< April 12 April 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biolytix[edit]

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

This article appears to be spam and not notable. --Alex 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabirock[edit]

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

Er... an article about a "mysterious man in the Greater Manchester area, who walks around all day... wearing a sandwich board". Someone else tagged this as a speedy A7, but another editor removed it on the creator's behalf. The CNN link is more trivial than it might look, it's just a blog for Manchester that accepts reader submissions. Every city in the world has characters that are known locally. They don't get Wikipedia articles. Crazysuit 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedians define notability to be "The subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject". Which this isn't. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't self promo - it's not about me! (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think you have missed the point, the builder part is just a bit of backgroun and the only background anyone can find on him. He's not a builder now. (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's relevant because UniqueKiwi is obviously a sock-puppet. Crazysuit 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - CNN doesn't mention him - a user on a chat page hosted by CNN mentions him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response comment - the user was Badly Drawn Boy, a famous musician from Manchester. Also, the chat page was not contributable by the public, only by accredited reputable editors (of which Badly Drawn Boy is one). To disregard this reference would be as unjust as disregarding ANY reference, as they are ALL written out of the public domain by a an accredited person granted special permission. Yes, even a news reporter for a news paper fits into this catagory. (146.87.255.19 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, let's delete stonehendge, crop circles and Jord then shall we? Using that logic, we could strip away a LOT of wikipedia pages, RGTraynor. I don't think it's a good idea to use that arguement. (Mawkish1983 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think it's an excellent idea, actually. Equating internationally well-known subjects for which thousands of references exist with some local character unknown beyond the Manchester city limits for whom no reliable, independent, published sources exist is what isn't a good argument to use.  RGTraynor  17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to keep argueing, RGTraynor, but I feel it is important Sabirock is included on this encyclopaedia. If it was true that local only subjects were not allowed to be included here, Mike Toolan should have been removed. He hasn't. I still fail to see why Sabirock should be removed when I compare the article about him, the references to him and the number of people who know of him to another pseudo-celebrity (like Mike Toolan) who remain on here without arguement. You accept that this local character is known within the city limits of Manchester (actually the county limits of Greater Manchester, but we shalt be picky), so why should he be removed when other local characters remain? Again, I am sorry for continually argueing about this, but this seems like hypocracy to me. Perhaps it is victimisation, so what is Sabirock's crime exactly? (Mawkish1983 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
And I am sorry, but I still disagree with your statement that there are no reliable, independent, published sources. I have listed pleanty of independent references (from the public). One reference points to a page of pictures taken of Sabirock (providing reliability of the statements given in the aforementioned sources). As for being published, the CNN reference is more than a blog (as I have said many times). In order to add an article to the particular page, one must be endowed certain privelages by the CNN Website Admin. Badly Drawn Boy was endowed such privelages because of his fame. I do not see why the reference to the CNN Website is any less notable than any other reference that can be given. Please do not take this arguement personally, I simply believe strongly that Wikipedia needs a page about Sabirock, as he is a Manchester landmark and a local celebrity. Any arguements that he is not a Manchester landmark are false. Any arguements that he is not a local celebrity are also false. So, why should he be removed? (Mawkish1983 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I don't accept that he's well known in Manchester; I'm simply not a Mancusian myself and lack the standing to comment on it one way or another. But first off, let's review your sources. #1 is a blog. #2 is a blog. #3 is a blog. #4 is a blog. #5 is a Yahoo message board. #6 is a list of addresses. #7 is a bulletin board. The final two are posted song lyrics. I strongly urge you review WP:V and WP:RS, the relevant policies on reliable sources, which hold:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

and

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

We're not talking blogs and bulletin boards, we're talking published books, newspapers or TV shows with available transcripts. None of your sources remotely qualify. Aside from anything else, the simple fact that the unanimous consensus of every editor but yourself who has commented on this article is for deletion should be telling.  RGTraynor  01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just for record, because Mawkish1983 seems extremely confused about the CNN blog, and the fact that anyone can add information to it. Firstly, he's claimed at least four times that the blog was written by Badly Drawn Boy. Wrong, it just has a picture of Badly Drawn Boy because there's a clip of him in Manchester on the same page. Secondly... oh who cares - this article is doomed anyway. Crazysuit 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but I do have to thank Mawkish, because I've just filed a prod on the Mike Toolan article, agreeing with him that the subject is non-notable.  RGTraynor  07:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Start the Discussion Again[edit]

Having read what everybody has said and what responses people (mostly me) have given, can we start the discussion again? Please don't just say 'delete' because everybody else does: be unique and see that Sabirock NEEDS to be on wikipedia, as he is an important local landmark! So, let's start the discussion again:

Bowing Down to the Majority Vote[edit]

I've reviewed the wikipedia rules, and tried to manipule them to keep Sabirock's page here. I have tried to validate and justify my sources, despite the fact that they are nothing more than blogs. I have even tried the underhanded tactic of 'well if this person has an article, why can't Sabirock', but in the end it is absolutely clear to be that an article about Sabirock is not suitable for wikipedia at this time. To all the people who have taken the time to argue with me, thank you - this was my first article and I have learnt a lot. I am sorry to have wasted everybody's time. This article should have been speedily removed, it is an A7 violation. I won't put up a fight. To the wikipedia-overlords: I am happy to see this page deleted and I am sorry for attempting to polute wikipedia (even though my intentions were good).

Thank you for joining in the arguement, and I am sorry for wasting your time. (Mawkish1983 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's not a waste of time; gauging whether articles meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability is what those who tackle AfD discussions do, and if the task wasn't important to us we wouldn't do it. The best way to move on, if you still wish to write articles - and we encourage you to do so - is to apply Occam's Razor: if after digging you can't find reliable sources for a subject, the subject almost certainly isn't notable. Come to that, that's exactly what we do here in AfDs.  RGTraynor  13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah Jane Coker is under the scope of a different AFD. --Coredesat 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Harrison Coker[edit]

James Harrison Coker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original Research, unverifiable sources, source to school history does not provide sufficient information to substantiate a full article WLDtalk|edits 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Coker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coker Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coker, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Wafulz 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Autry. Tearlach 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not of hoax, but of family legend. NN in either case. But since all named places are considered notable, the best place to merge any usable content would be into the article for Coker, Texas. There is no reason not to do so now. Obviously, it must still be in proportion to importance and the material in this article is way out of proportion. so
Merge into town DGG 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


April is just a bad month[edit]

Sorry if I was gruff or rude with you before. You see it was on this week a few years ago that my 8yr old son died in my arms from cystic fibrosis. And just one year ago my best friend of over 20yrs died during the first week of April from a heart attack. This is just a bad time for me. Do whatever you want with the articles. They don't really matter.

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Ramarthnam's Reminiscences[edit]

Prof. Ramarthnam's Reminiscences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This CD does not appear to be notable. Salad Days 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DCG:

The article on the musician himself is at V._Ramarathnam. By "this CD and its greatness".. the speaker is describing the CD that contains concerts of Prof. Ramarathnam most of which are available online at www.mysorevramarathnam.org. Please let me know I can reword the text.. Thanks and I appreciate your help.

  • I have done the best to reproduce the speech from the live recording. I need help and tips on how to improve this article. Please let me know how I can improve the article.. Kssrinivasan 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the comments from one of the musical critics, by Sangeetha Kalanidhi Nedhanuri Krishnamurthy. It is located at: http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/NKM.jpg

I am currently working on a online version of the book that will go live on http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/ one of these days. This online book will include all these information from the critics as well new info.. Currently I do have an online version of the book in draft form for your information at: http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/books/Ramarathnam_biograph_Version_Final.pdf I am currently in the process of converting this pdf to a truly online version..

Also the video that I have uploaded to youtube and google is another reference to critics from a music festival organizer. It is located at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqaX5NlsBnc

Kssrinivasan 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by NawlinWiki. EliminatorJR Talk 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer-sands band[edit]

Spencer-sands band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Grossly not notable. Salad Days 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas (musician)[edit]

Faux Pas (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem particularly notable. Indie artist, only released one EP. I suppose the interview in Stylus could be seen as a notability claim, but this falls far short of meeting WP:MUSIC-EMP 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel A. Charles[edit]

Samuel A. Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

'Retain' for reasons laid out in extensive argumentative piece supporting Ms. Charles' argument of notable firsts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Che's girl (talk • contribs) — Che's girl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fasile[edit]

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

A constructed language that is a derivative of Esperanto, but fails WP:N. While this gives some hint of credibility, notability is not asserted in the article, and a JSTOR search yields 0 relevant hits, while a Google Scholar hit does make one small mention of the language (but on what appears to be a non-scholarly website www.danielclemente.com). Only reference cited in the article is the [www.fasile.org language's website]. prod removed without comment by anon IP. Aagtbdfoua 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do not delete, please![edit]

Oficial site is under updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.225.176.251 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Hawkins[edit]

Mason Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO - individual is mentioned in the sources given, but is certainly not the subject of any of them. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis[edit]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This guy, despite all of the claims made in the article, doesn't seem to have anything to verify it. The book he had published only produced a few amazon.com reviews when searched for, and the 'miniseries' seems to just be speculation by a reviewer. Overall, the guy gets around 600 Ghits, and nothing to support any of the notability claims made in the article-EMP 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Darthgriz98 as repost. (non-admin closure) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:05Z

Eighth-generation video game console[edit]

Eighth-generation video game console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's too early to talk about these newly proposed video gaming consoles. Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. This might actually be considered a fourth nomination, because a prior article similar to this, History of video game consoles (eighth generation) was AFD'd three times and deleted three times; the article in question may, then, be a Speedy G4. JRHorse 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say when it's too early to talk about these consoles? They have been mentioned by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo several times already, so I think it's fair to have an article dedicated to them. I am not predicting anything; I know Wikipedia is "Not a Crystal Ball". I simply stated the obvious, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. That article will need to be there eventually, so why not start it now in its basic form? Why is it that we have articles describing technology that will not be available for many years to come? Such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraDisc

Why not simply put one of these things on the page: ((future product)) Please consider it. Alex 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi timeline[edit]

Degrassi timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Unnecessary cruft and unattributable; also, per the AfD discussion over the GTA III canon timeline, which is incredibly similar to this. Now, if you could so kindly bring on the "I like it" arguments. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote PeaceNT 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izumo: Takeki Tsurugi no Senki[edit]

Izumo: Takeki Tsurugi no Senki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable anime - completely unsourced Addhoc 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't have any reliable sources, however there are two external links. Addhoc 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've labelled them 'References'. Addhoc 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep after several hours and 0 delete statements this is being speedy kept per WP:SNOW.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Alliance[edit]

Canadian Heritage Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally speedy deleted on 30 March because of BLP concerns. A DRV consensus overturned, saying WP:V questions for articles on organizations are best evaluated at AfD. The version now present is the originally-deleted, expansive one. An alternative, stubbed from exists in the edit history at 12 April for consideration also. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. We have the London Free Press cited for the fact that Richard Warman describes the CHA website as "a collection of material that encourages vicious attacks on the Arab, Jewish and black communities." Without the full text I have no idea whtehr this is a passing mention, a para in respect of another story, whether Warman is the kind of guy who takes action against hundreds opf websites, most of which actions fail, or what. Lack of context thus far, still digging. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could email you the articles, if you want. CJCurrie 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do. I'd be interested to find out what the real story is some time. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, almost no consensus, not that it matters. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Füritechnics[edit]

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

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD G11. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that the content might be salvagable, and the company might meet WP:CORP. This matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some more. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] If we are talking about the person in charge of that company, notability is assured... The first two sources aren't very reliable and the others aren't really specific about the company, but I still think that there is notability in that company. The last source is particularly interesting, despite the short mention. --KZTalk• Contribs 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also lists some sources in the website [19]. --KZTalk• Contribs 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source in NYT. [20] --KZTalk• Contribs 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this government source[21], Furitechnics is one of the most important innovation in Australia --KZTalk• Contribs 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn --Aarktica 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolly Burkan[edit]

Tolly Burkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Very spammy claiming the creator "cutting-edge methods for developing human potential." Around 800 ghits. Created by article's subject Tollyburkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without sources.[22]Arbustoo 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The article asserts importance. AFD can be done in the near future if article doesn't continue to improve. Arbustoo 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Beaumont[edit]

Dale Beaumont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Less than 550 ghits including wiki mirrors. Arbustoo 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing puppets trick[edit]

Dancing puppets trick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing puppets trick) closed on 8 March 2007 with No consensus; renom in two weeks if no WP:RS added. It's been over a month, and no-one has added any. Tearlach 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians opposing cults[edit]

List of politicians opposing cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • What is the objective definition of "cult" for purposes of this list? What is the objective definition of a "prominent stance" for purposes of this list? That another list exists doesn't justify this one. Are there, by the way, any politicians who support cults? Otto4711 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All very good questions, and I thank you for asking them. However, these would be better put on the talk page, where we could have a prolonged and healthy discussion about definition criteria and perhaps also tighter inclusionary criterion. Smee 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • The answer to the questions are: there is no objective definition of "cult" and there is no objective definition of "prominent stance." Otto4711 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is why each entry is backed up by multiple citations. Smee 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Er, if the title and inclusion criteria are impermissably POV, then delete. Otto4711 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sir, if the content is not salvagable, then delete. Any editor has the ability to rename the article or redefine the inclusion criteria to be a better article; its a wiki world. John Vandenberg 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes sir, and the content is not salvageable, for the reasons laid out in the nomination. Otto4711 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the people on this list have been very active in defining laws against cult-like groups, so I doubt they would take offence. The word "opposing" isnt ideal, but I think it is acceptable provided the list doesnt become filled with any politician that has noticed they are not on this list and shouts "down with cults" from the floor to rectify it. John Vandenberg 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha ha... very funny... ;) Spawn Man 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This sets an awfully bad precedent it would seem. There could theoretically be a list based upon every political stance ever taken by more than one politician. These are not defining characteristics of the lists members and if they are, it belongs in the article about the person not on a list. IvoShandor 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partially agree with you: first of all this info must be found in persn's bio, for the high possibility of verification. But first, "defining characteristic" is a criterion for categories. Second, If it is in the bio, then no reason not to have a list. ""Opposing cults" is a notable stance, unlike logical fallacy of "killing babies". `'mikka 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. ;). Seriously though, there isn't anything particularly notable about opposing cults, are their politicians who endorse cults, or support them? Try to make that list, that might be a bit more encyclopedic. IvoShandor 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oberon Middle School[edit]

Oberon Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Chris 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Pinball22 below, but with a prejudice against future article recreation unless something truly noteworthy happens to (or at) the school. A Traintalk 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Coker[edit]

Sarah Jane Coker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable. Article is original research and not encyclopedic. Mwelch 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listed above. Jokerst44 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darfield Upperwood Primary School[edit]

Darfield Upperwood Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

small non-notable primary (US=elementary) school, financial scandal in and of itself does not make the school notable Chris 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note the comment above by EliminatorJR-Beacon School status was scrapped two years ago. no longer a criteria for notability. Chris 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the school became a beacon school it obtained notability. Whatever happens next does not detract from that. People and places don't go in and out of notability or we would delete articles on sportspeople when they retire, sports stadia when they close down etc. This school fully meets WP:N for the Hansard reference, media mentions etc never mind beacon school. TerriersFan 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, yes and no - while notability is generally permanent, schools can be an exception to that. For instance, a school might have some of the most outstanding examination results in the country (and therefore good secondary sources) in one year, yet five years later for one reason or another their results may just be average. Does that make them notable? It's a similar thing with Beacon status. EliminatorJR Talk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I see no reason why the bar should be set higher for schools than for other pages. If we accepted that notability was not permanent then we should be in a difficult, arbitrary situation. A school gets an article because it has the best results in the country, next year the results are poor - does it lose its article or perhaps it needs 2,3 or 4 poor years? If it then has a good year is the article recreated? The secondary sources remain extant even if its performance drops off so, in my view, the only practical way forward is for the article to be kept. TerriersFan 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably phrased that badly. I was using the exam analogy to refer to the fact that because Beacon status has lapsed, it may be difficult to prove schools notable any more purely because of that status. It was probably a bad analogy though :) I'm not trying to prove this particular school NN though - I think it has some notability. EliminatorJR Talk 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've modified that article a bit to bring in Specialist Schools, which are closely linked. EliminatorJR Talk 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, early close per WP:SNOW. A Traintalk 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerist (blog)[edit]

Was originally nominated for Speedy deletion using db-web by RHaworth on March 27, 2007, but this was improperly removed by the article's author within one minute of the speedy tag being placed. The article remained untouched until today, when the subject in question encouraged readers to expand the article. Article reads like an advertisement, and borders on self-promotion. WP:CSD A7 still applies to the article in the current form, and it still fails to adequately assert the notability or importance of the subject. The only possible notability of the subject is that they have been interviewed by the New York Times on consumer topics, but even then it's a thin assertion of notability as the paper would no doubt interview or talk with thousands of people each year as sources for it's editorial content. Thewinchester (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete on several grounds. For starters, this is in part re-creation of deleted material. Furthermore: All of the sources for the content repeatedly being submitted by 3mgworld (talk · contribs) and xyr various sockpuppets are derived either directly or indirectly from the subject. Several of them are the subject's own press releases. The news coverage of the collapse of The Toledo Ice, and its reincarnation as the Toledo Royal Knights, is enough to convince me that this is controversial information about a living person that is unreliably sourced — It is Chris Dotson's autobiography, sourced from Chris Dotson's press releases, which independent sources and past events indicate we should regard with grave suspicion. And that's in addition to the history of wholesale revisions of the "facts" that occurred at Chrishan (AfD discussion) and He Ain't Gonna (AfD discussion), both written by this same editor. Finally, there are the implied legal threats from 3mgworld

Therefore, under a combination of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons I am speedily deleting this, and under a combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:No legal threats I am blocking 3mgworld (talk · contribs) and four of xyr additional accounts. Uncle G 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dotson Inc.[edit]

Chris Dotson Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that he contributed to the Keith Sweat album outside of Wikipedia. Owned minor league basketball team very briefly before it was forcibly taken from him. Google search on "Chris Dotson" copyright "Capitol Records" = no matches. Compares his children to "Prince, Howard Hewett, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 (Chrishan album) and various others. Richfife 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Any rename proposals should be discussed on the article's talkpage. WjBscribe 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People wrongly convicted in the United States[edit]

People wrongly convicted in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV including the title of the page - what is "wrongly"? An exoneration based on actual innocence (ie: DNA reversal) is very different from a case being overturned for legal reasons. Also, many entries involve standing convictions which simply state "conviction disputed" with no other information. Violates WP:L "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Tufflaw 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the term "wrongful conviction" has no real meaning. If someone is convicted of a crime and later found to be actually innocent, through DNA exoneration, or in some of the cases listed where a murder victim is later found to be actually alive, clearly the defendant was "wrongly convicted". However, some people are convicted and their conviction is later overturned for legal, not factual reasons. Was that person "wrongly convicted"? Sometimes a case can't be retried due to witnesses dying/disappearing/whatever, or for various logistical reasons. That doesn't mean a person whose case was overturned was "wrongly convicted". What if there's a conviction which is later overturned, and then the defendant is retried and convicted? Was he "wrongly convicted" during the period between the appeal and the retrial? I think the phrase is extremely problematic and POV, and the way it's used here in particular is troubling. Tufflaw 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the jury didn't think so. ALL convictions are disputed, every single trial starts with a not guilty plea, and many convicted defendants continue to proclaim their innocence and appeal. Do we list them all? Tufflaw 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That becomes a problem in terms of what does "widely believed" mean? Scott Peterson is on that list and I've never heard anyone claim that he's innocent except for him. Tufflaw 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a new trial was granted and the defendant was acquitted;
  • a pardon was granted due to new evidence;
  • innocence was established on the basis of overwhelming evidence (and the defendant was freed);
  • appellate court review proved innocence.
I think it's clear that "wrongful convictions" realistically include only persons whose conviction has been removed or who have been freed (sometimes clearing the conviction is a separate legal proceeding). Otherwise this is just a POV list. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My major problem with the term "wrongly" or "wrongfully" is that it appears to make a value judgment about the conviction, whereas there's a significant difference between a conviction set aside due to actual innocence, and one set aside for what is, for lack of a better word, a "technicality". An example: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of Rape and Robbery. The Rape charge is set aside by the Supreme Court in the case that created the term "Miranda Warnings". The Robbery charge was not set aside. Was he wrongly convicted of Rape? He is later retried on the rape charge and convicted. Was he wrongly convicted the first time? Or did his wrongful conviction become valid again on the retrial? And who was wrong? The court? The prosecutor? The police? The jury? If this article survives the AFD, which looks likely, I suggest that it be retitled as suggested above to something about "overturned convictions", if we're going to include cases which were set aside due to actual innocence. Otherwise, the term "wrongful" or "wrongly" makes it appear that a position is being taken about the validity of the underlying case, which is not true. Tufflaw 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tufflaw, again, I remind you that in the United States and other legal systems derived from English common law, we have an adversarial court structure. There is no legal differentiation between actual innocence established by DNA, and "technical" innocence due to improper prosecution. "Overturned on a technicality" is a political term, not a legal one. The case you cite would not be a "wrongful conviction" in the strict sense used by the ABA study above. To alleviate concerns about whether "wrongful" ascribes a POV to inclusion, the term should be properly defined in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a practicing criminal law attorney for 9 years I'm familiar with the adversarial system. That has nothing to do with my arguments. That there is no LEGAL differentiation between a conviction overturned for actual innocence as opposed to a legal reason does not mean that the title of the article is not misleading. In furtherance of this problem, many of the entries in the article claim that a person was "exonerated", even in cases where the case being overturned had nothing to do with innocence. A person is exonerated when it is determined that they are innocent (see exoneration). If the article remains it should be renamed, all "disputed" convictions should be removed, as well as claims that everyone else was "exonerated". Tufflaw 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we do agree, as I have stated above that I do not believe this article should contain "disputed" convictions, and additionally all entries should be properly cited. If someone is formally "exonerated" we should be specific -- 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside her conviction, for instance (see Georgia Thompson). If someone is exonerated by DNA evidence that should be cited. And so forth. That is, the only cases that we can truthfully say were wrongful convictions are those where there was a formal finding. That finding should be in the article, or there is no point in having the list. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we do agree :) Tufflaw 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Majorly (hot!) 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lunan[edit]

Mark Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul Tosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

YechielMan 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride Of Japan Is Tied Up In Giant Robots[edit]

The Pride Of Japan Is Tied Up In Giant Robots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear notable; importance tag removed without comment (hence no ProD). Sneftel 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel mark griffin[edit]

Daniel mark griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC prod was removed without significant improvements to the article. Jeepday 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Abita Brewing Company. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Haze (Beer)[edit]

Purple Haze (Beer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a purple beer. That does not make it notable, and I do not feel the manufacturer qualifies it as notable by default. Prod removed without comment. FrozenPurpleCube 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Adding this other beer by the same company:[reply]

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

as its notability is equally questionable. FrozenPurpleCube 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handbra[edit]

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

Unsourced article that is pure original research on a non-notable topic. No significant reliable sources to provide verifiability. Fails all standards for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:RS, and also violates WP:NEO, WP:OR, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 April 2007

Still don't understand why you all find references so titillating, but here's another from the 12 April 2007 issue of Nuts (it's not the Encyclopedia Britanica, but it has a bigger readership and you don't need to look past last week). This reference wouldn't add anything to the article, but it does establish that handbra is a widely used term for a body position, not just glamour photography jargon.Ghosts&empties 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We find references "titilating" (sic) because of fundamental core Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, among other things, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Anything which is challenged and for which sources cannot be provided will be deleted. Beyond that, Wikipedia is about notable topics (as defined in Wikipedia:Notability), so we need evidence that this is a notable topic, and references are the only way to provide that. Note that references showing that several people use this term does not demonstrate notability. You have to find references showing that the term is widely used, and that, I'm afraid, is much more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. What you've got so far might be better suited for Wikitionary, if anywhere. Xtifr tälk 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an AfD debate or a purity test? As far as wide usage, this article already has three references, two from very large circulation print periodicals. Some wikipedians may not have heard this term because it is used chiefly in the U.K. (all three references) and Canada, but compared to many neologisms in Wikipedia, it has a very large audience as demonstrated by the fact that the large circulation references cited use the term, often without needing to explain it. In terms of notability and usefulness, the current cover of Rolling Stone (19 April 07), last week's cover of Zoo, the "Most Popular Cover Ever" of Rolling Stone ... this body/photography position is undeniably widespread and notable. The significance of the term in pop culture is one reason the term belongs in Wikipedia not (just) Wiktionary.
This term is analagous to barechested. While barechested photos of male models are very common, they are usually not documented in print as barechested because it's obvious. The same is true of handbra. Ghosts&empties 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's no actual rational for deletion there, unless you are stating opposition based on lack of notability. WLU 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stating delete on the grounds of common sense. Last I knew it was possible to state delete and not have to cite policy. Then again i've only been an admin for two and a half years (longer than you've been editing wikipedia).  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queerious[edit]

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

Transwikied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Collin[edit]

Carl Collin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Foreign language vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haluskein[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have also been deleted at this spot as an A7 previously, and likely at Haluskein(band) back in January. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Staveley-Taylor[edit]

Jessica Staveley-Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as an actress without widespread recognition, has only 299 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etnika[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FD: I have nothing to do with the band and had never seen the article before this AfD (ie. I'm not biased ;). I'm just doing some cleanup. -- Seed 2.0 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep in some shape or form. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz on television[edit]

The Wizard of Oz on television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the film, any line from the film or any image that reminds an editor of the film. Otto4711 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Splitting off garbage from the main article is not a good reason to have an article. If the information is garbage in the main article it's garbage in a separate article. All splitting off garbage does is transfer the problem from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, if it can be agreed that the article will be restricted to the approprietely referenced broadcast history of TWOO and all trivial refernces to the film in other TV shows will be deleted, then I can support the article. But the "a guy on this TV show said 'flying monkeys'" crap needs to go. Otto4711 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was not that it was "better here than there", but that this Afd was inappopriate because the subject matter does warrant being covered (as evidenced by the material being split from the main article, and the main article including a link to this sub page at the top). As a result there are only two alternatives:
  1. the subject warrants a separate article but it is currently full of cruft, in which case you should have helped clean it up or at least voiced your discontent on the talk page, or
  2. the subject only warrants a section on the main article, in which case you should have proposed that it should be merged back on the talk page.
Afd is intended to deal with entire articles that are not salvagable (lack of notability, sources, full of tripe, etc); problems regarding content within an article should be disputed on the talk page. John Vandenberg 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, first off, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else over the appropriateness of an AFD or on the role of AFD. Secondly, I find it bizarre that you would criticise me for nominating an article that's full of tripe when you note right in your criticism that "full of tripe" is a legitimate reason for an AFD. Third, the fact that this was split off from another article does not in any way, shape or form prove that the subject deserves its own article. That's just ridiculous. Anybody can take any stack of shit from one article and stick it in its own article. Arguing that the article should exist because it was split off from another article is a horrible argument. Regardless, as I've said, take out the trash and keep the article about the broadcast history, assuming that such an article can be referenced, and that's fine by me. That's not what this article is, though, and in its present form the AFD is still legit. Otto4711 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please folks, remember, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There's no reason to get into a dispute here, and it's important to keep tempers cool. Yes, I do think it's better to consider cleanup first, but I also recognize that sometimes that cleanup just doesn't happen. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambros ballas[edit]

Lambros ballas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. ElKevbo 04:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might qualify as a speedy G4. I didn't notice that the page was previously speedily deleted. --ElKevbo 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Monponsett[edit]

Stacey Monponsett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hisdarkmaterials.org[edit]

Hisdarkmaterials.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. Reads like an advert! For an example of what a potentially decent encyclopedia article could look like, see Tolkien fandom. Even that's a bit iffy. Whamilton42 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a fandom section the His Dark Materials article where fandom can be explored. --jess 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There was no consensus on the merge as not enough people commented on it, or its specifics, so if anyone still wishes to merge, feel free to nominate the articles involved in this AfD at your own discretion. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4[edit]

Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page, and several others with it because they are little more than short guides to the game with barely any notability beyond some chess grandmaster playing it. I am not nominating the entirety of the Category:Chess openings (Or the subcategory for ECO openings) at this time, but I do think some action is needed on this subject and I have been concerned about it for a while. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pages nominated:

Benko Gambit, 7.e4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benoni, Taimanov variation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C93 (chess opening) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Staunton Gambit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
D59 (chess opening) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danish Gambit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
French, Winawer, Advance Variation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure the existence of the book has contributed effectively to the article. Is there anybody who owns a copy and can relate its contents to the rest of us? FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel obliged to note that my nomination is not disputing that these articles could be referenced, but rather that their content as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, since they are effectively guides to certain playstyles which are in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4. The usage by certain grandmasters or history is minimal in comparison to the space devoted to covering the opening itself. FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's worth keeping about these two articles? Most of Danish Gambit is lengthy description of the opening, the bit about the history is minimal. It could be merged into a page describing notable chess openings with minimal trouble. Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack is not much better. What could be added to it at all? What could be added to any of these chess openings even? Though I can accept that the opening may be notable, the article on Ruy Lopez is mostly recounting variations after variations, and that's with about a dozen other pages on variants for it. And most of them don't do anything but describe a series of moves. Possibly valuable if you're writing about chess, but how important is all of that for Wikipedia? Are they really desirable? FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Marshall Attack is a very important variation of the Ruy Lopez. But I think it is telling that the current coverage of it in the main Ruy Lopez article is better than the coverage in the individual article we have on the opening variation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FrozenPurpleCube, it's clear that you don't like articles on chess openings, but it isn't clear that there's really any point in trying to discuss it with you. I don't think that your ideas about which topics are encyclopedic or which articles are too technical have much in common with the consensus views on Wikipedia. This AFD discussion will provide you an opportunity to see how much community support your views have. Quale 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just so you know, WP:NOT#IINFO does say "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." and I think it's pretty obvious that most, if not all of the pages in the category for Chess openings do constitute how-tos. Given that, and the fact that after months of inaction, nothing was done or changed about these pages, I decided seeking a wider consensus through AfD was desirable. I neither like nor dislike the chess openings, I think they are difficult to understand and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that is not a question of animosity. Your hostile attitude is not conducive to communication or development of consensus though. You have effectively just said "I'm not going to bother trying to convince you" . I suggest you review WP:NPA, and remember to comment on content, not the contributor. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly. I quite well aware of what WP:NOT says. The problem is that you don't seem to understand what WP:NOT means. Far below you say in response to yet another person who disagrees with you, "To get my support for the article ...". To be honest, I don't care to get your support for any chess articles, since winning your approval would make the articles worse (or go away completely) and would make Wikipedia as a whole worse too. The only thing of importance to me is what the Wikipedia community supports. So far this AFD seems to demonstrate a total rejection of your views by the Wikipedia community. Quale 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel obliged to remind you of the WP:NPA policy. Your comments are addressed to me, and not the subject at hand. This is inappropriate, and uncivil. Please stick to the subject at hand, and refrain from comments about me. It does not contribute to the development of consensus at all. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor on Wikipedia is entitled to express their own opinions and expects it to be respected. Asserting "I don't care to get your support" because it "would make Wikipedia as a whole worse" is extremely rude and violates WP:NPA policy. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're worried about developing consensus. Based on the comments made to date on this AFD I'd say consensus is already clear. By basing his arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Manticore made this about himself. And to AQu01rius I would point out that if Manticore is free to express his opinions, then I should have that same freedom too. It's clear that Manticore feels strongly about this—he's responded to nearly every comment on this AFD, repeatedly rehashing the same arguments that seem to be nearly universally rejected. I expect him to respond to this comment too. That's fine, and I encourage it, but I really don't think I would do anyone any favors by continuing to engage Manticore in the war of attrition he seems anxious to wage. Manticore can have the next to last word. AFD participants and the Wikipedia community will have the last word, and we'll move on from there. Quale 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, once again, my argument is not based on whether or not I like the pages, but upon the concept of indiscrminate info. This is at WP:NOT#IINFO and the specific problem is that these pages are instruction manuals. I do not know why you fail to understand my position, but I have done my best to explain the difference. In any case, I am unconvinced that the consensus is clear. I don't see any of the arguments to keep these pages as addressing my primary concern that these are simply instructions, and several of the remarks have indicated support for deletion of several of the pages, or simply wish to review them individually with no real support for keeping. And of the keep votes, I notice that several people, including yourself, are members of the Chess Wikiproject. This represents a potential for a conflict of interest that leads me to weigh any responses by them very carefully. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, while you are welcome to express your opinions on these pages, there is a difference between that, and a personal attack. If you noticed, I have made no comments about you other than to request you refrain from personal attacks. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect you may be troubled by my numerous and perhaps lengthy responses, but I felt a need to speak on several of the issues raised in order to get people to either clarify their position, or address why I don't feel their argument in favor of keeping is effective. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how being in the Chess Wikiproject is a "conflict of interest". The chess project goal is to improve articles dealing with chess. I think the chess project is the best place to deal with these articles. That being said, I think that some of the sub-sub-variations do need to be merged back into a parent article. Some of the major ones are OK. Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the conflict of interest concern is that some of the persons who have argued to keep are responsible, if not for these articles, than creating articles just like them. Since conflict of interest is such a deep and abiding concern, I feel it is important to weigh the remarks more carefully. It's one thing to be a strong advocate for something you support, it's another thing to let that advocacy lead you to ignore problems relating to the subject.
In any case, I think it would have been valid in the interests of full-disclosure to declare one's membership in the project, or substantial contribution to such pages. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the Chess WikiProject just means that we are interested in covering the game of chess in the best possible way on Wikipedia. Members on the project don't always agree either, although the tone among us has always been very polite and constructive. We have not even endorsed keeping all chess articles either. I am on the chess WikiProject, and I have nominated quite a few of them for deletion myself, and merged most of the articles on Nimzo-Indian variations in with the main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the hope, but if you are not aware that in practice, members of a particular group can be biased, even in subtle ways that they don't realize, then I suggest you deeply examine your actions. Unconcious bias can creep in easily, leading to many problems for users. This is not something I'm making up, and I'm sorry, but the tone has not always been polite and constructive. You can see several personal attacks right here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT#IINFO for a discussion of the various arguments that apply to Wikipedia not covering "everything" as well as numerous discussions to be found on AfD, but in short, it's because there isn't much to say in most of these openings except "move this piece here, move that here, person x does this" which in effect is not providing much in the way of general-purpose content. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, tell me how they're not how-to-it equivalents telling you how to play the opening, typical responses, and the like? And please, note, once again, I am not contesting that they can be referenced, I am contesting the nature of the content, not its ability to be attributed. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not so much concerned that they are stubs, so much I am concerned that they are substantially instructions to certain openings, and nobody has demonstrated any attempt to fix up or clean these pages despite my requests that something be done. While simply being a stub is not a problem, a complete lack of improvement over several months has convinced me that something needs to be done to bring the wider consensus into the picture. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to pick a variety of pages so that I could get a picture of where folks drew the line as to what's a good chess opening article and what's not. I felt that would give folks a chance to examine the pages, and give me some feedback so I'd be able to at least be more selective when I went throught the category for another pass. However, I am still wanting to know exactly what real content there is. Could you relate to us exactly what the content of your paper encyclopedia has for that chess opening? FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It defines the moves, says it has a solid reputation, and mentions a few top players who have played it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the content is as minimal and spare as as the articles here? Oh well, then I'm still unconvinced of their value if that's all an article provides. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What expansion would you suggest to those articles that would make them more than the how-to guides they are now? FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some discussion on Talk:WP:NOT about how it applies to game rules, but as far as I can tell no real consensus has formed about them. For card games played with identical decks, describing the game means describing how to play it, and the same holds true for chess openings, I think. The only articles nominated in the group that have any support for deletion here are the stubs with very little "how to" information added to them. If they are expanded, they are mostly expanded with information useful to chessplayers. I think that life is too short for a war on "chess cruft", whatever that is. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, I do not consider this a war on "chess cruft" and I strongly disagree with the use of that term. (both in general and as applied here). I have expressed my concerns with regards to the nature of these pages as specifically as I can, namely that they are instructions to certain playstyles, with only the barest modicum of reference to any other kind of content. I do not mind describing the rules to chess. It seems fundamentally obvious to me that a good article on chess will include coverage of those rules. I don't even mind talking about certain theories and even openings. I am concerned that there seems to be no work whatsoever done to limit the coverage to truly notable openings, and that there doesn't seem to be even a consideration that maybe, just maybe, there should be some sort of standard for chess openings to have articles. So far the inclusion has been open-ended, which creates a bad situation. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your link was broken, I hope you don't mind me fixing it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) But I think you are mistaken about the depth of coverage available for chess. Somewhere around here I have a book on "Unorthodox Chess Openings." It covers just about every legal opening move for White that isn't a major one, most of the legal responses for Black, and in some depth. All of the ones it discusses have names. (My favourite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8.) You can find published commentary and analysis for just about every legal opening in chess, in other words. IM Michael Basman is the guru here. This makes them all verifiable and reliably sourced, within the words of actual policy. They are also notable, within the meaning of the guideline: they are subjects of multiple, non-trivial, published works; the ECO is one, the book I have around here is another. In short: all chess openings are notable within the meaning of the only guideline that applies. What you are proposing is a new, exclusive notability guideline applied only to chess, and I don't think any such can be generated by analogy from existing ones. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, there seems to be a disconnect in our communications here. I am, once again, not arguing that the problem is simply lack of references, (though there are a large number of these pages that do lack references) but rather that the content is non-encyclopedic in nature. I'm sure many of these of these openings and variations can be referenced to some book somewhere. That doesn't change their content, which is frequently nothing more than a listing of the moves and the occasional mention of some player of it. That is not any kind of encyclopedic depth at all. Given that there doesn't seem to be any kind of standard as to including a chess opening or not, I consider this a problem, as it's very indiscriminate. And this is also not a standard exclusively applied to chess. Please review WP:NOT#IINFO which is policy, and which says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" (and I refer you to entry four for instruction manuals, which is what I'm applying to this page. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you can think of a similar subject which has pages on Wikipedia, I'll be quite willing to apply this same standard to them. the closest I can think of would be sports games (many of which are documented, the vast majority of which should not have articles) or TCG cards and combos (which in general only have articles based on their sets). Might also consider programming functions to be similar, since I have some books with them documented in it. I wouldn't imagine adding any of them to Wikipedia, even though they can all be documented. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and while this isn't exactly the "same" situation, you might want to look at this AfD: Matthew Fenton AFD. I am sure every single one of the three thousand or so servicemen killed in the current Iraq conflict can be verified.

I am also fairly sure this can be applied as far back as World War II, or even World War I in some cases. Maybe further. I would not support articles on them even with that being verified. FrozenPurpleCube 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what procedural grounds are you referring to? While certainly there can be problems with mass nominations, this is less than a dozen articles, all on the same subject, each of which can be reviewed and considered together. If necessary, I can nominate individually, but I am not seeing your problem as being very clear. Is there some reason you can't comment on the individual pages here? Was it too many? Would 5 or 6 be a better number? FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why is this too broad a collection of articles? What would constitute a more selective nomination? FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that these articles aren't really instructional; they are, rather, technical descriptions of the game of chess. The Wikipedia articles about Monopoly and poker both contain technical explanations of how the games are played. If these games warrant such descriptions, than chess—with its long, storied history and complex strategies—certainly does as well, especially since chess strategy has been a subject of study for a long time. (On a side note: it would, perhaps, be advisable to put all of the chess openings in one article and redirect searches of the individual openings to it.)Fixer1234 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I hope you don't mind that I moved your reply to the end here, since your comment was in the middle of a thread there, and I think it'll be easier to read if moved to the end. FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, while monopoly and poker do contain technical explanations of how the games are played, they don't contain descriptions of every game. Even poker only has one page for the various hands in the game. There's a few other pages like Dead Man's Hand and List of slang names for poker hands but in comparison, there's over 100 articles on chess openings. I have no objection to Chess opening being an article. I'm a bit concerned that List of chess openings is nothing but a directory, but while I think that might belong properly elsewhere, I'm not terribly worried about that. My concern that these "technical descriptions of the game of chess" constitute the how-tos or instruction manuals is another issue though, and while Chess, like many things is the subject of a great deal of study, not all things that are studied or referenced deserve individual articles. If all that an article has is a bare description of the moves, and maybe a brief mention that some grandmaster played it, is it really appropriate to have an article? FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point that I am making (and one I don't mean too press to strongly—I'm not emotionally tied to these articles) is that chess is somewhat more technically complex than poker--an adequate description of the game would require such lengthy description. I see your point, however, regarding the volume of information on the subject—some of the openings may not be as important as others. Perhaps the best option is to pending a closer review as is suggested by someone below. It is also worth noting that the deleted material need not simply disappear. This seems to be a great subject for a wikibook. Perhaps a general (but detailed) article on chess openings could be maintained on Wikipeida along with article about the most important of the openings (the sort that are used in analogies in political science and economics classes), while the rest of the material is turned into a Wikibook on playing chess. Just an idea. (The comment move is no problem, btw. I'm still somewhat new at this stuff.) Fixer1234 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see what's stopping people from giving it a closer review right now. There's only nine articles, which I thought was a reasonable number for people to look over, being large enough to offer a fair variety of different pages in the category, but specific enough that it wasn't too much of a burden to examine them all. Apparently it's too many though. Could you give me an idea how many would be acceptable for you to review, or is it going to be necessary to nominate them individually? I can do it, but I'm reluctant to do so since that can create more problems. (trust me, it's annoying to have to comment in so many different places.) FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And while Chess is certainly a sport with exhaustive analysis and detail, that doesn't give it a free pass for every possible article on a subject somebody can cover in their book. If somebody wanted to transwiki all or most of these pages to a specific wikibook for chess openings, I'd be fine with that. Chess opening is already on Wikipedia, and I have no inherent objection to it. It might need some work, but in principle I accept that it belongs. I don't object to this being covered at all, it's neither false nor libelous. It is, however, of dubious encyclopedic worth when a page is nothing more than instructions on a given opening with maybe, maybe, an offhand remark about somebody playing it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I picked them because they represented a variety of the pages in the category, which while they are not all completely the same, are not significantly different from each other, and I felt that a review of the various pages would be more helpful in establishing a baseline so that on further passes through the category I would have more of an idea about what should be kept and what should be considered for deletion. And I don't have a problem with articles on notable chess openings including descriptions of the moves. My problem is that so many of these articles don't get to anything beyond that, and I don't see much chance of that happening either. I don't see that Wikipedia is about teaching people how to play chess and that's the only thing I can get from these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the articles that I suggested could profitably be merged; however deleting them seems illogical, like deleting an article on a single episode of Star Trek and leaving all the other intact. I notice you've put the how-to tag back on Sicilian Defence; well, I'm not getting into an edit war there, but I'd be interested to see what you would do to that article in order to cure this - how about doing it in userspace? I've also put forward an idea at the talk page. EliminatorJR Talk 12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought this was clear from my nomination, but based on the results of this discussion, I intended to go through the category and propose further openings for deletion. There are 196 articles in the category. Proposing them all at once would have been a bad idea, but to go through that number of pages, I felt the need for some criteria to have before trying an extensive review. This is not the equivalent of Star Trek episodes, but more the equivalent of Star Trek characters or space ships. Captain Kirk has an article. There is a category for ships named the Enterprise. Category:Enterprise ships (Star Trek). That's a valid choice. So is the Excelsior. But many other Star Trek ships are only in List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. (in fact, there were several recent AFDs on that). Now it might be reasonable to create redirects for most of the chess openings to say List of chess openings but given the large numbers, I am not sure of that.
But the problem is still knowing when to do that, and when to leave the article as it stands. This is not always obvious from the article itself. Thus this proposal. FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this example merge page for irregular openings in my userspace. I think we're actually on the same page here, except that I believe merging rather than deletion is the way to go. Note that the suggested merge page only describes the openings briefly, in order to distinguish them. EliminatorJR Talk 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we're on quite the same page. We might be getting closer together though. I hope we're at least reading the same book. To get my support for the article, it would need to focus more on what makes the subject of irregular chess openings meaningful, and less on covering various opening descriptions with maybe a few brief hints that somebody somewhere played it. Great stuff for a Wikibook on Chess perhaps. For an encyclopedia? I'm afraid not. (I'll leave aside the problem with a lack of references since the page is incomplete). FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are you suggesting be merged, and where do you think they should be merged? And what content do you think should be merged at all? FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge most, keep the rest. No deletes

Would you care to address the problem I raised with the pages being nothing but instructions on particular variants? FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe that your argument has no merit. This material is derived from books about chess openings, and by-in-large they describe moves that masters have made or analysis by masters. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, even if all of the pages were adequately sourced, they're still instructions on how to play the openings and thus violate WP:NOT#IINFO (4). It doesn't matter that they can be sourced to reliable sources by grandmasters, at most such coverage would be appropriate in the grandmaster's page, not a separate article of its own. This is the equivalent of taking Linux Source code and making it an article because Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox wrote it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These openings are not played by any one chess master. Why don't you start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? Does being played by more than one master really make a difference? Most chess masters play dozens, if not hundreds of games in a given period of time. The number of different openings they might play? How many do you think that is? It's too vast, the specificity might be useful somewhere, but I don't see why Wikipedia is it. FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be very familiar with chess. Of the millions and billions of possible openings, only a relatively small number are played. Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood the question I asked, which was about the number of games Chess masters play and what the number of different openings they might play. This is like Baseball. While Babe Ruth is notable, not every game he plays get an article. Besides, I'd like you to define relatively small number. Yes, I'm sure out of the millions of possible combinations of chess moves, there are less than a few thousand even named, but so what? If the only content that can be added is how to play it....that's not an encyclopedia article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go up a level from the #4 you keep citing, and there is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These openings are not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of every possible opening four or five moves deep would be an indiscriminate collection of info, but these openings are not. To use a baseball analogy, an article about "how to" play is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of the line score of every major league baseball game played would be. Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, for two problems. The first is that no matter what you say about some of the articles in the category, there are others whose only content is a description of the opening and instructions on the value of the play. This may be valid content if you want to teach someone how to play that opening. That is, not, however, the point of Wikipedia. The second problem is the current open-ended standard which allows any and every named opening to have an article, regardless of putative merit. Don't get me wrong, I can conceive of some of these openings having articles, but let's see, the ECO is a five-volume set, correct? Sorry, but if all the content you can provide on an opening is a brief mention of a few games played and a dab of history...it's clearly not for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you can find articles on Wikipedia that come close to teaching one how to play Baseball, I'd be much surprised. Even if you do, I doubt you'd find close to 200 such articles. Let me know though, I'd be glad to suggest them for cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I tried getting comments, I tried approaching the Wikiproject. The result? Nothing. Thus this action. FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that you are pretty much alone. So the AfD should suffice to clear up the situation. Newton's law of universal gravitation gives "instructions" for calculating the gravitational force beteen two objects. Should that be eliminated because it can be considered a "how to"? Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Sorry if this offends, but I don't see much in the way of actual, informed consensus from a wide perspective being truly developed here. This has devolved into a trainwreck, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to continue to work to fix the problems I see. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I attempted to close the AFD early and was reverted. This is what I wrote in my closing statement, and it should be considered by whoever does actually close the AFD:
Would you please describe that historical interest, and if possible add the information to the page? FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good suggestion. Are you willing to start on a couple of articles right away? The AfD still has another day to run. The AfD participants would have a chance to comment on your work before the debate closes. EdJohnston 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already started. See this work in progress for minor openings and this example merged opening article (both in userspace), and discussion at Wikiproject:Chess. EliminatorJR Talk 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then please do inform us as to the exact criteria which was used to select the chess openings that have been given an article. Furthermore, note, the real problem cited in WP:NOT#IINFO is with the content, which is that of an instruction manual. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the problem; obviously in your opinion the articles are those of an instruction manual - however giving the defining moves for an opening and a little strategical and tactical background is not instruction. You would need a novel-sized book for each opening in order to do that. I own a book for a very minor opening (Grob's Opening) and even that is 105 pages long. EliminatorJR Talk 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I'm unfamiliar with the subject? I've been looking into this for several months. I may not be a chess enthusiast, or a professional chess player, but accusing me of unfamiliarity is hardly convincing. Or are you saying only chess experts are qualified to make decisions on articles and that there isn't even a desire to try to explain why those decisions were made? You may wish to look at WP:EXPERT which says "In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise." thus If you truly believe I am mistaken, inform me, don't just call me ignorant. That's not persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could User:Bubba73 be implying that the nominator is pursuing this too aggressively? Though I voted keep (at least for most of them) I don't object to him asking these questions. (Though he shouldn't badger all the Keep voters; he has made 42 edits to this AfD so far). Some of the opening articles *are* of pretty low quality, and I do have an (old) copy of MCO on my shelf. IMHO, the nominator should re-submit an AfD for the worst opening articles, and meanwhile we should hope that the people knowledgable about chess would work on quality improvement for the articles on major openings (including proper sourcing)... Does anyone from the Chess Wikiproject want to offer a different plan for what to do about these articles? EdJohnston 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to your comment, above. Also, I am also starting to slightly lose my WP:AGF as regards User:FrozenPurpleCube, especially following this edit where he removed Garry Kasparov from a list of Baby Boomers, claiming that he wasn't a Baby Boomer (he is) and that he wasn't born in the US (Baby Boomers don't have to be born in the US, and many on that list weren't). All seems a bit petty to me. EliminatorJR Talk 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of being part of the Baby Boom being applied to countries of the Soviet Union, and List of important and famous Baby Boomers? Furthermore, after reflection, I nominated the page List of important and famous Baby Boomers for deletion anyway, so accusing me of pettiness because of that is rather strange. But if you believe it's a serious problem, bring it up at the AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a serious problem - as I said, given your Chess-related AfD's it just seemed a bit odd. Since you AfD'd it anyway (and it looks like it'll be deleted) it hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. EliminatorJR Talk 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The work that EliminatorJR linked to in his earlier comment looks very good. Would you all be in favor of extending this AfD for another 5-day cycle so that this approach could be discussed further? I see that the nominator, FrozenPurpleCube, has actually joined in the discussion at the Chess project and I surmise that he filed this AfD because he observes no progress on the thread EliminatorJR cited, which began in December, 2006 and has had no updates since 5 January. This could suggest that this AfD, while contentious, might actually be beneficial. So please respond on the issue of extending the AfD... If you don't want to extend it, do you have another idea for fixing the articles? EdJohnston 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there's a more recent thread here. EliminatorJR Talk 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See EliminatorJR's drafts of new pages here and here. Personally, I think the outcome of the AfD is pretty clear. The community seems to have presented arguments to the effect that material should stay. There is no need for an extension. Let the editing process take its course. Fixer1234 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think an extension of this discussion is still necessary. It doesn't have to be in AFD, but it's obvious to me that the problem remains unresolved. As I said when I first brought this up back in November 2006, I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia, but I believe something ought to be done. So far, the Chess Wikiproject has not demonstrated that they are doing anything. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person so far in this AfD has disagreed with you in one way or another. You honestly think an extension will change something? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, several people have agreed with me on the substance of the issues I have brought up, which is namely that there is an issue regarding these pages. Note the people who have said they would merge or delete several of the pages involved. I don't expect perfect agreement with me, and since I have not developed a firm position on anything but there is a problem, I'm open to change. Disregarding the folks who recognize there is a problem in an attempt to single me out as a trouble-maker is not appropriate either. Working to develop consensus is not a matter of who you can bully by saying "everybody else thinks you are wrong, wrong wrong" but rather trying to convince someone of your position by explaining it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a position. And I'm sorry if you misunderstood the meaning of my post because I was unclear- I meant that nobody has voted delete, as you did when creating the nomination. Either way, it's a keep. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Humor (band)[edit]

Dark Humor (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. No outside references either on the page or available, per a quick search. Released albums on non-notable internet-only label (neither Dead Puppy Records nor Antidote Records are notable). Notability is asserted ("largely known in the online indie music scene"), so page cannot be speedied. However, per all counts, this band fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep Samir 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TITSA[edit]

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

This article has been speedily deleted 5 times [29], on the grounds of spam and lack of notability, and recreated each time by the same editor, so bringing to AfD for further discussion Steve (Stephen) talk 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. --Coredesat 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jesus[edit]

Death of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There already is an article titled Death and resurrection of Jesus, and that article covers all the material this article covers. In addition, this article contains no reliable sources and is all origional research after being tagged with ((unreferenced)) for over a month. There also appears to be POV problems. Sefringle 05:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. I am performing the redirect, people should feel free to merge whatever, as the history is preserved behind the redirect. -- Y not? 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article violates NOR (no sourcing for third party sources or assertions of notability of content), and is a possible attack page. There are no citations to any third-party sources whatsoever for the majority of claims - the links that are in the article are to excerpts or official statements rather than sources of notability for the February 16tcontroversies. In general it seems these things are controversial only for non-Mormons, and not to the LDS Church, the same way Jesus isn't a savior for non-Christians (which doesn't make that a "Christian controversy"; in short, it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader being made for the reader, which is not what WP is about. A "Criticisms" article already exists. MSJapan 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just so it doesn't seem like this was out of the blue, it did sit for months - the last meaningful non-vandalism related edit (either way) was on January 20th, and the merger discussion has been open since last October with no apparent result. If sources were forthcoming, you would think someone would have gotten to it by now. MSJapan 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKirby, I certainly support your comments, but there is a discrepency between the this and the other article. This is essentially a Category parading as an article. There is not article to it; it is a list. It should be deleted and if someone wants to pen a controvery article, then first look at Criticism of Mormonism, Anti-Mormonism, or Mormonism and Christianity. The article that this is trying to be already exists. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that a similiar category page is under attack[31] for the implied reason that it disturbs a true belief to assemble Wikipedia articles under a common theme to address controversial historical claims that come from the same source. "Controversy" is a neutral and valid category that addresses disputed historical claims, not purely religious ones. It would be both POV and anti-historical to suppress it. Furthermore, controversies are established by linking the dispute itself, in whatever form it finds itself. Mormon editors here should state their potential conflict of interest, since some of them have implied that addressing a historical controversy tied to a religious belief is somehow in error. Anon166 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are talking about a Category, not an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. --Aarktica 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegarth Medieval Combat Society[edit]

Only a single independent, reliable source, failing criteria laid out in WP:ORG Eyrian 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Ravenswing  14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Lynn Bishop[edit]

G. Lynn Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only seven appearances according to IMDB, and is a filler character. Being in a major position in L&O does not make them a major character. A Link to the Past (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 17:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swordmaster (Fire Emblem)[edit]

Swordmaster (Fire Emblem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A class that isn't particularly notable among the series; I mean, look at Black Mage and White Mage, very well-known classics, which do not even have their own articles. A Link to the Past (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Townsend[edit]

Bill Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

His notability hangs one thing alone: ran (unsuccessfully) for Congress on the Republican ticked fifteen years ago. As for the rest, he's just another accomplished person, one of many. Does running for Congress on a major party ticked == notable? Not in my book it doesn't, and if it does we have many thousands more articles to write. His foundation bluelinks because he wrote the article himself, today. Obviously there are WP:COI issues here, if he and his foundation are so dang notable why does he have to write the articles himself. Herostratus 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mathematical markup languages. Majorly (hot!) 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet shorthand notation[edit]

Internet shorthand notation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.-Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACASC[edit]

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

The organization does not appear to be notable. Google hits are only 526. Splintercellguy 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puffle[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable virtual pet cruft. Somewhat resembles a game guide. Contested prod. MER-C 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Timeline and The Penguin Times Gwernol 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Elementary School[edit]

Nottingham Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing in the article shows why this school is notable. Maybe a merge to the district article instead. Vegaswikian 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snug (band)[edit]

Snug (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Only claim of notability is that supposedly Ed Harcourt was a bass player. CloudNine 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep -- Samir 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game[edit]

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Individual football games are non-notable. Regardless that this was the first meeting between the teams and the article is well referenced. Nearly any article about any major pro or collegiate athletic competition would have reliable sources available due to the overwhelming number of sports publications in the world, this doesn't make a game notable. Early season, little impact, little coverage=equals non-notable, not even a title game of any sort. Other than it being the first meeting betwen the two teams, (this happens all the time because of the sheer number of universities in the United States) there is no assertion of notability here. Basically a game review. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IvoShandor 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an assertion of notability, and it certainly is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Johntex\talk 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thank you for remarking on the number of independent citations. I think that is a valuable point to consider.
-You link to WP:N, so I would like to quote from it
"The primary criterion for notability, and one shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that: A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."
With 53 in-line references, this seems to me to pass WP:N with flying colors. There are also more notable things about the game beside that one fact. Several are mentioned below.
-You also link to WP:NOT. That policy covers a lot of ground.
I assume you are not talking about "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" or "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".
Perhaps you are thinking of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"? Even that secion does not seem relevant here, it lists things like "travel guides, instruction manuals, sprawling lists of statistics".
This article is none of those things. It is a prose article about an event that was witnessed and read about by millions of people. The event has an impact on the national championship picture of one of the most popular sports in the US.
Could you please explain more precisely how you think this article violates any policy or guideline? Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah. I felt kind of bad putting it at AfD but I consulted with another user, who concurred (the huge number of refs threw me off) but I also saw this as a very unhealthy precedent. Better to head it off now. IvoShandor 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I suggested (another reviewer did so on the article talk page before me, as my comment was originally at WP:GAC) the original article was too long but was not the reviewer who suggested that the article be created about a football game. I wouldn't do that as I do not think that every individual football game is inherently notable. Just FYI, if anyone cares. : ) IvoShandor 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would a remerge into 2005 Texas Longhorn football team be a sufficient course-of-action?↔NMajdan•talk 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team

The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team went on to win the national championship in college football. In doing so, they set numerous school and NCAA records.[36] The, team, their season, and their ultimate bowl win have been called by numerous national media outlets as "the" or "one of the" greatest of all time.[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

How the main article grew to be long

The 2005 UT football team article is partly maintained by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, which aims "to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football". In improving the article on the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, I have gotten help from numerous contributors and reviewers.
The first attempt at a GA nom failed partly because of things not included in the article of that time. That caused me to add a roster, information on training regimines, and information about the off-season, all of which lengthened the main article of course.
I then took the article to a peer review. This peer review resulted in comments by several people. Many of the points including covering additional aspects of the season. Addressing all their concerns caused the article to continue to grow, naturally. This is especially true because of requests for coverage of the on-the-field action. On-the-field action takes a fair amount of text to describe. It could be put into a more succinct form in a table, perhaps, but then there would probably be people who say that prose is preferred over tables.

How this article got created as a spin-off of the main article

As the article grew from addressing all the points raised at the first GA attempt and in the peer review, the article was evenually tagged with a template called Template:Verylong, which states "Please consider summarizing or transferring content to subtopic articles."
I decided to go ahead and try again for GA, and at that time I got multiple opinions that the article was too long. Two of these comments specifially mentioned to consider splitting the main article into summary articles:
- "This article seems unusably long, consider breaking it up per WP:SUMMARY.IvoShandor 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"
- "...It seems to me like the notes on individual games (game notes) is the primary culprit here, which could be better summarized or moved to child articles about the game...Dr. Cash 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"
So, that is exactly what I did, in keeping with WP:SUMMARY, I began to break out the more lengthy game descriptions into their own articles.

Some precedents

There is plenty of precedent for this. In fact, the 2006 Rose Bowl already exists as a break-out of the very same 2005 UT football team article (the 2005/2006 discrepency is because some bowls are played just into the new calendar year). There are other single-event articles that are not bowl games also. Please see 2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game and 1967 USC vs. UCLA football game for two examples. Others are 2006 Asian Womens Volleyball Club Championships (an international event, but probably watched by fewer people than the game in question here - ditto for 2006 World Women's Boxing Championship),

Notability of the game described in this sub-article

As to the notability of the particular game in question, there is plenty about it that is notable. For example:
- It was a meeting of 2 top five teams in the second week of the season. This is very rare. The article explains this and attributes that fact to reputable national sources.
- Both teams had national championship hopes, and one did go one to win the national championship, as noted above. The national championship is very difficult to win unless the team is undefeated (again as explained and cited in the article) so this game was very important in that regard.
-It was the first ever meeting between the two teams. That is actually somewhat rare, especially for big name programs that have been around for a long time. These two teams had 227 seasons between them. The total number of games they had played prior to facing was the second most for any two college football teams to have played before meeting each other. (The record is Texas vs. Michigan from the prior year - see 2005 Rose Bowl).
-The game was one of the most anticipated games of the early season (again as explained and cited in the article) and afterwards was called one of the best in the season (again, cited in the article).

My summary

The article complies with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I understand them. It came about because the main article needed to be rewritten into summary style. Please note that the nominator of this AfD, IvoShandor is one of the very people who suggested I re-write the article in summary style, and this is what I have done. . It follows the format established by the WikiProject for a single game article. It is cited with more than 50 reputable in-line sources. It is a valuable article for helping people to understand college football in general and this season and teams in particular. I think this article shoould be kept. Johntex\talk 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The team could not have won the Rose Bowl if they did not win this game first.
We have lots of other articles on individual games that were not for the national championship (E.g. 2007 Outback Bowl, 2007 International Bowl). I list more examples up above that were not even bowl games (there are lots of others, see 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game)
There are also examples I list above in Women's Volleyball and Women's Boxing that are not as well referenced and probably were not seen by as many people as this one football game.
You talk about 2 high school teams - were they covered by the national media? If so, maybe we could have an article on them if anyone cares to write it.
Can you please point to any specific policy that this article violates? Johntex\talk 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Ok, I had to wait until I had talked to an admin who's opinion I trust in these matters to see if I had made the wrong decision. Upon his recommendations, I will not change my vote, and here is why (I am going to copy his response to me):
Personally, although the article is indeed verifiable and well written, I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion. You see, a subject needs both verifiability and notability in order to become an entry in Wikipedia, and while this one is verifiable, is not really notable. If during the game lightning killed a player, in example, it would be a notable match, but as far as I see, it is not really notable.
Oh, forgot about the rationale. I would say Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as this specific match is not more notable than the match they played the week before, nor the match they played on the week after, and therefore, allowing a match without notability to be in Wikipedia will allow any of the ten of thousands of matches of different sports played every day around the world to be included. Of course, people will usually claim that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which indicates Wikipedia has no limit regarding what to cover and what not. I guess the closing admin will choose a "No consensus" verdict.
And also, note that there are not guidelines for "notability of matches", the closest one would be Wikipedia:Television episodes, but it is a proposal and does not target matches really.
So, going by all this, I will have to continue with my delete. I see that the article has been canvased to the Wiki Football group, so I am sure it will pass this time, but I am thinking that any non-notable football games will be up for deletion in the future.--Kranar drogin 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to the "sprawling list of statistics"? There is not a list of statistics in the entire article, other than the score by quarters.
As for certain references suporting the band or the historical records of the program - what is the problem with that? Those facts are in the article so they are cited.
In terms of the game action, I can certainly use other/additional references besides 31 and 32. Many of those same events are mentioned in the other citations as well, but certain reviews actually don't like it when too many references are cited, so I just stuck with two main sources for that. Johntex\talk 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that this article is well-written and thoroughly referenced, and the season articles are already too long. Merging would decrease the quality of all of the involved articles, whereas this could easily become a GA. Is there a rule against nominating an article for GA status while it's under a deletion debate? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles about specific games are rare and rarely notable, but I feel that the reasons presented are a strong (or at least, significant) assertion of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor contacted me, and I'm now aware it set an all time attendance record in the stadium it was played at. Mostly based on this, alongside one or two other things, I'm gonna change my vote. LuciferMorgan 09:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have opened a discussion about questions raised above at WP:N, it can be seen here. IvoShandor 13:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Thanks to advice from LuciferMorgan, I expanded the lead to make clearer some of the reasons the game was an important event. Johntex\talk 05:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still say delete. This is going to set that unhealthy precedent. There will be articles about individual games of all sorts after this AfD. Just because there are refs doesn't make it notable. Maybe this game is, but every game in that season, not in my opinion, I won't be changing my opinion. IvoShandor 02:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fucking delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking (disambiguation)[edit]

Fucking (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This disambiguation has only 2 entries, and they already are in fuck (disambiguation) , I say Delete and Redirect to fuck (disambiguation), and no, I'm not gonna speedy remove tag it, or redirect it myself. Because I need opinion from other Wikipedians first. TheBlazikenMaster 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I did it sometimes. Well, some people do in fact search for it. But it's too rare search term, but why the hell can't it be a redirect? TheBlazikenMaster 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I object to deletion, but a disambiguation page shouldn't have any inbound links anyway, right?Chunky Rice 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't, my point was as there are none it will not create any redlinks by deleting it rather than redirecing. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Okay, I get it. Thanks.Chunky Rice 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirecting is optional. --Coredesat 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ambrose[edit]

Simon Ambrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not noteable, only reality TV winners and other succsessful contestants recieve their own articles. Dalejenkins 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true - See American Idol (season 6) - wherein people still in the competition and those who have been eliminated both still have pages e.g. Brandon Rogers (singer). I don't see why different rules should apply to a primetime US show and a primetime UK show. Also, it seems a valid argument that we should wait to see who is successful before deleting articles. Interested in your thoughts. Not a single-purpose account, just a new one and certainly NPOV and not advertising. aewain 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


DO NOT AMEND PEOPLES VOTES - I WILL NOW WATCH THIS PAGE AS WHOEVER IS THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS ARTICLE IS AMENDING PEOPLES VOTES AND COMMENTS --PrincessBrat 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Fzzzzzz. That was the sound of this being speedily deleted. -Splash - tk 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zzzzzzzzzzF, was the sound of me finding Trespassers William, restoring, and redirecting and still closing this debate. Splash - tk 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Williams (musician)[edit]

Jamie Williams (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing to establish notability, needs a lot of cleanup if to be kept, probably autobiography (only substantial editor is Jw11220000 who has made no other contributions) Lou.weird 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ngoha[edit]

Steve Ngoha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Appears to be autobiographical. No sources. Claims to notability are "Obey your Art" contest (1 ghit, unrelated) and "World Typographic Contest" (0 ghits). Unsourced and Notability tags repeatedly removed by author and anon likely to be author. Prod removed by same anon. Onorem 10:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft Safety[edit]

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

This page is not encyclopedic, only cites one source, and is poorly structured. At the very least, the original source for the article should be merged into the Airsoft Article. Soniczip 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codependent Collegian[edit]

Codependent Collegian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this publication is notable. Article's creator, Captaincorky (talk · contribs) and others (possibly socks) have been warned repeatedly for spamming links to it with sneaky edit summaries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources, probable hoax (see last comment below). NawlinWiki 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Leinso[edit]

Niki Leinso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Barely survived a previous vfd back in 2005, but standards have evolved. Ghits aren't convincing. MER-C 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know here: http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=112312 (third post down)172.159.189.57 17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkyū proper[edit]

Ryūkyū proper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia does not allow new terms to be defined. "Ryukyu Proper" / "Ryūkyū Proper" appears to be a term invented on Wikipedia. I requested for references in the article and in the talk page on February but no sources turned up. (references: WP:OR, WP:NEO) —Tokek 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The long debate last fall about Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu ended with the following conclusion: the Japanese term Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島; literally Ryūkyū Islands) is geographically different than English "Ryukyu Islands". (That is why it lost the crucial macrons which should be there.) Most research about the Ryūkyūs is naturally in Japanese. When I want to talk about Ryūkyū Shotō in English, the English article Ryukyu Islands is absolutely useless. As they are geographically different, they need separate articles. Notice how Ryukyu Islands includes a link to ja:南西諸島 (Nansei Shotō) while Ryūkyū proper links to ja:琉球諸島 (Ryūkyū Shotō). Perhaps the article name is poorly chosen (I did not create the page). I think it should be interpreted as "Ryūkyū (proper)", as opposed to "Ryukyu". Even better would be "Ryūkyū Islands" to supplement the existing "Ryukyu Islands". Either way, there is a need for the article. I oppose deletion, but would consider a rename. Bendono 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a long and unrelated debate about when the macroned version should be used and when it shouldn't, and I agree with your assessment on how that debate turned out. However, that was never a central issue to this AFD proposal. It is still unlikely that the term could be proven to be not a neologism, therefore the AFD proposal. Because Wikipedia is against neologisms, something needs to be done regardless. In case you missed it, here's a relevant comment I made earlier at Talk:Ryūkyū proper:
If it's worth having an article of its own, I think either Ryūkyū Shotō or Geography of Okinawa Prefecture works. If it's not worth an independent article, I think it could redirect to Okinawa Prefecture#Geography. —Tokek 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments:
  • A problem: if "ryukyu proper" is not a real term, it cannot be properly defined, since there is no proper definition. (note: this is not circular reasoning).
  • Content is mostly a copy of a subsection of the Ryukyu Islands article, hence nothing will be lost if this article was deleted.
  • If the article was supposed to be about "Ryūkyū Shotō", though, really, why not title the article as such in the first place? (Currently, a move to Ryūkyū Shotō requires admin intervention.) I also suggested as a possible candidate "Geography of Okinawa Prefecture" because by definition the territory of Okinawa Prefecture consists of Ryūkyū Shotō and vice versa, although moving it to a "Geography of" article would change the nuance slightly.
  • I posted requests at Ryūkyū proper, Talk:Ryūkyū proper, Talk:Ryukyu Islands for sources that could disprove my assumption that this term is a neologism, in February. (I forgot to mention earlier that I posted a request at Talk:Ryukyu Islands, too.) It innately has problems by virtue of being a neologism, for one thing. On top of that there are far more straightforward alternatives.
—Tokek 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ryūkyū Islands" is not a neologism. Here are some in print English references:
  • Temporal and spatial variation in the culture history of the Ryūkyū Islands, Richard J Pearson
  • Ryūkyū Islands (under United States administrations) : standard list of post offices, Melvin H Schoberlin
  • Catalog of the Ryūkyū research collection. A special collection of books, articles and manuscripts in relevant languages dealing with the Ryūkyū Islands, as of May 1, 1964, Douglas Gilbert Haring
  • Scientific investigations in the Ryūkyū Islands (SIRI) report, by National Research Council (U.S.). Pacific Science Board
  • China's quasi-war with Japan : the dispute over the Ryūkyū (Liu-ch'iu) Islands, 1871-1881, Pak-Wah Leung
  • Japan country map. area maps, Japan 1:2,000,000, Kansai district 1:200,000, Kantō area 1:750,000, Ryūkyū Islands 1:4,000,000 : city plans, central Tokyo 1:17,500, central Osaka 1:15,000, central Kyoto 1:15,000, Periplus Editions.
  • Handbook and specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) Islands (issued under United States administrations), William C Lassister
  • Specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) islands (issued under United States administrations), by Arthur Lee-Francis Askins
  • etc. etc... Bendono 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just stated: "Ryūkyū Islands is not a neologism", but I am proposing "Ryūkyū proper" for deletion based on the claim that "Ryūkyū proper" is neologism. Please read more carefully what you are responding to. —Tokek 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have. As I said, I oppose deletion, but am open to renaming. If it makes you happy, I suppose we could delete Ryūkyū proper and then change Ryūkyū Islands from a redirect to a full article. There is a need for the article, however it is titled. Either way, it is the same in the end. Bendono 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't creating a full article at Ryūkyū Shotō avoid the confusion and controversy that would arise from creating a full article at Ryūkyū Islands? —Tokek 05:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems with that:
  1. Ryūkyū Shotō is Japanese for English "Ryūkyū Islands". It is desirable to use English when possible on English Wikipedia.
  2. As the resources above demonstrate, there is established usage for "Ryūkyū Islands" in real, published English (i.e., non-neologism). Bendono 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Ryūkyū Islands" has been used in published English works. However, I'm concerned whether the definition of "Ryūkyū Islands" has always been the same as the definition of "Ryūkyū Shotō". By the way, for those who are confused, the terms "Ryukyu Islands", "Ryūkyū Shotō", "Ryūkyū Rettō" etc. are explained at Ryukyu Islands. —Tokek 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Ryukyu proper" was invented by Node ue on 03:24, 25 March 2005 [44]
  2. On August 2005, I made some edits to the terms and grouping of islands. Here, I made an assumption that "Ryukyu proper" = "Ryūkyū Shotō". [45]
  3. On 23:55, 23 October 2005, Node ue makes this statement in the edit history: "There is no such thing as "satsunan" or "sakishima"; these terms were invented by the Japanese government in an attempt to create false divisions where none exist" [46]
  4. On 15 December 2006, a short exchange of comments on Talk:Ryukyu Islands mention Ryukyu proper: [47]. Mention of "Ryukyu proper" on the talk page was actually shorter and less frequent than I thought.
  5. On 10 January 2006, Ryukyu proper is created mostly from copy-and-paste from Ryukyu Islands.
  6. I reverted the Ocober 2005 edit mentioned above on 8 July 2006 [48] and added an explanative text: "This list is based on present day Japanese geographic names." The reason why I chose Japanese geographic names is because it is recent, official, detailed, easily referenced, and unambiguously defined classification of island subgroupings, making it virtually the only practical choice available, etc.
  7. Also on the same day, I removed mention of "Ryukyu proper" from the article. [49]
  8. On February 2007, As I've previously mentioned, citation for the term "Ryukyu proper" was requested on three different pages. No sources showed up.
—Tokek 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frequency EP[edit]

The Frequency EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be advertising. It has no verified information, and much of the article appears to be unverifiable. This music release appears to fail most of the guidelines for WP:MUSIC. The EP had not been released at the time the article was written, and so could not have been in any chart. There is no assertion of notability. Dan Beale 12:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat)[edit]

Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia, as a general interest encyclopedia, does not need an article on one fictional combat style with a fictional weapon in a fictional universe. As a synthesis of non-obvious observations in primary sources, the article is original research. Sandstein 12:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn per improvements. >Radiant< 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Rogers Fairchild[edit]

Contested prod, and in the "lacking importance" category since last June. He's an economist who's written a few articles, but appears to fail the "average professor test" from WP:BIO, and the article has no external sources. >Radiant< 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a few references, and some of them are recent, so for a long dead economist, I think that indicates a certain level of notability. I think part of the problem may be that his notability was much higher at the time of the New Deal, but his influence can still be felt in economic thought today. I am not religiously devoted to this guy, but I think it might take a while to find the references that are needed for attributable notability. -- Jvv62 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn, turns out he wasn't self-published. >Radiant< 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Anderson (writer)[edit]

Contested prod, and in the "lacking importance" category since last June. He's an apparently self-published writer of marginal notability, and the article lacks sources. >Radiant< 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark_AleX[edit]

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

Spam. Non encyclopedic. Jaymac407 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Alex 4:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly argee with that. Jaymac407 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sir Jenkins 8:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I second that notion! Agree all the way!

- Smith 1:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that his notoriety is confined to such a small group, that any determination of notoriety should be taken with a grain of salt. One can be notorious within a college dorm, but does that notoriety transfer to the world at large? No. I don't think his supposed notoriety transfers from the PSP crowd to the general, Wikipedia-reading public, which is what we are discussing. (BTW, I wouldn't shed a tear if List of Pokémon were deleted... but that's not the point here.) - BierHerr 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Powers[edit]

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

Delete - Subject does not meet Wikipedia's minimum threshold of notability. Notability is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".

The article cites ImDB as its only source and even Imdb indicates that this individual only appeared in two pornographic films and then basically dropped out of sight, a body of work hardly worthy of note.

It might even be suggested that this entry is nothing more than an advertisement for Darrin Powers singing carrer, as the article itself states, Powers was never a star in his films, instead appearing as a featured performer...

Additionally, as my colleague pointed out to me, for porn actors WP:PORNBIO applies rendering this article even more worthy of deletion.

Mister Jinxy 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per the arguments here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy). WjBscribe 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edd (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

Edd_(Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.
I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).
Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reporting him to requests for checkuser for posting a reason to keep/delete twice (Even though it's not a vote it's based on the reasons brought up). He's been known to switch IPs before to evade bans (because of Linux), he could just be doing it again, but we'll find out soon. DietLimeCola 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) not made here are also relevant. WjBscribe 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

Eddy_(Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.
I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).
Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created by User:Bobber2. -- Elaich 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep for the same reasons that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misandry was closed. Looking at Special:Contributions/207.62.186.233 it is clear that this is a pattern of recurrent vandalism. Uncle G 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masculism[edit]

Masculism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Tiferes Menachem[edit]

Yeshiva Tiferes Menachem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. The article was prodded five days ago, but it has been expanded and therefore should be revisited. I do think it should be deleted for lack of notability. YechielMan 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was clearly written as an advertisement for the school. It doesn't standard wikipedia formatting guidelines. Plese delete or rewrite article with a more objective voice (Huberfamily 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think the article should not be deleted since it clearly shows why this entry is notable, rick34125

Keep The article needs some work, but I think its notable enough for a school. It even has a little Village Voice item [53]. Dina 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insignificant school. completely not notable. Chocolatepizza 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The sources from the debate should be integrated into the article; will leave a note on the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Stealth Productions[edit]

Deep Stealth Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I deleted this on 22 Feb, with the following reason: "WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 -- article doesn't cite verifiable, reliable/third party sources, no strong claim of notability, possible promotional article; feel free to relist at WP:AFD if you disagree." I recently received an apparently good faith request from User:Andrea Parton to restore and list at AfD; she's said she believes the subject would satisfy W:CORP (or some other notability guideline), and although she hasn't yet offered any evidence to support this, the request seems to be made in good faith, so here we are. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Had a role in producing" and "were consulted on" aren't exactly the most tangible claims to notability (though, to be fair, they are claims -- I'd just prefer something more solid). As far as I can tell, most everything I've seen written about them is self-written -- it's true they seem to have had an article of some sort in The Advocate, and that does give me pause... but it was a profile they seem to have written themselves, and I can't really find anything else, so I'm not so sure about it. I will confess I'm not "in" with the transsexual community -- if they're well-known, there, could you provide some evidence of that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

I have provided these links for your information only. Hopefully we will be able to reach a consensus. And when I have time, I will work on improving the quality of the article.

Andrea Parton 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover thrash, List of crossover thrash bands[edit]

Crossover thrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is, as we know, no end to the tendency of metal fans to invent new genres, to the point where every band has its own, but this one does not look to be one of those with supportable criteria. The occasional ((citation needed)) in an article is fine, but here the tags apply to the actual definition of the term, and the sole cited source doesn't even mention it. Looks like something made up at a gig one day. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike maps[edit]

Counter-Strike maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bloated with fancruft, comprised with original research, and generally an uncyclopedic topic that can easily be merged into the main article, if it's even necessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The previous discussion failed with no consensus, so I believe that the consensus may have changed enough for another decision to be formed on this. Personally, I play Counter-Strike, but I feel that this can go elsewhere. WaltCip 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I very much doubt that an out-of-the-box gaming topic such as this one will stand in the encyclopedia. Perhaps in an FAQ or a game guide, but this really doesn't fit. It seems like that this is what is best for Wikipedia.--WaltCip 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 'not paper' was a valid argument for an AFD keep, wouldn't that make the whole AFD process completely pointless? Wouldn't everything be a keep? --SubSeven 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me quote WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover'. Of course that is a valid argument, just as the "not an indiscriminate collection" that is used by the nominator. I think this article can exist, in a form where it discusses the maps used by this game rather then list them and can be sourced from reliable sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that form, it would be better off in the main article.--WaltCip 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me, but AfD is not the correct way to achieve merger. That can be done without listing it here. AfD is about deletion of articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll also note that WP:NOT doesn't say "therefore, we should have articles on anything and everything" which sounds more like your interpretation of it. Again, if "Wikpiedia is not paper" is an argument for keeping any article, then there's a pretty huge loophole in the AFD system. --SubSeven 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly do not want to keep everything. I do not want individual articles on each and every map for example. But I DO think an article like this can be part of Wikipedia yes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The numbers are about 7-4 in of Delete, not counting "Delete only if selectively merged back, otherwise keep" either way. This is tough because there is not so much a reaching for consensus over whether or not a particular article meets a particular standard, e.g. notability; it's more a division between those who generally favor the existence of "X in popular culture" vs. those who don't. I'm not qualified to judge this larger issue, but I don't see either "side" with a decisive "win". The argument that this article can serve as a kind of cruft disposal to keep the main article clean is reasonable. It is not as strong as the Delete arguments, but it is sufficiently strong to prevent a straight-out Delete close, in my view. A larger discussion and decision on when "X in popular culture" articles would be useful here. Herostratus 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Norton in popular culture[edit]

Emperor Norton in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Of the great number of "in popular culture" articles now raising concerns, this one strikes me as the most absurd. Whatever useful information this covers is already in the history of the Emperor Norton article. The rest is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and random. Delete. Xoloz 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:READTHENOM. Actually, that's not a real policy, but he said that all that was useful in the article has already been covered in the proarticle.--WaltCip 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Emperor Norton?--WaltCip 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Joshua A. Norton. He was an eccentric who proclaimed himself the "Emperor of these United States" and "Protector of Mexico" in 1859. He's a legend now. Nishkid64 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carter (AKA War Wounds)[edit]

Aaron Carter (AKA War Wounds) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another hoax article about a supposedly upcoming album. I have been unable to find a single reference online to this - Googling for "Aaron Carter" "War Wounds" comes up with nothing relevant aside from the WP article itself. Kurt Shaped Box 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Aarktica 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casco Bay Brewing Co.[edit]

I am concerned that this brewery is not notable, as the only thing close to a reference is a trivial mention in one article. Does this brewery meet WP:CORP enough, or should it, and others like it be considered for deletion? FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are not a reliable source as to what the people of Maine enjoy, nor is the link to the official website establishing of notability. Pretty much every business can make a website, but not all businesses should get Wikipedia articles. And note, I am not questioning the truth of anything in the article, I am questioning the notability. Please consider your comments in that light. FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is receiving a single gold medal out of 85 at an event of itself less than certain notability a good indicator of a breweries notability? And does this mean all the other winners of a single medal should have articles? (Assuming reliable information could be found about them, of course). I think that might be setting the bar a little low myself. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del Improper usage of a technical page. `'mikka 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcrest (disambiguation)[edit]

Barcrest (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also nominating Barcrest Group (disambiguation). Disambig on two closely related pages on one corporation, and a competitor that has no reason to be disambiged. Just not a useful disambig, IMHO. PROD was removed, so it's AFD time on this one. TexasAndroid 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deteled. --Coredesat 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtub klat[edit]

Rechtub klat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is bullshit. OK, maybe not entirely bullshit, but the claim that Aussie butchers are the only ones who kaeps sdrawkcab is skcollob etelpmoc, there was a fad for it in the 80s in the UK when it was featured on !efiL s'tahT. Since the sources seme to be slang dictionaries promoting the meme, and blogs, I'd call this if not a hoax then a protologism. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki. Sr13 (T|C) 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raghead[edit]

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

belongs to wiktionary, togetherw woth usage examples. Non-expandable dicdef. `'mikka 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I understand where you are coming from, and I do agree that these "hate" terms really belong in the dictionary, as opposed to an encylopedia. My concern really has more to do with the fact that "other" terms of similar meaning towards other groups currently have wiki's. It is probably a question of fairness, more than anything. Maybe I will give it a shot and detailing the history of the term and it's use, if you think thats a good idea. If not, just leave me a message! Padishah5000 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete WP:BIO, WP:ATTACK, WP:BOLLOCKS, all fit quite well. Dakota 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Spittle[edit]

Gavin Spittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO, WP:RS -- this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. I was going through Dallas AM station pages and came across this. --nathanbeach 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote PeaceNT 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre[edit]

Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Would have tagged this up as a blatant advertising speedy, but it isn't blatant advertising but rather insidious advertising. Some notablity claim in respect of the building's history, but nevertheless (a) I am not convinced that this building is in the least bit notable on its own (there are plenty of Grade II listed buildings in the UK) and (b)I do feel that this page is simply an advertisment for the hotel. A1octopus 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian perspectives on gay rights[edit]

Libertarian perspectives on gay rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original Research Amourfou 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) This page is original research. As I commented on the discussion page (as an anonymous user at the time), this is filled with weasel words and no citing. I appreciate the effort that other editors have put into this page, but it really reads like something out of a magazine or school report and not an encyclopedia.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deathrock friendly bands[edit]

List of deathrock friendly bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm concerned that this page is a bit much. While lists of bands that play in a genre is reasonably acceptable, this is merely association or friendliness with the genre. Not to mention this page is unreferenced, and of the pages I checked, none talk about death rock at all. And that's even ignoring the pages that don't link to bands at all FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell High School (Florida)[edit]

Bell High School (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:NN, page was created to trash either the town or the school, not sure. Creating user has only 2 contribs, both useless. No page for the district exists to merge. Literacola 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The roze band[edit]

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

Notability claimed, but none established per WP:MUSIC - www.iowarocknroll.com does not appear to lend much weight - Tiswas(t/c) 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Project HOPE (USA). WjBscribe 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project HOPE USA[edit]

Project HOPE USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason Me latina 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) There is a complete,correct and more reliable entry version about this organization at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HOPE_%28USA%29.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Jersey Devil 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camino Chronicle[edit]

Camino Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Books by Susan Alcorn whose article was deleted in AfD here (I was the closing administrator). They do not seem to fulfill the conditions of WP:BK. They were prodded but the articles' editor removed the tag. Yannismarou 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richmond - Windows to the Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Yannismarou 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the contributer of the articles, and I am the author's husband, not the author. My name is Ralph Alcorn. Agreed, there is a conflict of interest issue, but please judge the articles on their merit. I've only done a few edits on Wikipedia in the past, so am still learning the rules.

Background: I've known the author for many years, and am in a position to see her total contributions. She writes on subjects which are narrow, but of considerable interest to the thousands of people interested in the same topic. She is serious about her writing and has been writing for thirty five years. Her body of work includes some other books that didn't have lasting impact, and a number of newspaper articles. In the last twenty years her main interest has been long distance hiking, and she has been hiking three to four hundred miles every year. (I do have a point to make). She is one of the few women in the age 65 and older category that are still doing long distance backpacking. Her notability is primarily being a woman of this age still doing long distance backpacking. See here in a Trailcast podcast [54]. If you look at the other Trailcast subjects of podcasts, it is the Who's Who of long distance hiking. If you are in the long distance hiking community, you know "Squatch", who produces an annual "Walk" dvd featuring clips of Pacific Crest Trail backpackers. We are in his 2006 dvd, and I'm referencing his trail journal entry just to provide some attribution to the fact that Susan Alcorn is still out hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail [55]. I can see the question, who are these active older women? being a research topic at a high school or college level. Susan Alcorn might not be noteable enough yet to be in a hard copy encyclopedia, but I thought that was part of the purpose of Wikipedia - to include topics that might be too obscure to include in an encyclopedia limited by the weight, size and space required for paper articles.

Re: the individual book articles. I assume I should discuss them here in the delete discussion rather than each books discussion page.

Re: The Richmond book. I found three citations in a few minutes search, and added them to the article. One was 1993, one for 1996 and one for 2001, each referring to this 1980 book. Again, pointing to the durability and notability of this book. In the discussion I added the full description of this book from two independent sources.

Re: The We're in the Mountains book. Of the three books, this one has got the most attention from the buying public. Most paperback books have a short life. They go out to the bookstores, and the next year there is a 30 to 40% return rate. Four years later, this book is still selling at the initial rate. We don't know exactly who, about 2/3rds of sales are thru National Parks and outdoor stores, the rest through Amazon. Our theory is that older women are buying it because of the unique subject. No other book in the United States addresses older women backpackers. This is the book that makes Susan Alcorn known.

Re: Camino Chronicle. Of the three, this is the most well crafted in terms of layout, photos, maps, etc. The story has international appeal. Appearance plus the story are what brought it up for the travel essay award, but some of its success is because of the Susan Alcorn name. She has been writing a newsletter for four years, and has been giving slide presentations at west coast locations ranging from Phoenix to Portland, with many in central California. For outdoor people in this area, Susan Alcorn (author) is noteable.

(Backpack45scb 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've added numerous newspaper and magazine interviews to both Richmond - Windows to the Past, and We're in the Mountains, Not Over the Hill. In the process of doing this, I have found additional material for the Susan Alcorn (author) entry, which was deleted before I had a chance to respond. I will be travelling until May 10, 2007, so won't be able to respond to posts until then. (Backpack45scb 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete and move Temp (disambiguation) to this title. WjBscribe 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temp[edit]

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

Band whose claim to notability is being popular through the internet and starting a bidding war between labels (although apparently they haven't been signed to any). Can't find anything about them through Google. Probably could have speedy deleted, but I'd like a consensus so we can replace this with Temp (disambiguation). Recury 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (criterion G7). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open_Mario[edit]

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

No longer being developed due to Copyright reasons (IP) MetaCipher 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Denyer[edit]

Steve Denyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability bio Mukadderat 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Away goes trouble, down the drain. Herostratus 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet tipping[edit]

Toilet tipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another unsourced article on a prank. One very short sentenc in a local news roundup, a student-edited page praising the things made up in school that day, and a lot of cruft. Fewer than 700 Google hits, quite likely this is primarily a vehicle for the "look at the real cool dudes" photo in the article. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeff! Keep? How unlike you :o) Please feel free to rewrite it into something more like an encyclopaedia article and less like it was tipped out of a toilet one day... Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ca$his[edit]

Ca$his (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Ronbo76 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's on The Re-Up. He came out on The Re-Up. The Re-Up went gold in its first week, I believe. Therefore the article should stay, and you two seriously need to do your research better unless this article was started before the album came out... Faseidman 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It hasn't earned a certification yet. So I apologize, but I would say the album has a very good shot on earning that gold record cert before too long. Still seems like a bad idea to delete this, to me. Faseidman 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, doesn't he already clear #10? "You Don't Know" has gotten major airplay all over the country (as far as I know), and he's on that. Faseidman 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Were The Days (Fanzine)[edit]

Those Were The Days (Fanzine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't quite feel this meets notability guidelines. There's a lack of coverage specifically on the fanzine - see WP:RS. Any relevant information could be better off merged into Ipswich Town Football Club. Crystallina 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Georgie[edit]

Diana Georgie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article is not notable enough. 445 results for a "Diana Georgie" google search, including the wikipedias & answers.com pages. Notability of this article has been questioned before. Thiste 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Ejection seat. WjBscribe 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ejectorseat[edit]

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

Non-notable local band. 131 hits for 'Ejectorseat band' on Google (when you go to the last page), doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, ~3,800 plays on Last.FM. Opening for a few bands and getting to 51 on the iTunes chart isn't notability. Halo 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endsville (Billy and Mandy)[edit]

Endsville (Billy and Mandy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Endsville is the setting for the show The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. In that article, it is described as a typical "Anytown, USA" town. Based on the extensive coverage of the setting in the main article, and the fact that the town is likely not notable enough to sustain it's own article, I'm nominating it for deletion. There no information to merge that isn't covered in the main article and it wouldn't serve well as a redirect, since the title is unlikely to be searched for or wikilinked. Leebo T/C 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good idea. Consensus is still required for the assertion that we don't need a separate article though, correct? Leebo T/C 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-Grain Diet (second nomination)[edit]

No-Grain Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:N. Cannot locate any reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. The only available sources and Google results are promotional and/or closely related to the diet's publicizer. Without reliable independent secondary sources, the article will always remain in its current promotional/OR state. Prior VfD is here and does not touch on subject of notability. MastCell Talk 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google hits are not a criterion. The book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Of the sources you mention, both "reviews" are on specialty websites which advance minoritarian dietary theories. One is a five-sentence paragraph in a newsletter - hardly "non-trivial". The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a minor, non-MEDLINE-indexed fringe science publication not carried in any medical or general library I've been in, and in any case the book review is not available online, so cannot be used as a verifiable source. The bottom line is that without "multiple, non-trivial, independent" secondary sources (which appear not to exist), we can never write an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article, and the article will always be an advertisement. MastCell Talk 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment let us distinguish notability from verifiability. Notability referes to whether the article should exist, verifiability referes to whether we can back up the cliams in the article. On notability the 13 citations in amazon, the first link provided and the journal review all add weigth to notability. The fact these sources are primarially in alternative health related publications does not detract - there is no mention that the book must have been reviewed in national press. To this you could add 49 amazon reviews (the most I've ever seen) and the fact it reached no 5 on the New York times best seller list. This is clrealy a book of some influance. On verifaibility we probably have enought to verify that our wikipedia page is a true and acurate reflection of the content of the book. What we don't have is anything to prove or disprove the theories mentioned in the book. --Salix alba (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Verifiable sources are required to establish notability. Again, Amazon reviews don't qualify. Plenty of books spend a week at #5 on the NYT bestseller list without warranting an article. The sources of the reviews you mention are not "independent" and don't serve a "general audience". What we don't have is any independent, reliable secondary sources. We can't build a neutral, encyclopedic article from Amazon.com reviews and a couple of brief mentions in venues that are essentially echo chambers for the book's author. MastCell Talk 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand your point, but the problem is that an NYT bestseller ranking doesn't help us build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article; we need sources to do that. Hence sales figures alone don't satisfy WP:N or WP:BK. MastCell Talk 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Hasni[edit]

Yunus Hasni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing race michigan[edit]

Amazing race michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a private game among friends, without media coverage. Fails multiple guidelines and policies. YechielMan 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Lais Siddiqui[edit]

Abul Lais Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no sources, notablility not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Ansari[edit]

Sahar Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, per 221.132.113.214's well-put argument. --164.107.223.217 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Aqeel[edit]

Moinuddin Aqeel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talat A. Wizarat[edit]

Talat A. Wizarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. It's some kid who wrote a fanfic season of 24. NawlinWiki 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Season? (1)[edit]

24 Season? (1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Author asserts that it is in development, yet it seems to be a hoax. ffm ✎talk 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please allow me to express my season of 24 and i not help me get it seen!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21 (game). Veinor (talk to me) 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 the game[edit]

21 the game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strikes me that this might be made up, but knowing, as I do, nothing about Basketball I thought I'd solicit opinions Chris 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, I know something's gone wrong but can't work out how to fix it!

  • Comment I think the templates are fixed now. Leebo T/C 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo unyielding[edit]

Halo unyielding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has some clarity issues. Reading the article, I couldn't glean enough information about the topic to easily iron it out, or to judge whether it should be merged into another article or not. Haikon 11:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relatively non-notable, but it can't really be merged with anything else, and it has been mentioned on other linked sites. I'd say Cleanup and Keep. Bronzey 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 09:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of nowhere[edit]

Out of nowhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable avant-garde zine from the 1980s. google searches for "Out of nowhere" and Ledoux produce mostly wikipedia mirrors. Searches on google books and scholar produce a few unrelated results. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adams (CBSO)[edit]

Michael Adams (CBSO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lists many worthy accomplishments but none of them meet any criteria for notability according to WP:BIO. Grover cleveland 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Not enough participation to say that a Keep consensus was formed. Herostratus 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koobox[edit]

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

I see no claim to notability here, just another product killing sparrows 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. Anyone may merge any relevant info from the article's history into Brickfilm. The article will become a redirect. Majorly (hot!) 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman LEGO Fan Film[edit]

Batman LEGO Fan Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I doubt these are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Jake Snicket 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Copyvio. Herostratus 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage 2 classes[edit]

Lineage 2 classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft exportet from Lineage II --Jestix 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lineage II and Delete Rackabello 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this template has been relisted Patstuarttalk·edits 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus tending to a keep consensus, discounting partisan shenanigans, defaulting to keep -- Y not? 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles[edit]

Delete as non-notable attorney. Two previous AfDs (1st AfD and 2nd AfD) ended in "no consensus" with the majority of the "Keep" votes being placed by previously involved Scientology critics and the majority of the "Delete" votes by neutral editors. An admin, trialsanderrors, placed the 2nd AfD and questioned the "No consensus" close of the first.

"First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. . ."

--Justanother 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are those other activities notable? If so, where are the "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? MastCell Talk 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason given for deletion are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:LRONDOESNTLIKEIT. It's WP:BIO. The things you mention are not actually notable (in Wikipedia terms) unless he is the subject of some reliable, independent third-party coverage. The lack of such coverage is the reason the article should be deleted. Since the previous two AfD's closed with no consensus (not keep), I don't see how a renomination is automatically an abuse of process. MastCell Talk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The lack of coverage cited in the article to date is not a valid reason for deletion, unless the article is a "hopless case". AfD policy clearly states that cleanup tags etc should be used instead of nominating articles for AfD. I do not believe this article is a hopeless case; it should be expanded. WP:BIO is not mentioned in the nomination statement, nor does the subject qualify for A7. With regards to the subject's notability, even a fast Google search shows the case Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P. 2d 577 (1981) is one part of why the subject is notable, as it is often noted in cases involving religion. If I had more time to devote to this matter than I currently do, I am certain I could find more reliably sourced material for adding to this article. Please also note I will not reply to baiting by one editor's blantant and intentional misrepresentation of facts repeated here about another article which scientology doesn't like, and which was listed for AfD after a campaign of disruption and edit warring. Orsini 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is the 3rd AfD, and still no sources demonstrate notability at the level WP:BIO demands. Without the kind of sources mentioned in WP:BIO, the article stands to be deleted. If you don't have time now, you can re-create the article later when you have the sources, but depicting this as a matter of jumping the gun when there have been two prior AfD's and still no notability doesn't add up. MastCell Talk 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. It is an "abuse of process" because a Scientologist (me) is trying to sit in the front of the wikibus with the other folk. I don't know my place = "abuse of process". Usually they ask that I be blocked for even thinking about AfD'ing one of their beloved non-notable smear pieces.[63][64][65] --Justanother 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rev. Moon's lawyer does have his own article: Laurence Tribe Steve Dufour 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All due respect, Antaeus, but when the same crew always votes the same way and when a number of editors come out of the blue and vote a different way, that says something. And I have seen it time and again when I ask for 3rd opinions, the only notable exception being Schwarz but I never expected that to be a pushover. Compare that to how many times I have asked for 3rd opinions and been backed up by neutral editors. It says something. And it is lucky for me that the larger community almost uniformly agrees with me in my objections to the misapplication and violation of wikipedia policy that I see over and over and over in the Scientology series articles. Lucky for me because I am kinda outnumbered by Scientology critics. Luckily the critics are VASTLY outnumbered by neutral editors that just look at the merits and say "this is odd". I think some of your number are starting to smell the coffee, maybe you among them. On this one? No new argument required, it never ended "Keep" and the 1st AfD should have been closed as "Delete" or been taken to WP:DRV for being closed wrongly. --Justanother 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was csd a7 -- Y not? 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Box Orchestra[edit]

Voice Box Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I believe this band is not notable. The article was created by the co-founder of the band and cites no sources except the band's MySpace page. Google produces trivial search results for "voice box orchestra" -wikipedia. I added a Notability template which was removed by the page creator. EALacey 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass-o-matic[edit]

Bass-o-matic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was a joke product used in a 1976 Saturday Night Live sketch (although the correct name was the "Super Bass-o-matic '76"). I was considering redirecting this to Saturday Night Live, but that was tried before and someone reverted it, but I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Masaruemoto 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamelia Malteser[edit]

Jamelia Malteser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inzmam Ulhaq[edit]

Inzmam Ulhaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete all, a7 no credible assertion of notability, g1 nonsense/hoax/made up. NawlinWiki 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Williams[edit]

Bea Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambuu[edit]

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

This seems to be a small local baseball league that hasn't been covered by any reliable sources. There are none cited in the articles and googling has not revealed anything either. I am also nominating Beantown Basers, a team in this league, for the same reasons. Delete for lacking verifiability for much of its content and for failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Harrington[edit]

Graham Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Back[edit]

Take Me Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the hill[edit]

Over the hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a transwikied dictionary definition, completely unsourced and consisting of nothing but original research.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mark Ramjewan[edit]

Tony Mark Ramjewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines. Google search for Tony Mark Ramjewan -wikipedia gives 111 entries. I didn't even put quotes in the search. Thiste 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep all. Majorly (hot!) 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa State Chess Association[edit]

Iowa State Chess Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this organization is lacking sufficient notability. The United States Chess Federation is a national organization of some notability, but do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states? It might be acceptable to merge all three of the articles I'm nominating into one article describing the various members of the USCF, but I am dubious of the value of that. Of the nominated articles, I only see the New York one claiming notability, and I am unable to confirm it (didn't even see a history section on their site) FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) In short, they don't meet the standards of WP:ORG which says "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." (added to clarify nomination)[reply]

New York State Chess Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pennsylvania State Chess Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you provide any reliable sources for information beyond their sponsorship of these state championships? If that's all you've got to say about them, I'm sorry, but it's simply not notable or distinct enough to sustain an individual article. All fifty state affiliates probably sponsor state-wide championships. What is there beyond that? Since are are a member of the Chess Wikiproject, I suggest you take a careful look at the situation, and make sure you are not arguing keep solely on that bias. FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matchups 03:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Saddam WMD allegations[edit]

Russia and Saddam WMD allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please see this version Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deleting the article does not preclude merging. If there is any notable content here that is not already in the John A. Shaw article -- and I'm not sure there is -- I've already suggested that it should be merged into that article. But this article itself should be deleted. csloat 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This article is about certain allegations, not a biography of Mr. Shaw. Allegations come from several different persons, not only Mr. Shaw. So, there is no way to merge this article with his biography. Also, merging with Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is not a good solution. First, Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is already very big (maybe too big) article, and this article is also rather large. Second, this article includes claims and issues that do not belong at all to Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy: Pacepa, operation "Sarindar", claims about chemical and perhaps biological weapons, etc. Honestly, I can not understand your concerns. This is a prominent controversy described in media. Why not to have it in Wikipedia? No one claims here this story is proven or truth. See: there is a large Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. This is just one of these controversies. I guess you think it is not notable. O'K, let's see what other people think. Biophys 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The claims by these people were made in NewsMax, Washington Times, FrontPageMag.com, CBN News and FOX News. These sources perfectly satisfy WP:SOURCE. These claims may be false or true, but this is completely irrelevant (verifiability, not truth). It only matters that such claims have indeed been made by these people (based on reliable sources).Biophys 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newsmax, Frontpagemag, WTimes, and CBN are all one-sided politically motivated sources of questionable reliability. FOX news did not corroborate this entire story. The issue is not just verifiability (e.g. if Newsmax quoted it was it probably said) but also notability -- if the only sources treating this story as significant are extreme right wing publications, it is probably not encyclopedic. If this really is "news," surely Wikipedia can wait for the NYT or CBS to pick the story up. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, all these sources are politically one-sided. But they satisfy WP:SOURCE. If there are any sources from the opposite part of political spectrum, we can cite them to make article as neutral as possible.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You say it is non-notable. Well, the Google search makes close to a million hits. The subject itself (Saddam's WMD and possible involvement of Russia) is certainly notable. Further, claims that the story is real come from the following notable people: (1) former Deputy Undersecretary of US Defense John A. Shaw, a top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs; (2) Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War; (3) Ion Mihai Pacepa who is certainly a good expert in such matters; (4) Thomas McInerney, and (5) Kenneth R. Timmerman.Biophys 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting who believes what here -- these five sources do not all believe the same thing; if they do, that is not what the quotations say. Where are the "one million hits" coming from? What are your google search parameters? I doubt all one million are actually about this specific story. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, all these sources do not tell exactly the same. It seems I cited everything correctly. Since you marked this article as AfD, I simply do not have enough time to do everything well and carefully research and read all sources. Please tell which sources you think are misrepresented at the talk page of this article.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following search-string returns only 200 pages: Iraq WMD Russia John-Shaw -world-war -ww2 -wwii -"cold war" smb 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A request. Anyone who will be looking at the article, could you please take look at my last version here [69]? Vlad Fedorov deleted all reliable references from the article and transformed this article to a garbage, and now Quadpus is telling that article is "poorly sourced". Biophys 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I removed any non-dubious sources (And I don't believe I did), it was inadvertent. I only reverted the last change to the article. Quadpus 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. If you only think that section about Shaw belongs to Introduction, O'K I can instert it there, but keep all references, etc. O'K? Biophys 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply.As clear from the text, this theory was supported by several very notable guys, and I do not know how many other people. Your second point I think is irrelevant, because all sources satisfy WP:SOURCE. Mass media at the West are very "partisan". I would be very surprised if such news were printed in "liberal" Los Angeles Times, New York Times, BBC, or Guardian (and vice versa). This is just one of numerous "partisan" topics.Biophys 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You say:"Russia and Saddam? Sounds like a bad movie". Could you take a look at articles Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990, Iraqi State Internal Security and some others? Iraq was one of very important partners of the Soviet Union and later Russia. Those billions of Iraqi debt to Russia - where they came from? Almost all Iraqi military equipment, from tanks to Kalashnikovs came from the Soviet Union and later Russia. Of course, to address well this point, one would have to create an article Iraqi-Russian military and intelligence cooperation, which I perhaps will do if this article is deleted. As about merging, this article might be merged with Post-Saddam WMD search which includes "transported to other countries" section). However, Post-Saddam WMD search is already excessively long. So, it is simply more convenient for readers to have this article separately.Biophys 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely commenting on the title, not the content. A better title would be "Allegations of Russian WMD support to Iraq" or something to that extend. And yes, the title Post-Saddam WMD search is also a horrible title for an encyclopedia article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then you probably suggest to rename this article rather than merge? Biophys 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a merge, but if kept, please change the title. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. That's not a news article, it's an opinion piece in a paper which has a reputation for partisanship and lax ethical standards. Quadpus 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Says who? Turgidson 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment pretty much everyone. csloat 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Then back it up in the respective article, instead of making unverified assertions on this talk page. And, while at it, define "pretty much everyone". That means >95% of people on Earth, or what? Turgidson 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to do your research for you. Pick up a copy of Washington Times and judge for yourself, or do some research about it yourself and figure it out. "Pretty much everyone" to me means everyone familiar with the publication, not everyone on earth. csloat 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no thanks: the burden is not on me to prove your assertions -- it's on you. And, as far as I can tell, all this talk about "reputation", "pretty much everyone" knows, etc, is just pure speculation, with no verifiable sources to back it up. Turgidson 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't assert that a well-known unreliable source is reliable. Thanks. csloat 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Well-known by whom? Certainly not by me. You have presented no evidence of your claim, which makes your claim unsourced. Vegasprof 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to accept that I'm not going to do your research for you or debate with you. Pick up a copy of the Washington Times at your leisure and make your own judgement, as I encouraged you to before. Or read about the paper on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet. Have a nice day. csloat 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The fact that there are completely alone every time they flog a story like this should be evidence enough. Regardless, the piece you are talking about is, as I said, an OP-ED piece and is therefore not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the author himself. Quadpus 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SOURCE "OP-ED piece" is a reliable source, especially if it is signed and dated.Biophys 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You was right. It was completely degraded by Commodore Sloat after your notice. Please see this version: Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. There are many helpful critical comments here. The title must be changed, and even the subject of this article must be slightly different as not to overlap with other articles. None of the existing versions is really good. Not my version [70], and not the current one. But all of that can be worked out. Biophys 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids of the Black Hole[edit]

Kids of the Black Hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: WP:MUSIC KelleyCook 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and cleanup, sources brought up in AfD should make their way to the article. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Chess League[edit]

United States Chess League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any reliable sources about this page, everything comes from their own site. I am therefore dubious about this page, and it seems questionable enough that I'd like more eyes on it. It almost seems like somebody's idea of a joke. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant USCF instead, since self-reporting wouldn't be much in the way of notability. Though since that article was written by Greg Shahade, himself a commissioner of the league, I'm not sure how independent that coverage really is. Not to mention, the page itself says "hundreds of fans" watched the finals. I do not know that something that only attracts a few hundred people is truly notable. Still, exactly how much coverage do they get in the magazine? FrozenPurpleCube 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind finding that article, so that the rest of us can have something more than your bare-word statement that you read it? FrozenPurpleCube 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I asked above, can you either list them here, or add them to the article? Asserting that something occurs is less effective than showing it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one for example? And more will be found if you go into the paper versions of Chess Life (which is independent of USCL, though it's affiliated with the USCF). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal coverage of a set of matches that unfortunately offers nothing as to the group's history. You still need to find reliable sources as to that. It's a start, but really, more is necessary. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Clinch[edit]

Casey Clinch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vaguely believable assertion of discovering and selling a country is not a speedy to my mind. But Google suggests its all made up. Hoaxes are not speediable. -Splash - tk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAXCOM[edit]

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

This is exactly the kind of thing that does not qualify as being blatantly promotion. It's so short and dry it couldn't promote anything. However, it does appear to be largely non-notable software. -Splash - tk 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayumi Hamasaki songs[edit]

List of Ayumi Hamasaki songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is simply a big list of songs that Ayumi Hamasaki has sung. While it may be helpful to some, lists do not belong on Wikipeida, and all of the information on the page can already be found on the song's respective single or album page.ChaosAkita 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject is already under the coverage of Discography section. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft since info already available on artist's page with proper context. A1octopus 11:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.N.E.[edit]

G.E.N.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A band with this many albums ain't no speedy. Allmusic is vague as to whether they were actually signed releases or not, though. This is for why we've the love and care of AfD. -Splash - tk 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't assert the notability of the 'music project' - nor of the individual members. See WP:Notability (music). As it stands right now, the article is just a list of albums (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). - Ozzykhan 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caanae[edit]

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

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not a game guide Martijn Hoekstra 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarty[edit]

Kevin McCarty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as nn-bio, but being an elected public official is a prima facie claim of notability. However... -Splash - tk 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Well not actually a Delete. Following the general consensus as much as possible, I pared this down to a list and renamed it to List of Indian beauty pageant winners. Technically the article was not actually deleted, but with different content under a different its basically a new article. Herostratus 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Beauties[edit]

Indian Beauties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Referring to WP:NOT this article does not seem tp be appropriate for inclusion with Wikipedia as it can be considered both opinion (in terms of selection of people eligible for inclusion) and that it is a loose repository of people. Additionally all those persons covered on this page seem to have adequate pages in their own right. I propose deletion with due care to ensure any relevant and cited information is included in the relevant individuals page. Suncloud 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if a part of the problem is the name of the article. "Beauties" sounds awful POV. Reading the article, however, it appears that what is really being presented is a set of beauty pageant winners of Indian descent, and perhaps a derivation of that term would be a more appropriate title for an article containing this information. ◄Zahakiel► 03:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Street Public School[edit]

Thomas Street Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability is asserted, other than something about their past principal. Doesn't appear that anyone else will add to the article. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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