear in Verdi's bio alongside his other Shakespearean works when discussing the composer's passion for W.S. .--Folantin 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but incorporate the salient points into the Verdi article. Budden (vol 2, p. 362) refers to "Naples, the home of [the late Salvatore] Cammarano, who had drafted the first scenario", which clearly implies that he never wrote a full libretto. Wikipedia has no article on Somma, a now-forgotten playwright whose rather slight claim to notability is his adaptation (under the guidance of Verdi) of Eugène Scribe's libretto for Auber's opera Gustavo III to form the libretto of Un ballo in maschera. --GuillaumeTell 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename as "Verdi's Re Lear project". The project is quite significant in Verdi's career and has attracted scholarly interest (e.g. [21],[22] and G. Carrara "Verdi, Per il Re Lear", Parma, Istituto Nazionale di Studi Verdiani, 2002). Verdi even signed a contract to compose the opera, which features prominently in his letters to Cammarano, to whom he wrote "Cheer up, Cammarano, we have to make this Re Lear which will be our masterpiece". Stammer 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC). I'll add a conversational remark. The reason why this project has attracted so much interest is that it kept haunting Verdi for fifty years and is paradigmatic of his enduring fascination with Shakespeare. It is about "the Shakespeare play with which Verdi struggled for so many years, but without success" ( [23], p.3). The article does not tell the story yet, but it's a good, properly sourced seed. Stammer 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The project was indeed of importance to Verdi etc., but should we have articles about projects that never started? The New Grove Dictionary of Opera doesn't list unrealized projects, neither does Oxford. If you look up Lear in opera sources you get Reimann. Who says Cammarano completed the libretto? If true why did Verdi go to Somma? I agree with your main points but in this case the sources do not match the text. -- Kleinzach 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How notable we think it is in Verdi's career is not the question. Whether there are others who think it notable is the question. I wouldn't necessarily have thought it was, going by guesswork, the encyclopedia is not supposed to reflect our guesswork, but what we find in the sources. but since there have been published works dealing specifically with it, then it's certainly notable & I'm glad to have learned something.DGG 03:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think we also need articles on Beethoven's Macbeth, Benjamin Britten's Anna Karenina and Ligeti's Alice in Wonderland? They are notable - even if they don't exist. -- Kleinzach 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! What we need is more articles like this one. By the way, I have beefed up the article a bit. Stammer 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But an opera libretto by a non-notable author that was never set to music can't be notable, can it? (Even when the article is strewn with (gasp!) references.) The correct place in WP for a substantial paragraph on Verdi and King Lear is in Giuseppe Verdi. --GuillaumeTell 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already suggested renaming the article. Verdi's Re Lear project is firmly established in the sources. In my opinion the article has potential for growth. ... in 1896, at age 83 Verdi offered all his Lear material to young Pietro Mascagni who asked "Maestro, why didn't you put it into music?" According to Mascagni, "softly and slowly he replied 'the scene in which King Lear finds himself on the heath terrified me.. Interesting, huh? It's sourceable, though maybe it ain't WP:NOTABLE. Oh well ... . Stammer 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article (now corrected) is about Somma's Re Lear libretto. Do we know if it still exists? Was it ever used by any composer? You obviously have read the references - which we don't have access to - can you tell us what they say? Can you give us some quotations on the subject of the libretto? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of the Somma libretto are reproduced in Giuseppe Verdi - Antonio Somma, Per il “Re Lear”, G. Carrara Verdi ed., Parma, Istituto Nazionale di Studi Verdiani, 2002, which also contains a variant of Somma's first version with notes and suggestions written by Verdi himself, as well as the correspondence between Verdi and Somma. Afaik Somma's libretto was never used by anyone else. It may have been part of the package that Mascagni turned down. As for the other references, I do not have them here, but their titles and what can be glimpsed online clearly confirm the scholarly notability of the topic. The Mascagni story excerpted above is told by Mascagni himself (in Italian), by Carrara, by G. Mendelsohn ([24]), as well as by many others, with various operatic variations. Stammer 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for more details about the Somma libretto. I think this brings us back to GuillaumeTell's point: an opera libretto by a non-notable author that was never set to music can't be notable. -- Kleinzach 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already addressed this point twice, suggesting to rename the article. The relevant topic here is not Somma's libretto, but Verdi's Re Lear project. Somma's librettos, Cammarano's sketch, the relevant Somma-Verdi and Somma-Cammarano correspondence, the San Carlo contract, the Mascagni story and the scholarly articles about Verdi and Re Lear are part of it. Merging would unfocus the topic. Since it has a distinct scholarly identity and it can be expanded, I'll stick to keep. Stammer 07:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut down the war machine[edit]

Reason Not notable: Googling "Campaign to shut down the war machine" -wikipedia yield four Google hits. Google News and Archives similarly turn up nothing. Thought about speedying it, but the endorsements give it a whiff of notability ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This revolutionary marxist organisation campaigned to shut down the USA with a general strike on March 19, 2007. The fact that this is the first anyone here has heard of this general strike shows how notable that campaign was. Nick mallory 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another totally non-notable group, with possible CoI/SELF issues too. Only wikilinks to article are from talk pages, or AfD links. Horologium talk - contrib 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. Noroton 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EUO[edit]

Replacing second prod with AfD. Original prod reason was: No assertion of notability per WP:N / WP:ORG. No independent references (WP:V). Borderline db-advert. Prod removed with no comment by anonymous user (although cleanup and reference tags were put up. Second prod had similar concerns. ) Marasmusine 11:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability and no reliable sources to verify those claims. Again. DarkSaber2k 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per WP:WEB. YechielMan 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Three new external links have been added; Answers.com is just the wikipedia page anyway (and should be removed if the article is kept), Ultimadot and Ultima Proejct [sic] are directory listings. Marasmusine 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if Wikipedia is all about destruction of information (ie censorship) then you might as well delete the article. But in 5 years when EUO is still around and bigger than Wikipedia, you guys will look like a bunch of simple minded bureaucrats when someone makes a new page on EUO. But in the meantime no body really cares. eggmceye, creator of EUO. — eggmceye (talk • contribs) has (surprise surprise) made no other edits outside this topic.
- So, to avoid looking simple-minded, we should have articles on everything that might become notable in the future but isn't at the moment? Marasmusine 07:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Tom harrison. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Sandell[edit]

I cannot see this person being notable or passing WP:BIO, their are also no references so I'm bringing it here. Regards — The Sunshine Man 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam spam spam spam, speedy delete, spammity spam... Groupthink 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No sources to prove any of this, or even their existence. DarkAudit 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an attack article by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I was just about to speedy delete it for the very same reason, myself. Uncle G 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAR OF NGI[edit]

Non notable web event. The article does not contain any sources. Cyrus Andiron 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete abusive attack page. Groupthink 13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun[edit]

Closer's notes
The only reason for this nomination is that it is supposedly necessary for procedural reasons, since there has supposedly been less than the necessary 5 days discussion. In fact there were 7 days, 22 hours and 56 minutes of discussion on the first AfD, and another 5 days, 11 hours and 21 minutes at the DRV debate. That's a total of 13 days, 10 hours and 17 minutes of discussion (or 2.685694 times the "regular" amount).

The first AfD was closed at one point by Daniel; but only for 25 minutes and 6 1/2 days after the debate began anyway - well after the standard 5 day period. It was again closed by Drini, this time 7 1/2 days after beginning, which lasted 23 minutes.

In all of these piles of discussion the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion, mustering both weight of policy and weight of numbers.

--bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary notes

It now seems necessary to expound this a little more for people who haven't understood what has happened so far. Among all of the discussion of the content of the article which occurred in the first AfD and at DRV, there were essentially only two arguments raised:

the article should be kept, because it has multiple sources, and thus meets the threshold criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (people);
the article should be deleted, because the sources at best are about the meme, and by focusing on the person instead the article is contrary to the tenets of the biographies of living persons policy.

Not only does the latter argument rebut the former, but the weight of numbers across the whole course of the discussion was behind the latter argument.

I feel that confusion has abounded because of the failure of some people to appreciate the distinction between the person and the meme. There is agreement from most of the people in favour of deletion that the meme may be notable. However the issue in question is the article about the person, and that should not be lost sight of.

--bainer (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

The previous AfD on this "internet meme"-star degenerated after several out-of-process closures. DRV overturned that mess. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. Xoloz 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will run for five days. Early closures will be reverted,???? Says who, and on what authority? We don't do self-appointed dictators here.--Doc^g 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I will revert them. My authority is the "best interests of Wikipedia." We need a definitive result here.

Please stop making these ridiculous procedural nominations, and delete this unencyclopedic abortion. This is absolutely disgraceful. --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wrongly suggesting fair discussion is a disgrace to anyone. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything about the discussion. I'm commenting on the mindless proceduralism that has prevented this disgraceful mess being deleted. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - bringing the encyclopedia into disrepute. My reasons have been given elsewhere in a full debate. This one is quite superfluous, --Doc^g 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the existence of this debate is a triumph of process over sense. Leaving aside that Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a Xolozocracy, this subject is as blatantly unencyclopaedic as it gets, plus an egregious violation of WP:BLP, plus it's an open begging letter to trolls to come and help us have some more low drama we don't need. WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that if anyone reverts and undeletes any early close of this, they will be desysopped if I have to pursue it to the depths of hell. Xoloz has absolutely no authority to order anyone to act in any way whatsoever. I also find the text "after several out-of-process closures", insulting, as that implies my initial close was out-of-process, which it most certainly fucking wasn't. Daniel 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This relisting is process for the sake of process. The article aims to poke fun at a personal of highly marginal notability. Weak appeals to Wikipedia is not censored do not trump our overriding obligation to living people, or the need for Wikipedia to try and be an encyclopedia of some repute. This is taking "sum of human knowledge" to absurdity. We should not cover this story - Wikipedia will be a better encyclopia without this "article". WjBscribe 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should have been speedied and remained deleted. To relist this on an AFD is bad judgement at the very least. Again we have an flashpan internet phenomenenon suddenly becoming noteworthy. I hadn't heard of this kid until today and nobody will remember him tomorrow unless he does something truly interesting. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7, non notable bio. This is a joke right. This guy is famous (and I'm certainly using the word loosely) because his picture was superimposed onto the bodies of celebrities. There has to be more to it than that, right? How in the blue hell does this even come close to meeting BLP? This did not deserve a second run at AfD. By all means delete and salt. This trash should not be recreated. Uh-oh, the AfD is beginning to look very snowy. --Cyrus Andiron 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Meets every possible measure for inclusion, and does not violate any sort of BLP issue. There is no reason for deletion, and there's plenty of reason to believe, given the wealth of sources, that his notability is far from "marginal." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've noticed, Jeff, but among the above deletes are some of our most active handlers of email complaints. Worth a pause for thought I'd say. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Leopold (spiritual healer)[edit]

Delete: The subject appears to be a non-notable "spiritual healer"/psychic/eccentric. Doesn't seem to be represented in national media, biographies etc. --Slashme 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entertaining but utterly insane. Nick mallory 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mad as a bag of ferrets all right but the article appears to be reasonable. The only ghit I get is his own website but I'm prepared to entertain a notable nutter on that basis. Maybe we should have a category called that? BTLizard 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per BTLizard. Only ghit is his own website = no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with cleft chins[edit]

Unreferenced and difficult to source list, possibly original research and of questionable usefulness: It was my own and so far uncontested proposed deletion, but the list has been split off the main article cleft chin, so looking for consensus seems to be more appropriate and productive. Tikiwont 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is no less referenced than people listed under, for example, List of Holocaust survivors and far more provable. Likewise regarding original research. It can have uses in genetics, modelling, statistics and much more. --Interesdom 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although another list was mentioned above, typically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to keep an article around. However, I just like lists. Useight 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As you imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to the above. And this list is just so much bollocks. BTLizard 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although some references are needed. —Pengo 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced and useless list. What is the reason for keeping this? How on earth could this list ever be used? It isn't like having a cleft chin awards you special abilities, it's merely a feature. Why not People with bushy eyebrows or People with brown hair? --Cyrus Andiron 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, everyone knows that people with cleft chins have superpowers. Seriously though, being unreferenced is not a good reason to delete it. It could fairly easily be referenced, and anyone on the list that can't be referenced probably isnt notable enough to be on it. --Stephanie ^talk 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My focus was actually on the fact that it was useless. Yes it's unverified, but it also does not have a function that I'm aware of. Why does it matter if someone has a cleft chin? --Cyrus Andiron 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How can you possibly say it is useless? I gave examples of three possible uses above and can think of several more without effort. It may not matter to you whether someone has a cleft chin, just as I don't often care about someone's ethnicity, yet there are streams of lists of various types about Jews, some of which have been challenged by AfD and kept.

Delete. It may be verifiable, but is it truly encyclopedic? I truly doubt that. I agree with the above user -- and, as a matter of fact, I fit both of the two categories the above user mentioned. Does that mean I should form Wikipedians with brown hair? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with TenPoundHammer's arguments. Additionally, even if relevant, could take a while to cite. RegainTheTruth 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC) RegainTheTruth[reply]
Delete Unreferenced? Go find some. Pointless? You betcha. DarkAudit 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & per WP:NOT#INFO. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Bulldog123 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Filmaker 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. Sr 13 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kurson[edit]

Speedy and prod removed by author, procedurally sending to AFD. Article is about the admin of a site who is involved with a feud with the "chans". Website does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia in itsself, and all external link are either to one of the "chans", or a site for "People Who Suck", none which are reliable sources. Wildthing61476 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No real notability asserted. Take the forum drama somewhere else. DarkAudit 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as nn "feud", possible vanity too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable at all - Myanw 11:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable. Just a passing chan invasion fad. Cowicide 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable. Feeding a megalomaniac more attention is not one of Wikipedia's functions. ThisIsRealPuma 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete The page is OBVIOUSLY made by someone who hates Subeta and wants to bash Keith, as it can be seen from the fact that the page is almost ENTIRELY composed of cricitism.70.83.179.43 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net Music Countdown[edit]

Completing a nom. Original reasoning follows. Tizio 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article for deletion on the following grounds:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
- Clearly, the article is about the show itself, not from an external point of view.
Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
- There are no sources mentioned, not to say a reliable one.
All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed
- Google-ing the name of this show only brings up the show itself. Even if an article is found, the notability of this show is in question.
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- While Casey Kasem has a more notable countdown show, this one is no where near that level.

--DavidTheLion 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Lawrence - The article creator admitted to taking all contents directly from the DL article in the first edit, and the show is non-notable alone. Nate 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StykFaktor[edit]

Tagged as a CSD A7 speedy delete; contested by author. See Talk:StykFaktor for some discussion thus far. Sending it to AFD for a broader discussion. Stormie 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see this meeting WP:BAND, seems like a local band, no international recognition. Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Some notability asserted per WP:MUSIC by reason of a tour with Human League (do they need to be a headliner on a tour to satisfy that guideline?), but sources are blogs and other web sites of dubious reliability. Author is also in the band, so definite conflict of interest issues. DarkAudit 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the author being a member of the band, there may be problem with neutrality. Useight 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There seems to be a reasonable assertion of notability made, 30,000 players and whatnot. On the other hand, verfication is an issue. On the third hand, there is some verification, and the preferred solution is to add more, not delete the article. There may not be any more 3rd-party verification available, though, although some may come along later... no strong win for either side. Herostratus 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Pirates[edit]

Tagged as a CSD A7 speedy delete; contested. See Talk:Tales of Pirates for some small amount of discussion thus far. Sending it to AFD for a broader discussion. Stormie 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. The article has no reliable sources to verify any claims either. It fails WP:WEB and ~~WP:SOFTWARE~~(turns out this ones inactive now, so I guess it's WP:N instead?), regardless of which one is more relevent. Also seems to be about 90% game guide/instruction manual material. DarkSaber2k 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Quick look for references; beyond all the usual MMORPG site game listings, this looks good: Interview with Robin Zeng at IGN. Also: "IGG released Tales of Pirates" at news.mmosite.com. Now whilst I'm happy with the IGN reference, I've not come across mmosite.com before, so I'm not sure about it's reliability. Article will also need some rewriting per DarkSaber's comment on the content. Marasmusine 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a trivial mention according to WP:WEB, as it's literally a summary of what the game has, not a non-trivial mention. DarkSaber2k 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete. As of now, it qualifies for deletion under WP:N, but a concerted effort should be made if there is a possibility of it qualifying. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definant keep it's an MMORPG which has over 30,000 players already it has fansites which makes it verible i believe you have verified the likes of Kal Online and Furcadia which are MMORPG which aren't as popular as this one. Other than that it's going to eventually if it isn't verfied this time it isn't going to go bust the game is constantly growing in poularity and the world is expanding and it will need to be created again on wikipedia why bother deleting the article when it's going to have to be remade what a waste of effort.--Jonoridge 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind how popular it is, that isn't what asserts notability. Can you help us find another independent, reliable source for it? There must be another magazine or website review for it out there somewhere. Marasmusine 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So lets get this straight, the article should be kept because lots of people play it and because the article will be needed in the future? 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - The 2 IGN interviews [25][26] are definitely not trivial. Another source or two would be better. Wickethewok 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Can be undone as an editorial decision if the channel is deemed more notable. W.marsh 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

DRV overturned the previous AfD result, in light of the new evidence; for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Major League Baseball television contracts, split it off into its own article in a year or two if it all goes according to plan and the channel launches. --Stormie 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as above. It'll need to be recreated if things progress as intended, but for now it's just a glint in baseball's eye. JJL 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to MLB Network. The name is MLB Network.[27] I think what we know about it is notable enough to warrant its own article. --Toxicroak 12:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible Pokemon Team[edit]

This article is non-notable and possibly original research. Theymos 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Extreme Prejudice I'd speedy it if I could think of a category. No notability claimed, unsourced, and utterly unclear as to what it actually is. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kind of hard to trust an article written by someone who doesn't know how to properly make the proper "é" in Pokémon, eh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 14:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Group with no notability asserted. No sources to attest to notability. No sources to even prove it exists. DarkAudit 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure there are folks calling themselves the National Pokemon Association, unless they have some official recognition from Nintendo, I'd say they don't merit coverage, let alone what they declare to be an invincible team. FrozenPurpleCube 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is written like as if to serve as a website for this Pokemon "clan", Wikipedia is not a provider of private webspace.--Kylohk 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pull out and nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure. JJL 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderb--er, delete. This would barely be worthy of a Geocities fansite, let alone an encyclopedia. MarcK 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-minded editor's only contributions to Wikipedia are to this article and a spam link to the article on Pokémon Red and Blue. Not encyclopedic, no notability, no links, no inbound links except AfD links. Horologium talk - contrib 02:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change-NY[edit]

non-notable --Cjs56 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unreferenced and incomprehensible. The neutrality template is also in its place. YechielMan 20:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be the basis of an interesting article, but not in its current form. Neutrality tag has no justification (no talk page), so I nuked that tag, just in case this article survives the AfD process. Horologium talk - contrib 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete oooooh, 13 people. entirely unreferenced, shouldn't stay in this form. Cornell Rockey 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health care in Pakistan[edit]

This article has no place on Wikipedia. It is not needed, has no references, and would be a waste of time to clean up. The only way to reach this page is to search Wikipedia for "countchoculitis". This should be a quick and painless process to remove this waste of space. OrcShaman42 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Granted the article's pretty ropey, but I don't see why Healthcare in Pakistan should be an inappropriate subject here. BTLizard 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs improving, not deleting. Why isn't it a legitimate subject? I don't understand the nom's hostility towards it. Nick mallory 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Health care in any country is a valid topic, we have various articles on different countr's health systems and I can't see why Pakistan should be any different. I would agree with Nick Mallory- it needs improving not deleted. Thunderwing 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. Keep then, per my reasoning above. BTLizard 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just saying the article is "worthless" without backing up that assertion is not sufficient. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly legitimate, encyclopedic topic. Nomination fails to establish why this should be deleted. Hut 8.5 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. I can't believe this (seriously). I was just jumping through the hoops to remove this, but apparently this unencyclopediac, fanatical-(and banned)-user-created article that doesn't even meet the basic requirements for a Wikipedia article LET ALONE give any useful information, has a pretty strong fanbase. Wikipedia is a great place to find people who are willing to defend something for no reason other than someone is attacking it. You know what? I don't care anymore. It's not winning or losing, we aren't playing soccer, it's abandoning ship. Save this "article," do it. Prove me wrong, and when this pile of slop is refined into a featured article, you can come rub it in my uncaring face. Have fun with your litte game, kiddies, I'll be in my office. OS out. OrcShaman42 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. AFD is a set of procedures, true, but following them does not guarantee an outcome. There seems to be a consensus that the topic is encyclopedic regardless of the quality of the article, which means it should be kept and improved. Finding articles that are in a sorry state should mean that someone at least tries to fix them before deciding they need removal. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't know about everyone else, but I thought Wikipedia was a game, at least an MMORPG. If it isn't then why am I keeping score and leveling up? But seriously, this article is not written well. I agree with the nominator in that regard. Also, the article is not sourced and provides no means of verifying the information. That is definitely a problem. However, the topic is definitely notable as health care and level of coverage will vary in each country. If it were deleted, it would be recreated later. This article really only needs to be sourced and expanded to be acceptable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Recruit for Massive Clean-up - Has anyone else noticed that there is a Category:Health in Pakistan with little difference from Health care in Pakistan? Will anyone bell these cats? Canuckle 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag for Cleanup There is no reason to delete this article as to its subject, as well, the subject of Health Care in a given country is absolutely notable, verifiable, and otherwise acceptable as an article. If the contents of this article are unacceptable, well, try some Handy Cleanup tags. PS, this article can easily be reached by typing "Health Care in Pakistan" in the search bar, or checking the category. But seriously, there are solutions besides deletion. bFrozenPurpleCube 00:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thunderwing. The alleged problem with this article may have been that one sentence had been vandalized by an anonymous user who inserted some nonsense, which has since been removed. But that's not a good reason to delete an article. --Metropolitan90 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Cleanup. Article could use a little help from a native English speaker,and needs to be expanded, but it is certainly appropriate for Wikipedia. Many of the stubs in [[Category:Health in Pakistan]] could be merged in to one article. Horologium talk - contrib 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup this article, and I agree that "Health care in X" is a valid topic for any country. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup It's really just a stub/outline and needs considerable work, but the topic is appropriate and we don't require perfection immediately. Studerby 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The health care system of an entire country affects millions of citizens, and many should know about it through reports and things like that. A couple of references from its Health Ministry should be sufficient. However, with many empty sections, the article will require expansion.--Kylohk 09:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D: Live in Seattle[edit]

Only information that can be found is the limited info on IMDB, and even there it doesn't mention a DVD release, only an HDTV date. Can be recreated if/when concrete info comes up. Joltman 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks awfully crystallized to me. There is hardly any information available, so what's the hurry. Give it some time and then recreate if necessary. --Cyrus Andiron 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyrus. Also, a live concert on DVD isn't really notable enough for an article IMO, it's like having a DVD for those Sports Illustrated swimsuit shoots. TJ Spyke 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyrus. I made this and I'm saying that. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. YechielMan 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swagelok[edit]

promotional; non-notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I'm happy to edit this article until it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and is not promotional. Please help me understand what about the 1 line version is promotional. Also, I'd like to understand criteria for being notable --- given that this is a >1B USD firm, and that there are hundreds of Google searches per day for this company by name, I'm not seeing how it is less notable than many, many company articles on Wikipedia. Thanks! MarkReichard 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this is a notable company. Here are a few sources I found. They talk about the products of the company and also discuss the history. The article, is extremely short, but it can be expanded. I would suggest not copying directly off a company website.[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. --Cyrus Andiron 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another link --- this one to a new technology developed by the company.

[36]MarkReichard 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Okay, I'm convinced. Thanks for your work collecting the references. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Re-nominate. ZFGokuSSJ1 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-17 Broadsword heavy bomber[edit]

I'm working to clean up all the Wing Commander related stuff on Wikipedia... this includes removing all continuity/fiction material that has no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. It's non-notable. ZFGokuSSJ1 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also continuity and have no place on Wikipedia.

(For the record, the following articles also had AfD notices attached but were not actually listed here: Pre-WC1 Confederation fighters, Winston Chang (Wing Commander), Arrow light fighter, Battleships (Wing Commander), KIS Sivar, Kilrathi Heavy Destroyer, Kilrathi Light Destroyer, Medium fighter, Miscellaneous Wing Commander fighters, Ralatha-class Destroyer, Spencer "Skip" Banbridge, John Dekker, Gilkarg nar Kiranka, H. Maximillian Kruger, Jacob Manley and Kevin Tolwyn. Bryan Derksen 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Comment an article about a fictional spacecraft can be notable if sourced well. Imagine trying to delete the Millenium Falcon. --Cyrus Andiron 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Redirect~~ to a single article summarizing the various craft in the games/setting. I do think some coverage of the various craft found in the game is reasonable, but if not on the individual article level, a combined article would be acceptable to me. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, close this AFD as this single nomination is now too broad. This nomination now includes space ships, characters, and concepts like races. And not just minor characters, but major characters in the series. I'm sorry, but that's just not the best way to do things. If you'd stuck to just ships, that'd be one thing, but when you nominated Christopher Blair and Geoffrey Tolwyn? That's just excessive on your part and creates too much of a problem for people to consider. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pages for individual games can (and do) summarize the ships. With perhaps one or two exceptions, the ships of Wing Commander aren't notable as individual concepts... we don't need a separate page full of 'fan fiction' background for a hundred different WC spaceships. LOAF 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete broadsword, I haven't ad the time to review the rest. It's nothing but in-universe information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. FrozenPurpleCube 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Close All right, this AfD needs to be closed. You cannot lump all of these together under one broad nomination. Articles on fictional characters and space ships can be notable if sourced properly. Something doesn't have to be true to be on Wikipedia, it just has to be verified by reliable secondary sources. These articles deal with various in universe topics and cannot be held to the same standard. --Cyrus Andiron 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close This is no longer a blanket nomination, but a tarpaulin nomination. Prune it down a bit. DarkAudit 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may appear to be a broad spectrum of WC-related articles, but they are all just un-cited irrelevant in-universe stuff. They all fit together in the same category -ZFGokuSSJ1 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste the rest of the afternoon wading through 30 or more articles to justify one nomination. DarkAudit 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remarkable statement. I wonder why it is you don't believe the same care should be exercised when voting to close. -Aclawson 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, nobody should be considered to be voting here, as AFD is not a vote, but a discussion. Anyway, the reason to close in the case of an overly broad nomination is usually obvious on its face. Several dozen articles, a wide variety of subjects? That's too much for due care to be exercised, and if you don't believe it, well, I don't know how to convince you. I know I, like several other people aren't going to feel comfortable with it, and I noted above several cases where I feel the nominator's reasons don't apply. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. My endorsement to close was because the nomination was too big to exercise due care for all the articles concerned. I could miss looking at one that could well be within guidelines to keep, but it could end up deleted as part of this huge list. DarkAudit 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fairly straightforward list of redundant/untrue/un-cited information and hardly a "tarpaulin" nomination. It's sensible and clean. -Aclawson 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and separately relist (otherwise, please consider this a procedural keep vote). I realize and appreciate that there is a time and a place for mass-nominations but they need to be manageable. Personally, I won't vote on an AfD unless I've at least done my due dilligence research and made up my mind. If mass nominations aren't properly grouped together, it's even harder to view the articles in context and even if I only need a minute or two to come to a comclusion (which may or may not be the case), that's still a lot of time. More importantly, the whole point of AfD is to reach a consensus. If the articles in a mass nom deal with only loosely connected topics, it becomes near impossible to do just that. For a mass nomination to make sense, all nominated articles need to suffer from the same basic, inherent flaw. Just like we don't usually consider 'notability by association' a valid reason to keep an article, we can't automatically assume the opposite. And this is just too much. -- Seed 2.0 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can see the point made on several replies. I will categorize every article and re-submit them for deletion. -ZFGokuSSJ1 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair and reasonable compromise. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some of the fighters could be merged into another article or deleted outright, characters like Todd Marshall certainly are notable enough for their own articles. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There is no way so many articles are justified in ONE AFD, this sounds more like someone has an axe to grind. Who decides whether something is 'notable', is it personal opinion? Some of the entries are sizeable and well detailed. Douglasnicol 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: the community does (ie. all editors in good standing). But we use policy (which is, in turn, based on community consensus) to determine what satisfies the notability requirement and to avoid unfair or arbitrary results. Please be sure that you've read this. And please also consider reading WP:N and WP:5P, if you haven't already done so. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that so many articles in one AFD is overly much? Why is Wing Commander being selected (I'm not using the term singled out because it isn't neutral), there are probably god knows how many other fictional works that have as much if not more entries assigned to them. And to just arbitarily delete them doesn't seem right. Someone says its 'non notable', on what precise basis? I might be opposed to the deletion of single articles, but to not just do that but to tack on 121 other articles seems really excessive. Douglasnicol 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record and since you asked: I do think it's too much. Please read my first comment above. --Seed 2.0 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose on the grounds that this list is way too big to be fairly evaluated, especially given the broadness and briefness of the nomination (they are "continuity" and "not-notable"? why?). I don't see how we could have a meaningful discussion about this, given their varied quality. (Perusing briefly, I see some that obviously should go and some that could probably pass muster with a little work, like Christopher Blair.) — brighterorange (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up I recall the mast deletion campaign a few months ago. Hundreds of mast stubs kicked the bucket over a month-long period, based on incremental nominations of 10-15 at a time. YechielMan 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't, but I've heard about it, but this isn't even in incremental nominations, its a mass deletion campaign here. Plus, while some of these articles (I haven't had time to look at them all) may be stubs, there are a fair amount that have quite a bit of detail in them, it's not as if theres a couple of lines and thats it. Douglasnicol 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and relist separately. This is rather overloaded with articles to consider, and it's likely that even if it is in-universe stuff, many of the articles here do have what's necessary to stand alone. (Having said that, I'd suggest the ship types, in the next round of listings, could probably be merged to a list.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-While it does look like deletion (or perhaps listifcation/redirection) may be warranted in some of these cases, the nom is just too broad. All being from the same fictional universe is not sufficient reason to lump them in one mass AfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist. This is a ridiculous amount of articles for a single Afd. This discussion cannot discuss the merits of every single article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; far too many articles to fairly evaluate all at once. I suggest strongly that ZFGokuSSJ1 withdraw this nomination and nominate a few (5-10) closely related articles at a time. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm going to withdraw my nomination for now! -ZFGokuSSJ1 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbuwan[edit]

This appears to be some kind of fictional universe, micronation or cult. The writing is very in-universe, there is minimal context, there are no sources. The PROD tag was removed by the original editor. Delete, unless sources can be found, some context can be given, and the content can be improved. J Milburn 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Keep, a failure on my part. A real place, and an informative article. J Milburn 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a place in Nepal - see for example here. The article appears to deal with its history. I can't comment on its accuracy but so far we have no positive reason to doubt it. BTLizard 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'a fictional universe, micronation or cult?' Really? [37] It's definitely a real place in Nepal. Nick mallory 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry, I obviously can't use Google. I swear it showed absolutely nothing when I searched... I guess I'll change my vote to keep then. J Milburn 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real place and, based on the links, it appears to have a rich history. --Oakshade 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pure nonsense.--Wafulz 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr judd[edit]

Prod removed by author, procedurally sending to AfD. This appears to be a lenghty hoax, as I cannot find anything to verify the information on the page is correct. A Google search for "Dr. Judd" turns up 0 hits for any rappers, a search for "Pimp Daddy Records" turns up 0 hits, the songs listed in the article do NOT appear in any charts for Australian records sales. I'm offer to say speedy for nonsense, except there are claims of notability. Wildthing61476 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is complete hoax, as songs listed as "Aus #1" and "US #1" do not appear in ANY charting info. Wildthing61476 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And author has vandalize this page, and removed AFD warning. Requesting speedy. Wildthing61476 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A wild flight of fantasy Nick mallory 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, couldn't put it better myself. BTLizard 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:BAND and/or WP:BIO; non-notable. -- MightyWarrior 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As a poorly executed hoax. Album covers are amateurish Photoshop jobs. The RIAA certification claims are just out-and-out lies. Don't they realize that we know how to verify this? DarkAudit 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want the "proof", look at the talk page. This is looking more and more like a vandal edit. Wildthing61476 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Quinn[edit]

Non notable high school teacher. This article is lacking in reliable non trivial secondary sources as required per BLP. Awards mentioned in the article are only referenced by the school website and are not mentioned anywhere apart from the website of the organization presenting the award. Mr. Quinn may be an excellent teacher, but he has not distinguished himself any more than any other teacher in his field. The article is also written in an unencyclopedic tone and is saturated with anecdotes from students he has had in the past. Cyrus Andiron 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable Hut 8.5 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure he's good but his article makes no claims to notability; I also see traces of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COI. And how come none of my teachers ever won awards? I swear, I should go back to school... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if we let one we must let others and those from the past also.--Janarius 00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject of this article has requested that it be deleted on this AfD's talk page. Hut 8.5 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ Anthøny 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling aerial techniques[edit]

Previous AfD which clearly demonstrated that arm waving can overrule policy. Four months later, and the article still fails policy. There is now one reference which somehow (and don't ask me how) verifies A handstand variation can also be used. With the opponent seated on the top turnbuckle facing the ring, the wrestler performs a handstand on the bottom turnbuckle, wrapping their shins or feet around the neck of the opponent. They then bend their legs forward towards the ring, pulling the opponent over and flipping them down to the mat onto their back with a description of Trish less than gently escorted Melina down from the top rope by means of the StratusFear. The entire article is composed of first hand interpretation of primary sources by editors, thus making it original research, as these interpretations have not been published by a reliable secondary source. Fails WP:OR and WP:V, delete. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced OR listcruft. And I'm a pro wrestling fan. --Finngall ^talk 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR listcruft, and I'm not a pro wrestling fan. This list has no encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IAR. List is important to help people who are not familiar with wrestling understand the jargon when reading an article. Theophilus75 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theophilus75. Useful guide to terms commonly used in articles about wrestlers (who have pages here) and their signature moves. JJL 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:USEFUL. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:USEFUL is an essay, neither policy nor guideline. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page under discussion is useful in that it explains jargon used in other WP articles, which is different from just being generally useful. If this stuff wasn't placed in one spot then much of it would have to be distributed to other articles. JJL 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theophilus75 and JJL. And just because it doesn't currently contain references doesn't mean that it can not contain references. FlamingSpear 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject is notable, and sources can easily be implemented. No need for deletion whatsoever. MarcK 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you source the article then please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would welcome your help in doing just that instead of putting it up for Afd. Theophilus75 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a synthesis of WP:OR and fails WP:RS. SirFozzie 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has been put up for deletion before, and has stayed, and is very crucial wrestling information. Kris 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:USEFUL. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:USEFUL is an essay, neither policy nor guideline. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if this article is deleted every single wrestling articles movelist will be complete nonsense. The RS argument has previously been put down as the source is the primary sources of the wrestling shows as well, which was shown does not demonstrate OR in the previous AfD itself. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid policy explicity states this is original research, specifically Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source and This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment however the opening line of the policy states "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" and the policy continues to refer to that throughout. There is no position being put forward here. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy is quite clear, I suggest you read the "This page in a nutshell" header for further clarification. Rather than wikilawyering that this article is not original research, your efforts would be better employed adding reliable secondary sources to the article, and the others which will be similarly affected in the near future. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read the nutshell, and all I can think back to was the example of the last afd on the article Punch (strike). "In fighting and martial arts, a punch is a strike made using the hand closed into a fist. Punches vary in technique, speed, and range." being the main part of it. Everyone knows what a punch is and how it works, however that description would be under the usage of OR fall under original research. WP:OR was created with essays in mind, it was not created with the forethought of an article of movements of the human body. Calling this original research is the same as calling walking original research. In the nut shell the third part doesn't apply as this is not pushing any agenda, the second applies but as I have put forward is made redundant by the actions themselves and the impossibility of a secondary source existing (the commentators name the move, then someone reports the name of the move the commentators gave it. It's impossible forthe secondary report to be a secondary source because the primary source is for something that is entirely devoid of any agenda). This leaves us with the first part, that wikipedia is not for the publishing of original thought - there is no original thought here, there is just explanations of movements. I point back to punch and walking for the same reasons, if these are original thought then being physically able to type this reply constitutes original thought and not the fact I'm able to use my fingers. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs sourcing. Koberulz 09:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you source the article then please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above, (please don't remove my vote.) Govvy 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more sources, but as ONIH is well aware the Project are going through articles sourcing them, it is hard keeping up with those who seem intent on blanking or deleting every single wrestling article, it is a lot easier to delete than source. Darrenhusted 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing appears to be coming along, with the nominator's help. Maxa megalon 2000 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Actually it isn't, as an examination of the sources being added shows.

Diving headbutt - I see no reference at all here.
Dragonrana - In this variant of the diving hurricanrana, the wrestler first performs a front flip from the top rope before executing a true hurricanrana in to a pin is not referenced by Forward flip from the top post into Huracanrana.
Iconoclasm - This top rope flipping slam sees a wrestler stand under an opponent, who is situated on the top turnbuckle, turn his/her back to this opponent while taking hold of the opponent's arms from below, often holding under at the opponent's arm pits. The wrestler would then throw the opponent forward while falling to a seated position, flipping the opponent over in midair, and slamming them down to the mat back first. is not referenced by Flipping slam from the corner. Has a cross arm version called the Goriconoslasm.

As for the other source, that's just an unreliable wrestling fan site which does not meet WP:RS and has previously been removed as a source on more than one occasion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly the is no pleasing you, you ask for references, as if they can be conjured from the ether, then when some are provided they aren't good enough. You are fully aware the project is trying to keep up with the sourcing asked of it and yet still choose to AfD every wrestling article going, without allowing time for them to be worked on, and yet you still fail to understand the central importance of this article. Every PW:WP bio refers to the moveset articles, without them the whole of the PW pages will have to be re-written, and re-referenced. If this AfD succeeds are you going to be the one to rewrite every article ONIH? Darrenhusted 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hardly my fault members of the project chose to create entire articles using original research is it? This article was nominated for deletion before as it says right at the top, and four months later there is no improvement. I'm pointing out that the references do not source the information in the article, which is a valid point and needs to be made. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You still have not addressed the fact that this is a core article referenced by nearly every single wrestler article on all of wikipedia and its removal would be detrimental to wikipedia as a whole. Let's hypothesise the article gets deleted, what is a shooting star press? What is a moonsault? What is a 450 splash? What is a diving bulldog? This article is core to wrestling wikipedia articles, as well as the other move articles, and removing it would render wrestling articles non-readable to someone who doesn't follow wrestling or have a move for move encyclopedia knowledge of wrestling terminology. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing that it is a core article does not change the fact it is original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But my arguments against the impossibility of anything relating to human movement being anything but primary research is. The fact it would cause massive disruption if it were to be deleted is just another problem. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Lid^(Talk)'s discussion above in relation to Punch (strike).Genericchimera 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to keep this page and agree with what Lid has said regarding the importance. However I cannot deny a single point the nominator has made. This article is entirely original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you're planning to remove the other list of wrestling move articles. Deletion Quality 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A mass nomination was tried last time and wasn't the best of ideas. So this time one article was nominated, and the rest will follow. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for clarifying your intentions! Theophilus75 19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I'm in the midst of trying to find sources Nikki311 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, One Night in Hackney, why don't you help us source the articles, hey? Daviiid 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't possible to source original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. It disturbs me greatly that there was so much vote stacking from WP:PW early on in this "discussion", but the article is beginning to take a different shape. There is still much original research that needs to receive some attention from the wiki-scalpel. Burntsauce 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to disturb you BS, maybe you would like to assist in sourcing the article with ONIH? Darrenhusted 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing is the responsiblity of the people wishing to retain the article, not those wishing to see it deleted. Perhaps instead of badgering people who !vote to delete, you'd like to source it yourself? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to have so much time on your hands, why don't you try sourcing for a change. Govvy 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd take the wiki-scapel over deletion anyday. At least then we could add information back as we source it, and the info that already has sources could stay. Nikki311 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a pro wrestling fan, but sadly, I have to agree with the nomination. There really aren't any sources for these. Elrith 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above DXRAW 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've never seen a movie or novel's page nominated for deletion because the plot summary was "unsourced." PenguinJockey 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And please check the article again. It currently has 17 references. This article has been regularly edited (mostly constructively) since it was created in 2004. It is currently being maintained by a very active Wikiproject and there are literally hundreds of incoming links. This would leave a very large hole in Wikipedia if it were deleted. The concerns raised by Lid are also worrisome. If this is still original research then it is still an excellent reason for keeping under WP:IAR for the good of the overall project. Paxse 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen Law Firm[edit]

Procedural nomination as several speedy deletes added and then removed. Trying to find consensus for whether or not article is advertising or non-notable. MightyWarrior 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement and seems like a leaflet they give you in a waiting room whilst waiting for divorce. R_Orange 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Much of the information in the article would be more at home on the company's own website. The author states that the company is the source of commentary for some national publications, but I think it would need to be the subject of coverage to attain notability. --Bongwarrior out 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as advertisement for now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is supposed to be an on-line encyclopedia. Rosen Law Firm is a major firm in NC. It is the largest Divorce Firm with 3 offices in that state. Furthermore, the firm is constantly cited by many other major media outlets. It belongs in this encyclopedia. The article simply provides general information about the firm. You're right, general information about a firm is something that you give in a "waiting" room- but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate for this site. Furthermore, many of the other articles on this site contain information that could be found on their organizations websites. I don't think either agruments for deletion are very fair or well contrived. Jmelton 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well conceived you mean. "Contrived" means twisted. Anyway, if you can find some reliable sources, feel free to add them. "Largest divorce firm" seems to assert that this company at least has some notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, in this case it means "devised", so "well devised". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional; not notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not notable? The fact that it is the largest firm in NC alone makes it notable. Why does everyone want this page gone so bad? What if I made it simply a stub, would that be ok? What information should be added or deleted to make this page suitable? Thanks! Jmelton 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about some reliable sources? Don't just say that it's notable -- prove it by finding sources and citing them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not that everyone wants this page gone, but that we're trying to prevent Wikipedia being used as an vehicle for advertising and spam. Your article just happened to be noticed when it was created. As you've found (since you're tagged some of them for speedy deletion), there are several articles about legal firms which are non-notable but that have "slipped through the net". -- MightyWarrior 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note changes made to the page. Looks like Lee Rosen himself has noticed his firm has been added to wikipedia and has added some strong changes. Thanks! Jmelton 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't noticed any significant changes... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - More significant changes have been made. Let me know what you think and what else can be done. I am willing to listen to everyone's ideas. Jmelton 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's getting better, but it still needs more reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI. It's obvious to me that not only does Jmelton work for the firm (if he's not Mr. Rosen himself), but that the account exists only to promote and protect this adverticle. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external sources are an article with a comment from one of the lawyers for the firms, and an article abotu au unsual case in which the firm was the attorney. Neither of them is about the firm. DGG 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim the unsourced puffery. JamesMLane t c 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI, but Jmelton has been very polite and helpful ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Very polite and very cooperative. There's no doubt he's working in good faith and could make an excellent editor. This doesn't change my stance on the article one bit, but that shouldn't at all be a reflection on Jmelton. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Could still be merged/redirected until the article can be expanded. W.marsh 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torca Island[edit]

WP:V issues: [38]. WP:N issues: Brief mention in one book by an Bermuda Triangleist does not make it notable to have its own article. The Evil Spartan 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've found a second mention, but I don't know of the actual text yet. This may not be a question of whether the article is ever verifiable, but whether we're able to adequtely verify it in the future. The latter appears to be true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've found a third book referring to it as the "Island of Torca," further verifying what's in the article thus far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as providing no information whatsoever. DGG 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the references are books and not internet hyperlinks, I'll assume good faith that they verify this was a phantom island. --Oakshade 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, does assuming good faith with WP:V work? Verifiability seems to go the other way - we need to be cautious. The Evil Spartan 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-URL refs is an ongoing paradox of WP:V that might never be solved. The smart-alacs at Wikitruth seem to be the only group taking the issue head on. --Oakshade 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Shephard account seems to be the fullest but does not specify location with respect to historical names. An island named "Amboy" is within canoe range, but there's no such place either, unless the Indonesian island of Ambon, formerly Amboyna, is meant; it's near the Banda Sea volcanic region, but volcanology sources don't indicate any volcano with a name similar to "Torca", and records do exist into the 17th century. I strongly believe that any volcano, even submarine, with a holocene history of eruption would be known by now, especially if it had been inhabited within human history. Chalk this one up as apocryphal, though, and unnotable to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is referenced in the article on phantom islands and it is footnoted. (Gerhard1 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as a simple footnote, or redirect to phantom island. If ever there is found enough material for more than a stub it can be split out from the parent then. That something exists doesn't mean we need to have an article. It can be a redirect to a more significant article where it can be discussed in context. In this case even the parent article has little to say. SilkTork 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I'm convinced this can be expanded further. If it can't, we can revisit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't meant to trivialize your comment, but that's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Just because it can be expanded doesn't say anything about WP:V or WP:N - or even that if it's notable, it deserves its own article. The Evil Spartan 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's verifiable, and I think there's enough information to sustain an article given the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The names and authors of the references are clearly typed out, and those are definitly reliable secondary sources. It may be possible to find those books somewhere, read them and expand the article.--Kylohk 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernet[edit]

Article contains no evidence of notability or reliable sources, and is a probable WP:COI situation. Prod tag was installed on April 19[39], but was removed by the original author of the page. Promoting to AfD. RTucker 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously nn software. YechielMan 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. What's the conflict of interest here? Freedaemon (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coercionism[edit]

Nonnotable coinage. Only 52 unique google hits outside wikipedias. `'mikka 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced neologism/dicdef/confuse-the-otter type term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An admittedly cursory googling failed to turn up any use of the term that fitted the definition given in the article. BTLizard 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile maintenance and repair[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Added per suggestion below. Madmedea 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It's good to know this information, but Wikipedia ain't the place for it. ~~This is why I wish "how-to" pages were a valid reason for speedy deletion.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for that. We aren't snowed under by "how-to" pages. We are snowed under by the usual bad article ideas: people writing about themselves, their bands, their websites, and their companies. Uncle G 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone says it, Wikibooks already has a better Automobile Repair textbook. Also note the existence of Engine Maintenance and Car engine oil level created by the same editor. Uncle G 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pep Boys called, they want their manual back. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a manual --Cyrus Andiron 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Someguy1221 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone! This is the kind of useful subject matter people really care about and is far more valuable than much of the frivolous, fatuous, trivial and esoteric material that abounds. Besides, this particular article looks well thought out and organized and well-written. How sad that its fate is being put up to a vote, if that's what this comment section is all about. Hertz1888 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be useful, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, as stated at least twice above. I don't care how well written it is. Note also the Wikibooks link above -- a much better link as stated by Uncle G. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Hertz1888 - WP:USEFUL is never a valid reason to keep an article, and this is not a vote, it is a debate attempting to reach consensus.Madmedea 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical Justice Medical art[edit]

Non-notable, no secondary sources, fundamentally advertising Studerby 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Update - AfD header removed. G1 ggy! 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ᵫ[edit]

No information about the subject, except for the Unicode codepoint, so it doesn't qualify as a stub. -- Prince Kassad 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly, Question mark says ? redirects there. Which when I try clicking on that wikilink, well, it does, but yours is different. Is there some collision going on with different codings for the same symbols? FrozenPurpleCube 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That character is supposed to be an UE ligature, but it only shows up if you have the proper fonts and use the Firefox browser. -- Prince Kassad 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's a Latin letter "ue" ligature (the u and e smashed together to be technical.) There are a few other ligatures like that (see the category), but this article could use some more information about why the "ue" ligature is important and where it's used. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect until more information is added. We don't delete codepoint entries, we redirect them to somewhere useful. In this case, either typographical ligature, or Unicode Phonetic Symbols. Alternatively, provide some information on where the ligature is used. dab (𒁳) 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nomination withdrawn (changed from neutral to keep). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coupland Digital Music Synthesizer[edit]

The article in itself does not seem to be bad, but it completely lacks any sources, and hence fails WP:NN. It has been tagged with "notability" since September 06, but without any improvement. Thus I am sending it to the AfD now. If, however, somebody is able to provide sources during the AfD process, so much the better. ~~Neutral~~. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject -- B. Wolterding 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?
- Mark Vail (2000). Vintage Synthesizers: pioneering designers, groundbreaking instruments, collecting tips, mutants ... Backbeat Books. pp. 83–84. ISBN 0879306033.
- "Products of Interest: Micor Inc. Coupland Digital Synthesizer". Computer Music Journal. 2 (1): 64–66. Spring 1978.
- Stephan Dargel (1995). "COUPLAND". Synrise (in German). Dariprint Softworks.
- L.L. De Mars. "Coupland". Synthèse et synchronisation de la musique électronique (in French).
Always search for sources yourself before nominating an article at AFD on grounds of notability. Uncle G 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am changing to Keep myself, given these improvements. --B. Wolterding 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 call for independent sources was ignored, and sources were what was really needed here. I will consider undeletion if anyone can link me to sources. W.marsh 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical College Democratic Students Association[edit]

Non-notable student organization that runs candidates for its college's student union (student senate). For an organization at a school where one of the primary languages of instruction is English and in a country with an extensive English language media 20 Google hits and no Google News Archive hits screams non-notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot, although I think it's implied in the above: none of the Google hits bring back articles from reliable sources of which this Association is the subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely doesn't seem to build the notability it needs. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search for the association and the college produces no exact matches. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG CLAIM See this search at same UK altavista site, this time with quotes http://uk.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=%22Medical+College+Democratic+Students+Association%22&kgs=1&kls=0

Many media reports.

Many =/= 78 (44 unique). More importantly, they are either (i) Wikipedia or its mirrors, (ii) from non-reliable sources, or (iii) mere passing mentions in a newspaper article, with no discussion of this organization. In order to be notable, the subject would have to be the subject of the newspaper article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, campus politics highly important in India. 'One school' in this case, is a quite major institution. --Soman 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a historic students organization of Kolkata.Has been in recent news over Nandigram killings that were extensively covered in Bengali media- Bengali being the world's 6th most spoken language.Western news sources that are primarily in English including those in India have much less coveregae of local issues- local in this case meaning the state of Bengal, much larger than many western states. By expanding knowledge about events and organizations of actual people and not onlt those what western/English speakers hear about, will help Wikipedia become more representative.The institution in question is Asia's oldest medical school.MCDSA was involved in the historic ABJDF movement.campus politics highly important in India.That these terms dont make sense to westerne sources is predictable, these events happened before internet came and hence myriad events of similar importance of the west are catalogued but not of places where majority of the world is.See WRONG CLAIM above. --drgarga 10:12, 20 May 2007 (ET)

If that is true, it should be the subject of multiple, reliable sources independent of the organization. Since you and Soman are the major editors of this article, perhaps you could add citations to the article revealing the Bengali sources you used to write it. The sources do not have to be online. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the band article was deleted recently too. W.marsh 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Our Blood[edit]

Album page makes no claim for notability, and band is up for AfD. Recommend delete. Dchall1 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. At least the album was actually released and sold (and is actually available through the Amazon.com link), which is much more than most of the other vanity band listings seen here. They have another album out, FWIW, with four customer reviews at Amazon (all five stars). Horologium talk - contrib 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album is actually available on Amazon and their other album survived AfD. Mpete510 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine (yacht)[edit]

Article is written like a short story and gives absolutely no information on the actual yacht other than the single line "Overall she appeared to be clearly outclassed by the chosen defender, a graceful and well appointed sloop named Madeleine". Also unnotable subject. 99DBSIMLR 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unreferenced, nonnotable story. YechielMan 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that's a first. I've never seen a Wikipedia page written in story form like this before. Formatting issues aside, it's clearly NN and unreferenced, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like a potential copyvio, but I'll AGF on that one. Fails on other criteria. Adrian M. H. 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarre. Looks like somebody ripped a page out of a book and posted it. Horologium talk - contrib 03:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a voluble contemporary source (public domain) but not encyclopedic in any case. Most of the article isn't even about the Madeleine. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs a rewrite for sure. But the yacht won America's Cup in 1876 [40], [41], [42], etc. I'll do a quick rewrite to get to the bare facts. SilkTork 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not. I can't be arsed really. Delete it. If somebody wants to, they can do it again properly later. SilkTork 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions as it's a Canadian yacht Canuckle 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daft website, but even worse AfD nomination. Sandstein 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for the Worst[edit]

This article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written. The only problem is that its subject is extraordinarily stupid. Do we really need an article about bored fans voting for the worst singer in America? I don't think so. YechielMan 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Its subject is stupid" is NOT a valid reason for deletion at all. Even you state that the article has reliable sources and is notable, which are two of the key reasons for inclusion on Wikipedia. Articles can't be deleted just because you don't like them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This subject is definitely notable judging by the press they received. The article is sourced properly and describes the importance and purpose of the site. It may be a stupid topic, but it's a notable stupid topic. --Cyrus Andiron 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - right from the nominator's argument - his article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written. The only problem is that its subject is extraordinarily stupid. No policy given whatsoever - in fact, nominator admits no policy is against this article. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a rule. You said it yourself nominator "This article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written." Wildthing61476 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Theater[edit]

non notable, largely unsourced, no real assertion of notability. WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Theaters are not inherently notable, and the unauthorized bio of Spielberg is really not a good source anyway (in part because it's unauthorized, in part because it's a trivial mention). The article also makes no real claim to notability. (Not to mention that there are, like, three million other movie theaters named Bay Theater -- there's one near me, as a matter of fact.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't any "Bay Theaters" near me. Hell, this is Indiana, there aren't any bays. That being said, nothing in this article asserts notability or shows why this theater is any more distinguished than the twenty screen Multiplex five minutes from my apartment. Old does not always translate to important. It may have been around for a while, but it is still just a place to watch a movie. --Cyrus Andiron 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wurlitzer Pipe Organ makes it historic and notable. It's the subject of these 2 Orange County Register articles [43][44]. The Spielberg claim is easily verifiable by either one of the two "unauthorized" biographis published. --Oakshade 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A theater built in 1947, home to a working Wurlitzer Piper Organ (the theater's website claims it's the largest of its kind in the world) and with a possibly verifiable Spielberg quote as a his favorite theater (at one time at least) warrants some cleanup and citationing. Theaters are not inherently notable and old does necessarily mean important, but this one seems notable. --Crunch 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not notable enough to be noted on the Wurlitzer Organ page, nor is it one of the few remaining in their original locations. Wurlitzer organs were installed in hundreds of theaters, maybe thousands. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Isn't it possible that the Wurlitzer page is incomplete or inaccurate? Also, Wurlitzers were installed in thousands of theaters, but only a handful are still in use. Again, this is what makes it notable. --Crunch 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the organ is notable [45]. SilkTork 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Middle School[edit]

Fails WP:NN, since notability is neither asserted nor established. No independent sources given. Tagged with "notability" since August 06, but has not improved. Was a contested PROD in last October, so I am sending it the long way here. Delete. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen worse, but that's no excuse. Not sufficiently notable when measured against similar subjects. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised it has lasted this long without being deleted.--TREYWiki 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

BAD BOY! NO COOKIE!

NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The arguments are all here below; I don't really have anything to add. There's sufficient verification that the entity exists. Is it notable? I don't know, but enough editors seem to think so to prevent its deletion. No cookie for Eερ² for going a bit over the top here. Herostratus 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Con[edit]

Completely and utterly non-notable. A google search returned fewer than 1000 results (many of which had absolutely nothing to do with the convention), and several Lexis Nexis searches returned results in the single digits, and none of those were actually about the convention. The google search returned no reliable sources (since there were so few results I had the ability to look through the results and look for reliable sources). Because there are no reliable sources covering this event, the convention fails WP:N. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, it's sourced, but not reliably. There are tons of cons out there; not all of them are notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN...--MONGO 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If trashcity.org is the best source available for this article, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, per nom. - Crockspot 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Um, Trash City is not the best source; it's been covered by Studio 360, Metro Newspapers, and Mother Jones (magazine) at least. The convention IS notable in the world of conspiracy. -Eερ² ^(T|C) 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... emerging conspiracy convention; as notable as DEF CON was in cracker/hacker circles when it began ... J. D. Redding 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DefCon had a lot more press coverage even in the early years, this isn't there yet. awgh 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If SlimeCon (about a circa 2002 convention about some 1980s TV show) can be on Wikipedia, Conspiracy Con can, which is about things FAR older than the 1980s... And if Abbott's Get Together, a magic con since the early 1900s with only 3 references can be on Wikipedia, Conspiracy Con with *8* refs... And there are also numerous other conventions in category:conventions that don't have ANY references at all... -Eερ² ^(t|c) 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification to keep. Since this convention has occurred six times (as alleged in the article) there should be a LOT more reliable media coverage if this were truly noteworthy. A bunch of ~~cranks~~conspiracy theorists gathering once a year to discuss ~~ZOG, Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and the Mena Airport~~ MK Ultra, The New World Order, and reptilians is not something that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. Horologium talk - contrib 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're biased. Remember WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Alleged technology is indeed a notable topic of inclusion in Wikipedia--especially considering all the alleged tech already present on Wikipedia; forums that discuss it are just as notable. --Eερ² ^(t|c) 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also biased, as you are the creator and primary contributor to the article under discussion. I withdraw my comment about "cranks" and the three sarcastic topics, as I didn't mean to insult any of the editors personally (note change to above comment.) However, I stand by the rest of my comments. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no media conspiracy to hide the existence of this totally non-notable event. Horologium talk - contrib 03:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what Mother Jones magazine is? It is notable ... J. D. Redding

Why yes, yes I do. World Net Daily is about equal to Mother Jones for NPOV balance. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I nominate that comment for deletion on the grounds of no reliable sources... :) -Eερ² ^(t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it HAS been covered by more mainstream press, as indicated above. Yes, it's relatively new, but older than several cons listed in Category:Conventions (and subcats). Yes, it's about conspiracy, but there have been MANY UFO cons that also deal with conspiracies since the mid-20th century too. Why aren't you people targeting the cons with even less notability/references than this con? You claim there's no conspiracy yet I see a consistent pattern of AfDs on conspiracy-related material occurring recently; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal for a list. -Eερ² ^(t|c) 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the nominator, I do not know the nominator, and I have never interacted with the nominator prior to this AfD. If you feel the others are non-notable, submit your own AfD requests. This is not a discussion of the other cons, it is about Conspiracy Con. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Horologium, I at least give a chance for people to ADD references before mindlessly nominating a page for deletion. I actually DO research--and know how to use search engines. I got The Photon Belt restored after it was deemed "nonnotable bollocks" by the deleter and numerous "contributors" (lynch mob, more like it) who put in their quite biased 2 cents on the deletion nomination. I don't appreciate it when hours of work gets casually nominated for deletion so I give articles a chance--I'm bold (benevolent) like that, see... -Eερ² ^(t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point about media coverage is that if it's six years old, it's not new, and should have more coverage from real sources. The only sources that are (marginally) valid are Mother Jones and Studio 360. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, that's 2 more marginally valid/notable sources than most of the other conventions on Wikipedia. I must've applied Template:Unreferenced to about 30 convention articles so far... :) -Eερ² ^(t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mother Jones and Studio 360 cites are valid, but they don't assert notability. No notability, no article. CWC 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How don't Mother Jones and Studio 360 assert notability? I often find people on these deletion nomination pages throw these terms around but fail to provide specifics/details as to what they really mean--if they even know... -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is easy to answer: Mother Jones does not assert notability, because it is nonsentient. It does not assert anything. However, the article in question ought not be referenced to "assert notability" because in it the author simply talks about having attended the Con. He doesn't give any reason why the Con is notable. In fact, he spends about as much time talking about Madonna as the Con in the article. If someone wrote an article in Mother Jones about their childhood lemonade stand, would that make the lemonade stand notable? Charlie 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article describes the author's comparison of his "front row bitches" feeling at a Madonna concert and then again at Conspiracy Con (where he was asked to speak). Reading comprehension would help... You DO know who Bill Santiago (the author) is, right?[46][47]--you know, the one on Comedy Central [48] and his own IMDB entry... But, hey, keep trying to redefine "notability", eh? -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not sourced and not worthy of a place here. Nick mallory 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not sourced? I have given a few secondary sources. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and why would you add this if you don't think it's notable/sourced? -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is from the Conspiracy Con website itself Eep. The quote I put into the article adds some more information but doesn't establish notability for the article as a whole - that has to come from independent third party sources. Nick mallory 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I've already given at least 3 notable 3rd-party/secondary sources (without the alleged non-notable Mother Jones source), Nick. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. non-notable nutburger Vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither spamcruftwhatever (an essay) or a soapbox. Try again, oh vague and biased one. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coast to Coast AM references; hardly "completely and utterly non-notable"--learn how to search websites that are notable within the field of conspiracy. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you 'biased' doesn't help your case Eep. Nick mallory 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do your biased comments help your case, Nick. I've already established notability with 3rd-party/secondary sources. If you people can't see this, you're freakin' blind and oblvious to WP:N. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the Wikipedia community to determine a consensus about the notability of this article Eep, not for you to simply assert it and ignore the opinion of almost everyone else. I think you mean 'too' rather than 'to' in your last sentence by the way. It's hard to be sure though. Nick mallory 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And now a reference from Salon.com [49]--notability noted. Next... -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sigh. This article barely mentions the Con, only to say that an author (also barely mentioned) was speaking there. How exactly does this article confer notability? You have been very critical of others' reasoning in this debate, but have offered little of your own besides posting links, and declaring editors with views different than yours "freakin' blind and oblvious". Charlie 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've already established notability of this con more than, oh, just about every other con in Wikipedia (which tend to not have ANY references, let alone the amount I have). Want another one? OK: Archive of Extremist Events by State: 2002, (Anti-Defamation League). Are you convinced yet? Didn't think so... <eyeroll> -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said I'm not convinced of the Con's notability. What I was objecting to was your continued propping up of sources, and the anti-defamtion league source is no exception, that only mention the con in passing. The Notability Guideline calls for "significant coverage" in sources, where that "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." I think it is a bit disingenuous to use sources that do not contain significant coverage, and then claim your opponents in the debate are ignoring the sources you've provided, or that they do not understand the notability guidelines. Charlie 10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Charlie, that even with the more notable sources that DO go into much more detail about the con and the writer's experience there, apparently they're not valid--even if written by a Comedy Central comedian who also did a show in HBO. Go figure. Sorry, but I feel mention in non-conspiracy forums like Salon.com, Metro Newspaper, and other sources makes the con more notable than many others--especially 90% of the ones on Wikipedia that have no sources or only primary sources! I've spent HOURS sourcing Conspiracy Con--it IS notable and if you people aren't going to do the research yourself (at least visit the freakin' links and actually READ the articles fully), you aren't qualified to comment on the subject's notability--PERIOD! Put up or shut up. I tire of having articles I've spent hours/days on be mindlessly nominated for deletion just because someone doesn't feel it's notable after they're piddly attempt to research the article. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop with the assumptions of bad faith. It's getting old. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Eep, why are you lumping me in with this "you people" group that doesn't want to follow your links or do research? I have read all of the articles you have linked to, and all I have said is that some of them only briefly mention the Con. Charlie 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, I am a little tired of your immediately assuming bad faith on my part (and obviously that of others, considering your rather intolerant and intemperate responses to those who disagree with you). I think there are some serious WP:OWN issues on your part in reference to this article. The links you have provided are not sufficient to justify using them as references. Simple mention of the con does not convey notability, and of Mother Jones, Studio 360, and Coast to Coast AM, the Studio 360 link is the only one that is possibly notable, as the first 2:40 of an 11 minute audio file deals directly with the con (the rest is an interview with an author who appeared at one of its iterations). The MoJo article does not convey notability; in fact, the tone is rather denigrating and dismissive, and the three Coast to Coast refs simply mention that three authors had been at Conspiracy Cons; they are not discussions of the Con. The Salon link mentions talking to two people at the con, but does not say anything about the con, which is needed to use it as a reference. And I really don't think you want to use the(perfunctory) ADF link as a ref, since that brings in all sorts of possible ways to expand the article in ways you probably don't want. However, many of the links you have dug up might be useful to flesh out the articles on the various authors cited in the articles, since they are the focus of most of the writing, not the con. Horologium talk - contrib 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Con-Con has been referenced repeatedly on Coast to Coast AM, particularly in regard to notable people who either are or have spoken there (their presence lends it notability, just like a science symposium would be if it was attended by Einsteins etc). This clearly demonstrates the notability of the event, and the fact that it has become notable in popular culture. As for reliable sources, it's a convention about conspiracies held by people who believe in conspiracies so it is only natural that it will be primarily be referenced in conspiracy sources. This is perfectly OK as all we are doing is referencing the existence of the conference, about which there is absolutely nothing redflag. More reliable sources would only be required if, for example, we were trying to prove that it was the world's biggest, or that it was being targeted by the CIA or something similarly extraordinary. - perfectblue 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage by Studio 360 ([50]) and Metro ([51]), plus treatment in Mother Jones ([52]) and mention by Salon.com ([53]) and Coast to Coast AM ([54] [55] [56]). Tim Smith 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From what I've been reading, the Metro and the Salon.com references can be counted as reliable sources. Coast to Coast AM definitly fails NPOV, and it portraits a lot of original research. Also, even though Mother Jones is a reliable source, the article of the reference is written by a comedian who took part in the convention, so that specific article cannot count as a reliable source. I vote for a keep because it has two strong reliable sources and because the fact that an article has few sources doesnt mean that it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion fi (talk • contribs)

The Coast to Coast AM refs are only to show notability in the field of conspiracy-related forums, in this case a radio show. Simply the amount of conspiracy-related people who talk at Conspiracy Con makes the con notable enough, without even having to reference it in secondary sources. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. I did my own Google search to be sure and it appears that the subject has very little following. I did a Google search for the founder Brian William Hall and came up basically empty. [57] It doesn't warrant an article. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do you even know how to do a proper Google search? First of all, learn how to use quotation marks: try "brian william hall". Second, you also need to try brian hall "conspiracy con" (which brings up even more notable sources: Interviews with Jerry Pippin: Brian Hall, ZoomInfo Web Profile: Brian Hall, UFO Magazine Volume 22, Issue 4: Conspiracy Con: Whys and Why Nots by Brian William Hall, Conspiracy buffs don't let 'them' get in way of convention, (Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal, Danek S. Kaus, May 17, 2002). -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been consistently rude to others throughout this AfD. I would appreciate it if you would stop. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if people would stop AfDing articles I've created and/or spent hours researching, which I consider to be QUITE rude, thank you very much. Take a look into the mirror, hypocrite. Why pick a convention that has FAR more credibility than most others on Wikipedia COMBINED (which have NO references)? -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating articles that deserve to be AfD'd. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up other conventions, the other conventions aren't up for AfD here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not; the articles I create don't deserved to be AfDed--that's just it; and I tire of overbearing Wikipedians (psst, that's you) who think an article doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia just because it hasn't made mainstream media attention. Sorry, but there IS an underground out there, you know--or perhaps you don't...wake up already, eh? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This convention is comparatively small, but it's notable within it's target circle, and has received attention from group such as the Anti-Defamation League, among others (see Tim Smith's source list further up on this section for more info). Furthermore, this non-notability argument seems to be used inconsistently across Wikipedia. If obscure British peers, a town in North Dakota with a population of 139, and small Canadian Anime conventions are notable enough (and I think they all are), then surely Con Convention is too, despite it's apparent crack-pottery. --Careax 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per numerous independent sources conferring some notability. Though many of the sources have trivial mentions, or barely more than that, I think the number of mentions in reliable sources, taken with those that have more than trivial coverage, are enough to justify keeping this article. Charlie 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing position to Neutral. I don't think the refs are worth the photons with which they are displayed, but there are enough of them in reliable sources to establish the existence of the Convention. I tend to be deletionist, but in this case, I can support either position, although if kept it is going to need a lot of work to wikify it. Horologium talk - contrib 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of work--Who spoke and the topics of each con? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps losing some of the less-credible sources entirely (the number of sources is not the issue, it is the quality of some of those sources.) Reorganizing the information into separate, discrete sections. Dropping the red-linked speakers; if they aren't notable enough to have articles, they probably should not be listed. (On a related note, the link to Jennifer Greene is to a Michigan-based romance novel writer; I don't think she is the person who spoke at the convention.) Explain why the infobox lists both San Jose and Santa Clara as sites for the con, when the article itself mentions only Santa Clara. Use some of the weaker links as "Additional Info" links at the end of the piece, rather than trying to use them to substantiate the narrative portion of the article. Your suggestion of arranging authors and topics by convention year is a good idea; it would certainly help expand the article. If any of the conventions had a specific focus or concentration, that could be noted. If anyone has public domain/free use photos of one of the conventions, they could be added to the article. These are just a few ideas; there are undoubtedly more and better ones out there. And yes, I do realize that the article is a stub, but you asked what work needed to be done on it. Horologium talk - contrib 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A place where notable speakers go to have an audience can be notable on that grounds alone. I'd suggest that the red links may be more useful in identifying people who might need articles--except of course for misidentifications.DGG 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - The Salon mention would be a good source, though I looked through it and Conspiracy Con only gets mentioned briefly on page five. The Mother Jones article doesn't really argue much for any sort of notability. Most of the other alleged sources on the page are quite unreliable by Wikipedia standards and should be deleted... but then the fact that the current article needs cleaning up doesn't mean that it needs deleting. Some notable nuts speak there, it's gotten enough independent mainstream coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so the argument to delete just isn't there, in my opinion. DreamGuy 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. It's this kind of discussion I wish would occur before an article is nominated in order to give time (at least a week) for the article to be better sourced and "fleshed out"--especially if newly created, as this one was/is. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, as usual. Be specific. Research the subject. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the notability of conventions has not been directly addressed by our current guidelines, I would be surprised if, when developed, this particular convention warranted an entire article. Since it functions at the direction of one particular individual, any useful content can be relegated to his article (if he meets the criteria for WP:BIO). --ScienceApologist 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Brian Hall doesn't run the entire con; he just produces it. There is another con in the SF Bay Area that Hall is a part of, the Bay Area UFO Expo[58], which I will also be creating an article for eventually. These conventions have far more notoriety, notability, and credibility, than 90% of the other conventions listed on Wikipedia (which have NO references--not even original sources). ConspiracyCon has been featured enough to make it notable--especially since it's not even that old of a convention. Unless you can cite specific examples of how this convention doesn't meet notability, I do not think all of these deletion votes are warranted--especially when there are SO many other conventions without sources at all. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EZ-Tracks[edit]

I can't find any evidence of notability for this web site. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Phrases like "value-added content" sum up the tone, and "unique among online music stores is that is both totally free and totally legal" is not even correct; there are at least two major websites that offer that. Promotional attempt. Adrian M. H. 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Studerby 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has already been speedy deleted once - Kneale 13:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried working with the author of this page to have it meet both WP:SPAM and WP:WEB, however it appears this is not possible. Wildthing61476 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 20 million users is an assertion of notability, but without any RS it's fatally undermined. --Dweller 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost luggage[edit]

Violation of WP:NOT, non-notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could use some work, but it is a fairly decent introduction to a common phenomenon. - SimonP 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not exactly sure how this could be improved, but it seems like a decent start on a fairly common topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable subject, article needs work, but I say keep it. Useight 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Notable as in "it happens a lot", but not necessarily WP:N. Do we need an article to tells us what lost luggage is and how it happens? Adrian M. H. 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. As well as telling readers about lost luggage insurance (ISBN 0764567470 page 21) approaches that airlines take to identifying and eliminating the causes of lost luggage (ISBN 0071387552 page 102) and lost luggage offices (Sir Francis Bond Head (1849). "Lost Luggage Office". Stokers and Pokers; Or, The London and North-Western Railway, the Electric Telegraph, and the …. London: John Murray. pp. 53–55.). Uncle G 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Useight. JJL 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question would this perhaps be better treated as part of a larger subject on luggage and airplane travel? FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I like FrozenPurpleCube's suggestion as well. Everything from baggage inspection to luggage locks to employee theft to bomb containment technology is potentially of value in a broader article. Added a mention of the Unclaimed Baggage Center. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple published works (see above, for starters). The PNC is thus satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Describes an economically important problem. Kla'quot 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Duport[edit]

non notable rugby player ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wobbly on this one. He does appear to be playing at a high level of the game, with the Catalan Dragons of the Super League (Europe), a professional organization, and we generally hold that professional athletes are notable. However, he's only apparently played three games at that level. Weak keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in a professional sports league. A scan of team articles in that league shows that all currently active players in that league have blue-linked articles, however stubby. YechielMan 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Yes, he has played in a professional league, albeit apparently without major achievement. It scrapes through by association. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

15 Songs for You[edit]

A fan-compiled, unofficial album of Christina Aguilera songs. No apparent coverage by reliable third-party sources. ShadowHalo 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usually, it's argued that albums are inherently notable if the artists that recorded them are notable... and somehow, Christina Gag-uilera is notable... but my own personal bias aside, I'd definitely say that this is a non-notable album, given its bootleg nature and lack of verifiability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cf. discussion about unreleased albums here. --B. Wolterding 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said that I can't find any reliable sources on this album... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unofficial albums don't have a specific guideline so I'm going by WP:N and this article defiantly fails. The CD Doesn't even exist for crying out load! It's a bittorrent file of random songs. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Stronger Keep It's existence is now not in question as it can be found using ALL the major internet search engines.

Just because this is a new phenomenon does not mean it's not an album as defined in the Wiki and just because the music is not pressed on a CD by a record label does not mean it's not seen as an album by all the downloaders playing it on their iPods.

If any of the major search engines did not list a link to the album then I think an article should be in question but the fact that fans of the artist are finding out about the album and if they want to know more then Wiki should be a place to find that information.

The album exists, it's in a new medium, delivery to listener is a new concept unheard of 5 years ago, people globally are downloading and listening to this album, there are huge numbers of Christina and Britney fans to whom this article would be of great interest so why it can't exist on Wiki is something I find puzzling and have called for some third party input.

I am not particularly a fan of Miss Aguilera, I like a couple of tracks but am really a Genesis, Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project and Metallica fan but I do think the new phenomenon of fan compiled albums of rare/previously unavailable material distributed via the internet to hundreds of thousands of fans is worthy of a small article on Wiki.

The comment about reliable third-party reference is interesting. If you Google the album title, follow the link and download the album via a bittorrent client or even follow a link in the article to one of two sound samples you will get to hear the music very quickly but if you read the Wiki article Corn chip there is no third-party reference at all, no external links to follow etc etc but I would not challenge the validity of the article or it's place here, it's doing a job and for someone interested in Corn Chips which is all my article purports to do. If someone is searching for a Christina Discography, sees reference to this album but knows nothing about it Wiki now provides information to exactly what it is, where it came from, who is making it available and what songs are included and where they are from originally. Adw uk 09:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search engine is not a source. A search engine may or may not be able to provide links to sources. BitTorrent is not third-party source at all. And if Corn chip needs references, tag it with ((unreferenced)), but I'm pretty sure that you that there do exist articles and other sources about corn chips. ShadowHalo 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I still think the article is valid, usefull, accurate, informative and is about the work of a major international recording artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw uk (talk • contribs)
You already voted you cant !vote twice. No matter how you look at it this is not an album. It's an unofficial collection of her songs someone put on bittorent. If I went and found 12 of my favorite Green Day or Trace Adkins songs through them into a bittorent file and named it doesn't make it an album or make it notable on here. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Deletion debates are not votes. The outcome of each deletion is based on how the article reflects the Deletion policy and other supporting policies. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, which says If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Give me one notable source and I'll change my mind, but there doesn't seem to be any. It may be true that these are by Christina, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and there are no reputable sources that acknowledge this album. Spellcast 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no third party media sources that can verify the importance of this album, as Just Be Free has. This compilation is tantamount to going to CMM, collecting all the unofficial remixes and distributing them to P2P calling the compilation an unofficial album. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with WP:N and WP:V. There are no reliable sources for 15 Songs For You, and Bittorrent is not a reliable source. As ShadowHalo said, it is a fan-compiled, unofficial album of Christina Aguilera songs. Acalamari 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Minton[edit]

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO} *Possible self-published spam *Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources (eg media conspiracy) Canuckle 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any non-trivial notable references to this gentleman. Google turns up 366 hits, and they're definitely not all him; the refs in the article don't appear to be substantial enough to establish notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "However, [he] is not reported by local mainstream media due to the influence of the individuals discussed in the material." And therefore, he's not worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very suspect for the reasons outlined above; created by an SPA account; non-notable. Adrian M. H. 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge/redirect still possible as an editorial decision. W.marsh 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's High School Musical: The Ice Tour[edit]

It's just a list of tour dates of a tour that hasn't started, and speculation in the lead paragraph. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep because the show itself will probably be notable, but there's no reason to list the tour dates. That can probably be removed. I might also suggest merger back into the HSM article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect back to the High School Musical article. Corvus cornix 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep This ice show should maintain its integral integrity and its identity. Where else would you put tour dates for the show?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.11.64 (talk • contribs)

I'd recommend the official website. FrozenPurpleCube 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources added. PeaceNT 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ovenden[edit]

Found on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. A WP:BLP with no sources since 2005. No apparent notability, either: sounds like your average British academic. See WP:PROF. Sandstein 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Withdraw. Sources now added, and people think he's sort of notable (I couldn't say). Sandstein 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. One book, which gets a total of 25 Google hits, and is around #1.7 million on Amazon; 598 hits for himself. Doesn't appear to be a recognized expert in his field, from that. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to work more with Google News Archive; judging from the refs Addhoc found, he's a recognized spokesperson for the field. Changing to weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I want to be generous, but frankly, this is quite non-notable in the big scheme of things. 83.67.34.115 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep pending some work. He is, more precisely, "Keeper of Special Collections and Western Manuscripts, at the Bodleian Library--this is one of the 3 or 4 most important positions for UK rare books and manuscript librarians. People in this position are expected to publish, and he has, beyond the one book--a number of articles in the good professional journals. His work is referred to by many others--there are a total of 130 hits in GScholar, though I have not sorted them out yet. Amazon rank is is a totally absurd measure for a scholarly book in the humanities, & so is google counts. He's to be judged according to his field. There are probably about 50 or 60 UK specialists in his subject, & he's in the top 10%. "there is no such thing as "the average british academic"--there are scholars in different subjects, & the subject needs to be taken into account. He has published nothing in Physical Review, and has never had his work mentioned in Nature, and thats about as relevant as Amazon and ghits. But I'll need to upgrade he article a little to demonstrate this. DGG 03:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, look at Google Scholar, and it may be my untrained eye, but it didn't really do much to indicate notability. He's got some reviews, one book, a couple of papers, and a lot of links on there where his name doesn't appear on the page at all. If you can distill all of that down to something that meets WP:PROF, I'm quite happy to reconsider. My apologies for using the Google and Amazon comments, but those were all I could find that were relevant to the discussion at the time; I work with what I've got. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a "Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL" search indicates notability. That said, fully support nominating articles that have been tagged for too long - in this case 18 months - and then only keeping them if sources are included. Addhoc 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an article about unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. --Seed 2.0 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JinSun Yoo[edit]

Contested speedy (see Talk:JinSun Yoo. Person clearly does not meet WP:BIO, author does not understand that the criteria needed for inclusion does NTO include the article being added to Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regno d'Italia (888-1024)[edit]

Non-English text, been on WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks, per PNT, pages older than 2 weeks w/o translation should be sent to AfD. Discussion at PNT indicates that this is already covered in another English-language WP article. Akradecki 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is about royal coronations, great victories, and a few popes. I don't think it contains any new information. Someguy1221 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Someguy's comment. This area is sufficiently represented, so a translation is probably redundant anyway. Adrian M. H. 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article, partially wikified, is at the Italian Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case, CSD A2 applies and it should be speedied, in case a roaming admin sees this. Akradecki 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article on the Italian Wikipedia, it:Regno d'Italia (888-1024), is a cut-and-paste move, and therefore would be speedily deleted as a GFDL violation because it did not preserve the GFDL required changelog and therefore is a copyvio. Its earliest date is May 4, 2007, while the one here has an oldest date of May 2, 2007.Jesse Viviano 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So, I'm assuming that this one came first? Is there then a way to transwiki the history from here, so that GFDL is honored? Akradecki 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speedy or not, this should go. The whole GFDL issue is murky when it comes to intra-WP transfers. We have these "requests for translation", when someone actually does that, how is the GFDL complied with based on the (non-English language) original contents? This is a longer discussion that is warranted by the present article, which will likely be deleted regardless of whether speedy criteria apply. For example, just perusing through Wikipedia:Translation/*/Completed_Translations/April_2007, I took the first article listed: Jean Fourastié, which has an en:WP history that goes back to April 18, 2007. However, it was translated from the fr:Jean Fourastié, which has a history going back to July 13, 2005; this history has not been imported to the English-language article, yet presumably the GFDL would require some credit be given to the French-language authors whose work was translated to create the English-language article. If not, then how do cut and paste jobs differ from wholesale copying and translation jobs? Carlossuarez46 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that when a translation is done, the translation should include the time and date of the version of the article being translated and a link to the source article somewhere in the text to credit it will satisfy the GFDL. However, I am not a lawyer and think that I could technically be wrong on this matter. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Levinas Chimsky[edit]

Found through Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. No sources since 2005, and a Google search suggests this article might be a hoax altogether. Also delete this odd picture that used to illustrate the article. Sandstein 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, does not demonstrate genuine notability. Akradecki 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete Appears to be verifiable, thus fails to prove notability. Adrian M. H. 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. I was unable to find an isbn for his supposed major work, nor any mention of it in Google scholar. His supposed follower "Yan Tho Zin" has zero ghits. I'm guessing the name "Chimsky" was chosen to make fun of Noam Chomsky. —David Eppstein 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Tho Zin. But there wasn't a lot of detailed discussion on that case. —David Eppstein 16:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.P.S. if this AfD passes, also remove the redirect at Chimsky, and the link in University of Budapest#Notable alumni. —David Eppstein 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- probable hoax; could not find entries for any of the works in Harvard or Library of Congress catalog, even on a search for last name alone or last name keyword. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outwitted us for two years, even after Yan Tho Zin was deleted in 05, but we finally caught on. DGG 04:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I was unable to verify any of the details of this bio. John Vandenberg 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one reference to him in a foreign language blog. If this a hoax, then it is very devious, which makes me shudder. nadav 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River and pond (beach evolution)[edit]

No context - what is the article about? See also talk page. Verisimilus T 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as gibberish. Article's content is better covered elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unecessary article, per the TenPoundHammer. Someguy1221 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Content fork at best. Lacks context, better handled by other articles. Adrian M. H. 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you delete and merge? That's an invalid vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ Anthøny 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable. A Google search turns up no satisfactory references (most of them are on pages like fakecrap.com). Furthermore, the membership itself is not even notable (by their own admission, this is the nature of the "organization"). Non encyclopedic and non notable. The Parsnip! 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon looking at the references, they appear to be fabricated.[59][60] --CA387 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to think more carefully about that. Google Web doesn't necessarily search newspapers and using The New York Times's own search facility (which of course isn't subject to the paywall as an external web spider is) pulls up the cited articles as the first and seventh results. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have been a keep !vote, but those refs certainly appear to be fake and the organisation has no website according to a web search. Who has ever heard of a genuine organisation that lacks a website in this era?! Likely to be fake. Adrian M. H. 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The formation of Densa, according to the sources (two of which are cited in the article itself), pre-dates the existence of the World Wide Web by roughly a decade. The world did exist before the World Wide Web was invented. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keappe. Just because the organization may be defunct doesn't mean it's not notable. I've heard of it (see my user page) and it registers a scattering of GHits. Should we get rid of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party just because it's a parody? Or the Knights Templar because they don't *gasp* have a website? Clarityfiend 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your userpage and a "scattering" of ghits aren't enough to establish notability. Saying you've heard of it is WP:OR and isn't acceptable for establishing notability. The scattering of ghits all go to trivial notes and unacceptable sources like "fakecrap.com". The Parsnip! 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Noisy | Talk 11:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is, by the sources already cited in the article. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense to a brief section in the Mensa article, and redirect. "Densa" is not notable as a real organisation, but it is notable as a common pun with 40,000 Google results (there are 1.6 million results if you don't include "Mensa" in the search, because you end up catching countless pages with densa, which is "dense" in Spanish, Italian, Latin and other languages). — Chameleon 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, the nominator, CA387, and Adrian_M._H. are making the error that Google Web is the be-all-and-end-all of looking for sources. In addition to the NYT articles, which (as pointed out) the NYT's own search tool finds quite happily, there are articles by The Colorado Springs Gazette ("Mensa sound too tough? Densa may be more your style", 1994-09-22), The Miami Herald ("Are you Mensa or a Densa?", Don Shoemaker, 1983-10-12), and The Syracuse Herald-Journal ("Densa: The club for people who dare to be dense", Maryln Schwartz, 1983-09-13).
Please put more effort into looking for sources, especially when the citations hand their locations to you on a platter. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Point taken, though may I ask how you found the other articles? Upon looking further, (I used LexisNexis), I was able to locate the Sarah Boxer article, as well as one other reference to Densa: by a middle school student in the The Post Register ("Test your wits with these brainteasers", Laura Evans,2000-04-25) where she mentions an internet "Densa Quiz". This goes back to what Chameleon said: Densa is not an organization—it's a pun. As far as the Boxer piece goes, it's a humor piece that mentions Densa only once in the lede (as a common pun), and goes on to make fun of Mensa:

“

There is a special club for those who don't make it into Mensa, the high I.Q. society. It is called Densa (really). And I have discovered a secret route in. Here is the admission test: Your editor asks you to take the Mensa test and to write about it in the newspaper. What do you do? If you agree, you don't have to wait for your Mensa score. You are already a member of the American order of idiots.

”

As I see it now, the only place for Densa (if kept at all) is in the Mensa article. Otherwise, Delete as before. --CA387 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Google Web is not the only search service that Google provides. If one wants to search newspapers, the Google News service is the far more appropriate one. Uncle G 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can one verifiable article (Sarah Boxer) with an arbitrary passing mention establish notability? The middle-schooler article isn't really a proper primary source, although it would be fine as a secondary. The Parsnip! 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The William McGowan article does not seem to exist. I used the New York Times own search function on their website, which pruports to have a full catalog back to 1981 and the article does not appear. The Parsnip! 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Sara Boxer article is real and does mention an organisation - not just a pun. Richard Mitchell also says that there is such an organisation in a speech given in 1986[61]. A search of - Densa card - reveals this interesting page[62] on a Mensa member's site. It includes a mailing address in the UK. I suspect that this organisation is real. There is another mention of the organisation here [63]. Besides, as a card carry member of the AOOB[64] I firmly believe in these weird groups. However, the article needs more work and it looks as though sources are hard to come by. Where's a Densa member when you need one? :) Paxse 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants in popular culture[edit]

Yet another "in pop culture" article. What is the point of listing every single time "that guy in that TV show said that one thing that was like that one thing in SpongeBob!"? This article is just a collection of pointless trivia that violates many different policy pages on many different levels. The Filmaker 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 2 voters voted for creation of this article anyway. No opposers. If more would have voted, I think there would be more opposers anyway. I have no idea why I got this idea, I see now it's too trivial. I apologise for even thinking about asking for votes on creation for this article. TheBlazikenMaster 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic subject for an article, like all other "In Popular Culture" lists. - fchd 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - definitely unencyclopedic. And by the way, could someone please explain to me why so many people find Spongebob so appealing anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan, but I think I know the answer. Because the show has won the reward five or something like that times in a row. TheBlazikenMaster 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean award? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial pop-culture. Some of the more notable (and I use that word loosely) references could be placed in the parent article, but this does not deserve an article of its own. Adrian M. H. 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of trivial information. If there's any notable ones, they should be sourced and moved to the appropriate article. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibob Deletepants Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 22:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is riddled with trivia, indiscriminate information, and fancruft and it's all in one roof. Pants^(T) 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article isn't encyclopedic nor is it formatted well. P.S. - I'm hungry. Useight 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of it to the main SpongeBob Article, delete the rest ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Star Wars[edit]

Yet another "in pop culture" article. There really is no point to this article. It is simply an article filled with trivial references of "that time that that show mentioned the name Skywalker!") How is this information useful? Some may argue that it paints a picture of how broad the cultural impact of Star Wars has been. However, on an encyclopedia, we're not here to paint a picture. We're here to state the facts in the most elegant, yet efficient way possible. Since it's information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article). This not to mention WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:ATT and probably more policy pages that it violates. The Filmaker 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly fancruft trivia, and not really encyclopædic. Adrian M. H. 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely trivial and unencyclopedic. While it's nice to know that Star Wars is so mainstream, we don't need an anal-retentive-complete list to tell us that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, it mentions the Christmas special - somebody call George Lucas! ;) On a more serious note, yes, it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Some parts are pretty amusing and good for a chuckle and some are so utterly trivial, it boggles the mind. It's not technically listcruft but it's an indiscriminate collection of information. It's always a shame to see somebody's work go down the drain but it just isn't appropriate for WP. -- Seed 2.0 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear to those passing by ^^^^ that is a Delete. :) The Filmaker 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. A lot of time and effort went into this article, but it's not encyclopedic and trivial and I hope the guy who made it put the information on his blog or something so it's not lost to the world. Useight 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I would have advised the creator or a major contributor to save and move the article to a more appropriate wiki by now but most non-maintenance contributions are from IPs and we don't even know if that/those anonymous editor(s) will ever see the message (bug #9213, dynamic IPs) and userfying is out of the question anyway. Well, I guess there's always DRV. -- Seed 2.0 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of content that we should let wikis like Wookieepedia take care of. Far too trivial for Wikipedia in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good article for reference, and certainly not as trivial as many other WP pages. What do you lose by keeping it? Yoda921 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]
KeepAs reason stated above. User:AKR619

- A better question would be, what is gained by keeping it? How is this information useful? At what point would I need to reference this article? If these questions cannot be answered with anything beyond "It's kinda fun" or "It's interesting" than the information is trivial. The Filmaker 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you have no interest in Star Wars, but some of us do. It's certainly handy to find all the Pop-culture references to this saga on one page - imagine how much time and effort it would take to find all this information ourselves!! It's certainly a handy reference. And there are many articles on Wikipedia which you would never reference. All of them. Exactly how many of your Uni lecturers (or whatever) will accept WP as a reliable source? And even if they did, what about all the pages for Pokemon, Digimon, Star Trek etc? Doesn't all of those come under the banner of "kind of fun" or "interesting?" Why don't you petition to delete all of them?

Do you want this information, which would have taken several hours to accumulate, to be "lost to the world?" What right do you have to instantly destroy something which took a long time to build without the consent of the builder?

Yoda921 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

Actually I am responsible for 5 of the 6 Star Wars film articles becoming featured articles, one of which will be featured on the main page on the 25th and I am currently working on Return of the Jedi. I am a fan of the series and the universe. However, an encyclopedia is a gathering of information that is reasonably important. How do we differentiate what is important and what is not? By what information would actually be useful. You have stated again that this information is good for reference. Reference for what? At what point would this information be needed to understand or enhance the understanding of a subject? At least articles on characters from the universes that you stated above can be used for reference to understand certain elements that may have been missed or are unable to find. They can be used for more than just "kind of fun" or "interesting". Finally, the amount of time spent on an article is not a factor here. It's a shame, yes, that so many people (mostly new or unregisterd users) feel the need to add information to this subject. However that does not make it any less trivial. And why would we need consent from the builder? Do we need consent from the original builder if we were to demolish a condemned building? No, because it's condemned and it may have been condemned because of the actions of the builder. The Filmaker 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fan of Star Wars, I am. But useless trivia and fancruft, this article is. Deleted as such, it should be. --Cyrus Andiron 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a glorified trivia listing. This is a place for article, not random bits and occurrences. Biggspowd 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see "cultural references" and "pop culture references" in almost every article I see on Wikipedia, and Star Wars is one of the most-mentioned references. It makes sense that it would have its own article.--Gloriamarie 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to begin with, I highly doubt that "almost every article" on Wikipedia has a "pop culture/cultural references" section or branch article. Yes, a high-number do. But if you can name one featured article that is a "in pop culture" or contains a "in pop culture" section, I would refut my statement. These sections and articles are being deleted left and right. They hold very little to no useful information. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a suitable argument. The Filmaker 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with the nominator on this one. Elrith 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon metal[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable protologism. No sources, and the 87 unique Google hits that this term gets suggests that reliable sources do not exist. Prolog 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, which sums it up. Adrian M. H. 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Closedmouth 06:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources to the article, please reconsider this delete. --80.168.188.77 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those two links simply aren't enough. Anyone can invent a new metal genre by writing "thingabob metal" on their MySpace page, but that isn't the Wikipedia criterion for notability. Elrith 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Knights[edit]

This band lacks notability. The only notable point I could find is the album they released. However, WP:MUSIC requires: "Has released two or more albums on a major label..." That is not the case here. No information found on the web regarding a second album. -- Delete. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about that single album:

--B. Wolterding 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can prove that they've charted anything in Italy. ~~By the way, you might wanna nominate this page too.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of their chart performance on the internet, not a single band member is notable, nor their is proof that any of their songs have been played in any programme or function.--Kylohk 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - so far as I can tell there was only one album, which was not a success. Therefore since there are no extenuating services (like here) it is clear that this band has inadequate notability to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bingham Arbuthnot[edit]

This biography says he was a General. I see nothing further that tells me why he was a General or for what it was he was notable. I hope someone can come up with some further information and save this particular Arbuthnot - if not delete it. Giano 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears he was not in fact a General. Giano 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete unless someone — preferably not Kittybrewster — can find sources for this. The only Ghits are on Wiki mirrors or Sir William's own site (or the entry on the Peerage site sourced from him), and while I'm not a rabid Arbuthnot-deleter an article can't rely solely on "Memories of...". He's not mentioned in Lawrence James's Raj, which while incomplete does mention pretty much every significant British military figure in India in this period — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On reading the notability guidelines for military biographies — which I confess I didn't know existed until five minutes ago — he clearly fails unless there's more to add, as there's no mention of commanding a large body of troops in combat — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't know about the notability guidelines for military biographies either. He doesn't appear to satisfy those. Would welcome more sources, in which case I might change my vote. EdJohnston 22:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You probably didn't know about them because they are the guidelines of a wikiproject, not WP guidelines. That isn't to say they aren't perfectly good ones, but they shouldn't be given as much weight as WP guidelines, and certainly not as much as policy. Charlie 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Granted, but seems that the relevant WikiProject is best placed to judge what constitutes notability in their specialist area. If the people who care most about the subject are saying they won't care about an article, that's a pretty convincing argument to me even if it's not a policy — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Understood. I mean no offense, and it seems to me that your argument here is valid. Charlie 00:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. No evidence his military service was notable in any way. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:N (neither of the two sources is independent). A WP:MILITARY#Biographies puts it, "Any person that that is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable". Apart from its failure to meet the guidelines, I can find no other grounds to keep this article; it is barely long enough to count as stub-class, it has no independent references, and there is not even the smallest clue to suggest the man did anything notable. He appears to have been an simply an obscure functionary in the British Raj, whose biography has been created and maintained by two editors ([65] [66]) who are fixated on Arbuthnots. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable United and Free 14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might possibly be notable but there's no way to tell from the article. There are no real references to whatever he may have done, because of Kb's inadequate research. Had he researched each one of the Arbuthnots with care, we would know, for example, just what he was general of and what the soldiers under his command did. But in the attempt to get all of the family in WP, it apparently wasn't feasible to do the work to tell us anything much about this. I'm certainly willing to work on an occasional article somewhat within my field of interest when the author didn't know how to do an adequate job, but I am not willing to devote the rest of the year to this particular family. If Kb took his project seriously, he would have written the articles in a much more careful way. Though there would not have been as many of them written, there would have been more documented well enough to keep. DGG 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a General, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Squeakbox. And the number of men under his command. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above edit by Kittybrewster may fall into the category of WP:COI. Giano 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except you have not bothered to tell us how many men were under his command, for all we know he could have finished his career in the Salvation Army banging a tambourine. Giano 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a General not a Corporal, SqueakBox 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generals are inherently notable. Note searching his full name won't necessarily turn up relevant hits as he may just be referenced as General (or a lower rank he held) Arbuthnot. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be nice but as it is only Kittybrewster's granny (or whoever she is) seems to be aware of him. Giano 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to disseminate useful knowledge, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are but "Granny Arbuthnot" fails to cite her sources and as she is the only person who claims any knowledge of this person apart from Kittybrewster's own tree which is of course based on granny's book it is all a little dodgy! Giano 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I change my vote to Delete as the 3rd Madras Cavalry was not in the British Army but part of the Honourable East India Company. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt make him less notable, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think inherently it does and I have looked high and low for any reference to anything he has done I can find nothing at all. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to [67] he was a Lt. Col. in the 8th Madras Light Cavalry in 1857. Do we actually have any independent source that describes him as a General- I can't even find a mention in the Times for him? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I say above, I'm not 100% convinced - the only source I can find that mentions him is "Memories of the Arbuthnots". Even if he is confirmed as a general, he still appears to fail WP:MILITARY#Notability since that requires he commanded a large body of troops in combat — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK I found his death in The Times on June 4, 1867- he was a Major-General and died at Sidney Villa, Bath, described as "late of of the Madras Cavalry aged 63". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So am I right in thinking a Major-General is two ranks below a fully fledged General? Giano 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he was a Major-General in the East India Company Service not the British Army. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Today, army officers generally retire a rank higher than when serving, was that the case at that time too? Giano 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it did happen yes.. I've found another reference to him in The Times dated May 16, 1859 where he was still described as a Lt. Col., 8th Madras Light Cavalry on the marriage of his youngest dau. Fanny to E.A. Loraine Grews Esq. (he died 8 years later). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Arbuthnot lies! I seems that only when others delve into that facts of these articles do we get the truth. Thank god for editors like Giano who are actually putting the time in to get to the truth and not just accepting the misinformation that is coming from the Arbuthnot family themselves - sickening and embarassing to be honest. I know one journalist that is know writing a piece for a large newspaper in Ireland about the Arbuthnot self promotion crusade.--Vintagekits 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these pages are all deliberate lies - more a case of typical family legend and myth that has got out of hand. What family has not exaggerated a long dead ordinary-serving-soldier-great-grandfather to the ranks of war hero or a long lost family farm to an estate these things happen - what does not happen is for these myths to be published in encyclopedias as fact. So this has all got to stop, and the sooner the better. Giano 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually thought he might have been promoted due to some heroic action in defence of the Company's interests during the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 but this doesn't seem to have been the case as he was still Lt. Col. after that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have now found an entry from the London Gazette that states that George Bingham Arbuthnot was appointed Colonel on July 4, 1858- this issue was dated March 4, 1864, three years before his death so he must have been promoted to Major General during those years. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Update OK, solved it! In the 25 March, 1862 edition it states that

"The undermentioned officers of Her Majesty's Indian Military Forces, retired upon full pay, to have a step of honorary rank" - Colonel George Bingham Arbuthnot appears under the Major-General heading dated 31 December, 1861. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how the subject is notable and a total lack of reliable sources. Nuttah68 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is a Major-General, not a general in the popular sense of commanding an army. Holding this non-notable rank alone is not enough for notability. I see no evidence of notability in the biography. No entry for him in ODNB, which usually stretches notability for this time period. This is a clear delete, unless anyone gives me further evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note he finished his army career as a Colonel, the Major-General was an honorary rank awarded in retirement. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that! I guess that only decreases his already low notability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone unearths something interesting that he did. Becoming colonel of a regiment in British India, and then retiring as an honorary Major General, is not terribly notable. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not sufficiently asserted. --Ashenai 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not notable. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural prejudice[edit]

Having only skimmed the article yesterday, I decided to read it in full today, with the hope of cleaning up some of the POV and giving my thoughts to the author. However, while reading it I found myself wanting to put a ((fact)) template next to every sentence on the page. This article is hopelessly POV original research. My list of reasons for nominating this for AFD would stretch longer than the article itself, so I ask that anyone who comes across this discussion give the article a good read and decide for yourself. But just to give you some idea, the article is filled with citationless POV claims about the existence of God, various religious beliefs, and acts of God. It is also filled with citationless claims concerning cultural beliefs (the morality of homosexuality, for example). So, to summarize my point again, this is hopelessly POV original research with no references whatsoever. Someguy1221 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. My God, that's the worst case of WP:OR I've ever seen. Horrible violation of WP:NPOV too. This article's hopeless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The specified by TenPoundHammer offensive frazes has been deleted. Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to prejudice I only had to read the first paragraph and thought, "Good grief ..." Blueboy 96 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fist paragaph has been deleted. Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TenPoundHammer. JJL 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The specified by TenPoundHammer offensive frazes has been deleted. Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Ughh. Charlie 23:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which part is WP:SNOW? Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The cultural prejudice seems to become the main factor leading to the posible future extinction of human species." and that's just the first sentence. Nick mallory 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first sentence has been deleted. Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. If cultural prejudice does lead to the extinction of the human species, who will create the reliable sources to verify that? -- Metropolitan90 02:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who would be interested in verification then? Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horror article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which means... Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gahhh. WP:NPOV and WP:OR with a huge serving of WP:SYN on the side. Horologium talk - contrib 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which parts are WP:NPOV and WP:OR with a huge serving of WP:SYN on the side? Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but don't salt. A decent article could conceivably be written at this title, but this POV essay isn't worth keeping, since there is nothing there to work from. *** Crotalus *** 06:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was no article about this problem. IMHO such an article is needed at least to turn the attention of readers to such a problem in this civilization where 85% of civilized people believes in contradictory things and worse, some of them are willing to destroy those who don't share their particular prejudice, and even worse they have or will have in the near future the means to do just that. I dont' insist on my article being kept but some serious look at the problem by anybody would be appreciated. The sooner the better. Jim 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article requests "all the fellow Wikipedians not to delete this page but to add more desriptions of identified prejudice to the list below". As a self-styled deliberate magnet for pushing The Truth™, to the exclusion of everything else, this article should go. I strongly recommend that JimJast (talk · contribs) review our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, because this is not the first time that we've had xyr articles brought to AFD with non-neutrality concerns right at the forefront. Uncle G 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What would be a NPOV in relation to prejudice? Jim 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It is hopelessly POV and OR, doesn't cite sources, and there is already a prejudice article. Queerudite 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Shoket[edit]

Editor of a magazine ... questionable about whether she's notable. Can't find anything in search engines that doesn't look puffy. Blueboy 96 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Article hints at notability, just needs sources ~~and categorization~~.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable position at notable magazine. Added some categories. Canuckle 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Canuckle. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editor of a major magazine. Definitely passes WP:N. Horologium talk - contrib 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wikified and removed most of the PR language. It was also in reverse chrono order like a CV instead of an encyclopedia article.--Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editor-in-chief of a notable magazine, article asserts notability xC | ☎ 19:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularmyanmar.com[edit]

Non-notable website of a print magazine. Article reads like an advertisement and does not sufficiently establish notability of the print publication (aside from "it's popular" and "it has an international readership") or the website. 710 Ghits. Fails WP:WEB. Seed 2.0 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, I was the one who advert-tagged it back in the day. Chris 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to reasons above, blatant conflict of interest abounds. Actually from the article: "We use quality papers, colourful photos, paintings and extended many other topics in the Yati Magazine [...] Therefore, as a part of the Asian Fame Co.Ltd, we planned to establish popularmyanmar.com. We will present Popular Journal and Yati Magazine on the website. So, every readers throughout the world can enjoy this website. " Charlie 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as per ((db-web)) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (all) ~ Anthøny 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With You (Linkin Park song)[edit]

Non notable song, not single, mostly trivial. Delete.
Also nominating these articles from the same album for the same reason(s):

Points of Authority

Runaway (Linkin Park song)

Cure For The Itchv

Rehevkor 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all as nothing but trivia on non-notable album cuts. Although it is nice to know that people still listen to album cuts, considering how many people that I know admit to only listening to the singles off an album and nothing else... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all because Linkin Park songs are good. They deserve to stay. --72.66.5.85 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does being 'good' make them notable? Or indeed, deserving? Rehevkor 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park songs are notable enough. :P --72.66.5.85 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to their album articles. Should you come across such articles in future, feel free to boldly redirect them without an AFD. Otto4711 13:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Not being an idiot, I did as such for some of these articles, but most were re-created. So, I felt an AfD was needed. Rehevkor 15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I held any opinion of your idiocy, at least not before reading your comment. My suggestion was not made because of your idiocy or lack of same; rather because I have no way of knowing whether you know about redirecting and if you didn't know, then you would. Otto4711 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your tone condescending, not to mention insulting. Rehevkor 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you chose to interpret it that way. Otto4711 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules Inx272
Delete I'm not even sure why these should be redirects. Elrith 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely BEYOND KEEP all because of the same reason as Inx272. --Ihitterdal 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, Not a notable songs. Articles lack citations, and fails WP:NOR and WP:ATT, like most Linkin Park articles. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 06:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or redirect all, because articles are not attributed and seems non-notable to have their own page. Carlosguitar 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page has been deleted and recreated and redirected and... anyway, I found one reliable source, and took out what was unsourced. Perhaps we can get a fresh consensus on whehther this page is worth keeping, now that it's cleaned up. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a dictionary definition that already has content in Wiktionary.--Xnuala (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xnuala. I would call it a dickdef as other users said in the previous discussions... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slang dicdef with a wikitionary entry and no potential for further expansion. Seed 2.0 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would it be appropriate to redirect the page to taint (slang) or to penis? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be necessary, as choad seems to have multiple meanings. Redirecting it would endorse only one of the potential meanings.--Xnuala (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Its a dicdef or, in this case, a dickdef. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition that lacks encyclopedic value. Leftus 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Constant target of vandalism with no redeeming encyclopedic value. ➪HiDrNick! 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I originally prodded this one but it kept getting vandalized and trashed and finally moved here which is probably best. In the first place, there is really no way to source the definition. Secondly, if there is a character named Choad then the search should go straight there. JodyB_talk 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way to source the definition? I sourced it! Random House is a reputable publisher, and they ran it as their "Maven's Word of the Day" or something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and we probably should protect any subsequent redirect page. Abusive slang. --Fire Star 火星 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best a dictionary defintion for a slang dictionary. No sources so unverifiable Gwernol 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a reliable source? I don't think it necessarily estabishes notability, but doesn't it pass the "WP:RS" test? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GT, you have a reliable source for one definition. Mavis points to the wide speculative usage of the word. It does fail WP:N and we probably should have a look at WP:NOT#DICT. Maybe one could argue that a disambig. page is warranted but inasmuch as the word definition is not within the notability guidelines and since we are not a dictionary here and to top it off, it is a constant pain to keep the vandalism off, I stand on my !vote to delete & salt. JodyB_talk 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems fine; I was just confused why people are saying "no source", because I removed all the unsourced material. I can see the argument for salting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article did not assert notability, there was major BLP problems with the whole article and the giant list which made up 90% of it, and nothing worth saving. Throw in 2007051510005329, and there'sa good case to delete this without delay, which is what I've done. Daniel 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbury Comprehensive School[edit]

lack of notability, just a big mass of stuff, listcruft Chris 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no references to support a notability that doesn't even exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only notable mentions of the school are its A-level performance charts by Guardian and BBC, and that mentions basically all schools in the area, so it's not that signifcant.--Kylohk 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Notability established by multiple, independant, reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on every person in the world who has gone to court over something. This person is not notable, and there are not claims of notability. My speed tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here Corvus cornix 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly non-notable and a bit contrived too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per comments by Richard Arthur Norton. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator Third party coverage makes things notable. Correct, not every court case is notable, but ones covered in the BBC and the Guardian are notable. Notability isn't subjective, its bestowed by other trusted sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every court case covered by the BBC and the Guardian are notable? British prejudice showing, I see. Can I say that every court case covered by NBC or CBS is notable? Corvus cornix 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the opposite! Your showing USA based bias. All you Americans do that. Wikipedia needs more coverage of the rest of the world. I hope that every court case covered by at least three media outlets in the USA would be covered. That way Wikipedia is useful and extensive. If a topic reaches the point where it is covered by the top media, its inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is to be useful and extensive, I would agree to an extent.... but it's not meant to be all-inclusive -- see WP:NOT for a list of things that Wikipedia is not. You are right that this case was covered by the top media; however, I'm not 100% certain of its encyclopedic merit. I at least changed to a "weak keep" vote just because of the presence of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When citing WP:NOT, please be specific. Its like saying its "somewhere in the bible" without quoting a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and "All you Americans do that" counts as a personal attack. If I were you, I'd refrain from the attack-type comments. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a personal attack, its attacking a nation of people, including myself, not an individual. Its more of a broad national caricature. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's considered impolite to make broad generalizations like that. Granted, User:Corvus cornix made a broad generalization too, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What broad generalization did I make? I was only parroting back what Mr. Norton said. Corvus cornix 01:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Sorry about that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only impolite but wrong and prejudicial and does nothing to enhance the discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. WP is not a soapbox for airing personal grievances against a group of people. Substitute "all you Americans do that" for "all you Jews do that" and see how far you'll get. Don't do it again because it won't be tolerated. The Parsnip! 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep as per comment by creator (BBC, Guardian). JJL 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has independent, non trivial sources and the issue it raises is going to be an important one. Nick mallory 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Icelandic Wikipedians' notice board informed. Pavel Vozenilek 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. If an Icelander provides a reason to keep the text consider the vote null and void. Pavel Vozenilek 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should the opinions of Icelanders have more weight than others? --DeLarge 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may be Icelandic, but Flickr is owned by Yahoo!, and the result of a court case will have wide-ranging implications. Horologium talk - contrib 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Lawsuits over copyright infringement are an every-day thing and hardly notable as such. The same could be said about disputes over censorship in online communities. However the media works in mysterius ways, they don't report on all matters like this but two big and separate media outlets did cover this story, which makes it somewhat notable. ~~But maybe a better way to deal with this dispute on Wikipedia would be in a criticism section in the Flickr article?~~ --Bjarki 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Upgrading" to a "normal keep" because of prior WSJ coverage, three large media outlets is certainly enough to establish notability. Notability isn't subjective and all that... --Bjarki 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. If you take the Flickr part out of the story, we just learn that she's a photographer. If there's not much more to say about her as a photographer, I do not see the notability. That her copyrights were infringed is sad but that happens everyday to many people and does not establish notability in my view and it is not her achievement. The third party sources just report about that copyright issue. Being the confirmed victim of a crime like that does not constitute notability, even if reported about. 2 - External links are just a MySpace page and the Flickr page. Probably thousands of people who post their own works there have pages on these two sites, which does not establish notability for every one of them. 3 - The article is about the photographer and her notability as a photographer needs to be proven and sourced and that is not the case. No notability established for the subject and in my view the equation "photos posted on MySpace + photos were stolen + press reported about theft = photographer must be notable" does not work out.doxTxob \ ^talk 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You did see that the Guardian profile predates the more recent controversy, yes? Ditto for her WSJ mention. So she's not being covered just as some random crime victim. William Pietri 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are confused between "external links" and "references". One sources the material, the other is for convenience. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the external sources do, and all the info comes from the references. "If you take the Flickr part out of the story". True, if you take X out of any story, whats left. If that guy didn't write the best selling book, or that band get a number one hit, would you be writing about them? Thats why notability shouldn't be subjective, and should be bestowed by reliable media outlets. Let them decide for us what is notable. Sometime you make history by just refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Small events can cascade into larger things. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability, however, should be determined by something the subject of the article has achieved, not something that has happened to the subject of the article, that would be coincidence. Information about people who become famous by accident, in my opinion, is considered triva and not notable enough for an encyclopedia. In this article no achievements are mentioned but coincidences that could happen to everyone who shares files on a file-sharing website. They are sourced, just not notable. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thats never been a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. We have lots on kidnap victims such as Elizabeth Smart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been covered by reliable sources prior to this incident, and "The Wall Street Journal recently profiled her as a member of the 'New Media Power List'". Seems like the article could be verifiable, encyclopedic in tone, interesting, and useful. William Pietri 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already mentioned, appeared on the WSJ new-media power list and is the most popular photographer on Flickr,[68] has been the plaintiff in a court case which itself has had extensive coverage at a national level,[69][70] and has been the subject of at least one profile in a national newspaper (note: her, not the aforementioned court case).[71] Any one of these in isolation is probably not sufficient for inclusion, but all together? Passes WP:BIO's inclusion criteria with room to spare. --DeLarge 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Subject seems somewhat notable based on news coverage. As for whether she'll remain notable remains to be seen. The Parsnip! 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.I.G.G.A.[edit]

I can't seem to find where this is notable, google brings up nothing on this subject. what do you all think? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete if not speedy. Fails WP:BLP spectacularly, including unsourced statements like "After the Harris's move to neighboring city Niagara Falls, Javier began selling crack cocaine while his brother held down a low paying job to support them." Come to think of it, since that is unsourced it may be libel, so a speedy delete may be in order. Charlie 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this definitely looks like a hoax by a SPA but we don't speedy those (even though I could actually see how this could qualify for the Bing Crosby treatment). Strictly speaking, it's not an attack page either. I'm satisfied that it qualifies as A7, however. So tagged and warned. -- Seed 2.0 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamicruftiwhatchamacallit. And what's the Bing Crosby treatment anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the weather outside is frightful but the fire is so delightful and since we've no place to go ;) -- Seed 2.0 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useight 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Horologium talk - contrib 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. It's an "underground rap group". Wow. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 and potential BLP violation. *** Crotalus *** 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of webcasters in California[edit]

Listcruft. We're planning on having this list, with an Internet link, for every station in the world? Corvus cornix 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as coverage would be nigh-impossible though I wouldn't object in principle to a categorization. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one highly unnecessary, arguably hard-to-define list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links. Pax:Vobiscum 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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