< April 21	April 23 >

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

Delphic of gamma sigma tau fraternity[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:N. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regional fraternity with only one active chapter. Not-notable enough for a student organization. Caknuck 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other articles that relate to this I found: Gamma Sigma Tau and Delphic Fraternity, which all seem to be about the same thing as this AfD. (I have no opinion yet on the notability of this topic) - grubber 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was nominated for deletion within 10 seconds of its creation. At the very least keep for the full five days to allow time to expand - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:40, 21 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, Mailer Diablo 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Giving the article itself time to expand means nothing if it's not notable in the first place. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pious7's point, because not notable. Seems to be a commented linklist only. --Gwyndon 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Iridescenti had a great point in that there needed to be time for expansion, but it has now been a week since the article's creation. Beyond the creation and the AfD, there is no other activity in the article's history. Article is not notable in its current state, and if nobody has improved it in the week since the nomination, it's probably not going to be further improved. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has had almost 10 days now and no sign of anyone adding to it, and I don't think anyone not connected to it would be able to expand it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing will come of this article. Jmlk17 21:18, 23 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Centre[edit]

non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable mall.[1] [2]. Article includes basic information, goes beyond being a directory entry. Sufficient sources certainly seem to exist here. --W.marsh 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to distinguish this from many other undistinguished malls and no definite secondary sources in the article to establish notability. TerriersFan 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most malls offer curling? --W.marsh 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point - however, none of the sources indicate that the ice rink is integrated with the mall or confirms its importance. Notability is more than existence being shown; it needs secondary sources to confirm its significance. If the necessary sources can be produced then I will change my view. TerriersFan 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well there is a secondary source, but unfortunately it requires a subscription/fee to view the entire article. Still, I think it does confirm what I added. --W.marsh 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W.Marsh. This is more than a directory listing. --Oakshade 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is nothing here to suggest that the mall is notable. Thunderwing 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are many articles about local malls in the "Golden Horseshoe" (so says the template at the bottom). Virtual Cowboy 11:46, 23 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, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The ice rink seems to make it unique in terms of shopping malls, but I would like to see a non-local secondary source.--Xnuala (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a unique feature. Eastdale mall in Montgomery, AL has had an ice rink for many years. It doesn't have an article here. Dimitrii 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There seems to be enough to indicate that it is a significant local feature and the size of the recent investment in improvements also helps tip the scales for me, but it is still a very borderline keep. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version, ample evidence suggests that this is notable enough for an electronic encyclopedia, meets WP:A policy as well. Burntsauce 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Sasquatch4510 and potential sockpuppets 216.59.253.82 and 216.59.253.214 keep removing the AFD header from the article. I am trying to assume good faith and presume that they are confused as to the difference between AFD and PROD, but wouldn't mind some help keeping an eye on the page for more reversions.--Xnuala (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add more sources, per WP:ORG, to establish that it's worth keeping. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article is very similar to all other shopping centre articles. Why should it be deleted and other sloppier articles stay?

Comment - comparison to the of quality other articles is not a basis for inclusion or deletion - it only serves to highlight the quality or lack thereof of the other article. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:21, 26 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 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kozlov Centre[edit]

more non notable mall cruft. Again, no sources other than official site link. Again, no assertion of notability, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm all for keeping a mall that is extraordinarily large, or is the biggest in a province, the first to do some notable thing, or is otherwise notable. But this mall does not appear to be any of these. Herostratus 01:58, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most notable thing about it is that it has seven entrances, according to the article. DGG 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Indoor malls in Barrie. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:46Z
Delete Small local mall, deserves only a mention in an article about the town. Edison 16:38, 27 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, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen figure-skating family[edit]

Duplicate page. Each member of the fmaily is notable in hir own right. Absolutely no need to have a seperate page for the family itself. Kolindigo 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it would be a lot easier just to turn this into a disambig page than to use the AfD mechanism to try to get rid of it. Dr.frog 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but I'm not sure a disambig page is that necessary. The way I see it, they aren't known as a family the same way that families who perform as groups are known as a family. I've always seen it as "Maribel Vinson and her daughters", never collectively as "the Owen family". But I could just not be reading the right things. :) Kolindigo 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page is largely unnecessary per Kolindigo. There are no incoming links. Just delete. Ohconfucius 04:53, 17 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, Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though the article does point out that it might be worthwhile to create a See also link in each individual article to unite all the members of the family. SilkTork 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Additional comment: I've just checked. Only one article had the links missing - I've now added that. All articles are linked. SilkTork 14:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Although I've supported "X family" articles in the past when they serve an organizational/navigational purpose, this is two generations -- parents and children -- and there is no need for a page showing the family tree. Every member's article should have this information already. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles for each individual are well written enough. Not really a duplicate article, as it doesn't actually duplicate anything that the articles discuss. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 22 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, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cgarena Magazine[edit]

Previously a contested prod. Does not appear to have any reliable sources for notability. — coel acan — 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a breach of WP:SPAM. Speediable, in my view. Ohconfucius 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - spam --Jon Cates 15:43, 22 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, Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as spam. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly an advertisement and serves no purpose other than promoting its subject - see WP:SPAM. --Ali 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam---The Phoenix Enforcer (Talk to me) 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly shameless. BTLizard 12:21, 23 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 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Worm[edit]

Appears to be a non notable calculator game. A Google search for "Uncle Worm" turns up a dozen or so websites where one can download the game, but none of the "multiple non trivial works" required by WP:N. The "sources" provided at the bottom of the article are merely sites where the game can be downloaded. Natalie 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also violates WP:NOR as there are no references. -- Monty845 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Jon Cates 15:44, 22 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, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely not notable. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and not sourced. Tohru Honda13 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, despite having enjoyed the game myself this isn't Wikipedia material. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:48, 24 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 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Summit[edit]

The article was created as part of an astroturfing campaign by User:IEMA. Adraeus 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. dcandeto 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep It may nonetheless be notable. It's a large industry, and if this is the top-level sales meeting it would be N. I asked for documentation about market share. If kept, the puffery can easily be removed--I just now did about half. There is no more justification for including the detailed schedule of a trade show than there is for a middle school. DGG 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of "executive summits" for much larger industries. For example, the telecom industry collects more money than annual box office sales every two weeks. The games industry is small when compared to the movies industry, and the games industry is dwarfed by telecom. The size of an industry should not be a criterion for inclusion.

More to the point, there's nothing particularly notable about this event. These type of events are as common as they come. Or should I start creating articles on every event I produce? As a bonus and worse, ethically and procedurally, User:IEMA and User:Gowardo appear to be working on behalf of Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) without identifying themselves as such. This makes their contributions astroturfing and conflicts of interest. Adraeus 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability beyond association with GTA video game. - BierHerr 17:49, 21 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, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable part of an apprent crypto-spam agenda. --Infrangible 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable industry event, even if all spam-like material was removed. Andrwsc 18:59, 27 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 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminij[edit]

I think it is an ad to promote a company I really do not think it is usefull information Jdchamp31 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

It's a company worth over 150 million convertible marks, one of the most successful in Bosnia[3]. It's significant both economically (in the post-war recovery) and politically/culturally (as largest employer of Croats in BiH). I certainly did not create it as an ad. --Thewanderer 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some attribution is provided. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep, Redvers has written it to satisfy requirements. Good show. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I would be satisfied with some figures for market share. DGG 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the article and provided sources, inline refs, more info and less advertising. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article's stubby, it will be expanded. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, that I originally removed the speedy tag from this which claimed it was "blatant advertising", a criterion clearly failed by the article in all its revisions. It should probably be kept, but I say this based principally on reading the English version of their website which I accept does not usually qualify as an independent source. Searching for the reliable sources has proven hard since they are as a rule not in English. This fact shouldn't stop us carrying an article on it if it is notable, since a tag for sources would, we hope, eventually be answered by a relevant-language speaking editor who can accurately assess what a Google search returns. (NB. I say this in reference largely to the non-rewritten article which included a number of claims relating to success and awards which I found difficult to locate English-language confirmation of. They have now been removed, but we should bear in mind that the claims may nevertheless be true). Splash - tk 21:52, 18 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, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sourced, neutral and notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:58, 26 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 Rich Farmbrough, 08:53 28 April 2007 (GMT).

Mobile Performance Group[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability outside small college town. Daniel Case 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Performance Group, though not widely popular or known, seems to have a niche in the electronic arts community. With a Google search I found a few people and groups interested enough in the group to write about it or post videos. Turbulence.org, A popular blog for network performance. A German University professor's curriculum. Besides these texts, there are videos on YouTube and some other video sites as well. Through another Google search I found the music director, Nathan Wolek, is a recognized part of the academic music community. Both founder Matt Roberts and Nathan Wolek have been collectively and individually invited to perform and/or speak at multifarious events in the United States and abroad. This is visible on their personal web pages,[4][5] which are among the first links to appear Yahoo when one searches with their names.

According to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) article if the group "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 " then it is "very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group. . ." They have traveled to several locations within the U.S.

Though the interest may be primarily academic(besides the YouTube presence) there seems to be a notable interest from that community.

The group has performed at some of the most recognized international conferences in the new media arts field. International Computer Music Conference (ICMC 2006) and International Symposium for Electronic Arts (ISEA2006). These are both highly competitive international events. In addition to that the group has performed in several new media festivals http://www.mattroberts.info/mpg/about.html , featured in important new media arts web sites http://www.turbulence.org/blog/archives/002865.html and featured in the press San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynewsphoto.com/2006/08/11/mobile-performance-groups-parking-spaces/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Turns of phrase like "there seems to be" or "seems to have" really hit WP:WEASEL hard; what independent evidence exists that they have a recognized niche or that the founders are as popular as they claim? There are zero reliable, independent, published sources about this group. Of the "performance" links in the article, only half of them mention MPG at all, and then only in lists of performers in street festivals. Only 45 Google hits [6], and it's a telling thing that this AfD discussion is actually in the top dozen hits the outfit has. Fails WP:V, WP:BAND. RGTraynor 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the groups entry should be reconsidered. The group has performed at some of the most recognized International Conferences in the field of new media arts. ISEA and ICMC are widely recognized International organizations dedicated to new media or computer arts. The group has also received legitimate press coverage. Please consider the following ISEA2006 ZeroOne San Jose: A Global Festival of Art on the Edge & the Thirteenth International Symposium of Electronic Art (ISEA2006) The group was selected, from an international call to artist, to perform at this festival http://01sj.org/content/view/381/49/ Their participation was covered by San Jose's most popular news paper Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/ http://www.mercurynewsphoto.com/2006/08/11/mobile-performance-groups-parking-spaces/ ICMC 2006 International Computer Music Conference http://www.icmc2006.org/ The group was selected, from an international call to artist, to perform at this Conference https://attica2.tcs.tulane.edu/icmc2006/temp/Rehearsal-LateNight.htm and they were part of the subject of discussion in a panel at icmc2006 entitled The Laptop Ensemble as Pedagogical Tool http://www.nathanwolek.com/nathanwolek/papers/wolek_icmc2006panel.pdf this panel included faculty from University of Michigan, Princeton and Minnesota State University

Other international festivals they have participated in are University of Florida Electroacoustic Music Festival (15th annual) http://emu.music.ufl.edu/femf/fest15prg.html ConFlux 2006 (Conflux is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice.) http://confluxfestival.org/projects.php?projectid=350 ProvFlux http://www.pipsworks.com/contact/projects/parking.html Ybor Festival of the Moving Image http://www.yborfilmfestival.com/2004/artists/mobile_performance_group.html

You can also find their work featured on the blog networked _performance http://www.turbulence.org/blog this blog is also highly regarded in the new media arts field http://www.turbulence.org/blog/archives/002865.html

I think it is clear that the group has been recognized by several important institution dedicated to the field of new media arts, and the entry should be reconsidered.

A local music festival doesn't magically become "international" just because the organizers claim it is. The purported "participation coverage" given by the Mercury News is, in fact, just a couple of photos on a website slideshow; the actual text article just lists the group with many others as having participated. That one of the group's members mentioned the group in a lecture he gave himself (and for which the source is his own website) confers neither notability or verifiability ... and heck, I've been on panel discussions with some of the top science fiction authors around, but that doesn't make me notable. There is not a single reliable, independent, published source which actually discusses this group or reviews their material, and no sources presented backing up the assertion that these "international" organizations and festivals are widely recognized or that they are competitively selective of the groups playing there. RGTraynor 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These clearly are not local music festivals I believe if you take a look at these organizations about pages you will see that they truly are international festivals, that take place in a different part of the world every year. They are also some of the oldest festivals dedicated to Electronic arts. I have provided some links for more information. ISEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISEA http://www.isea-web.org/eng/about.html a link to the list of international artist for ISEA 2006 http://01sj.org/content/blogsection/13/48/ More than 150 artists from around the world will present contemporary art "on the edge" in more than a dozen exhibitions throughout San Jose and the surrounding Greater Bay Area. once again ISEA is a highly regarded international festival for electronic arts. ICMC International Computer Music Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Computer_Music_Conference http://www.computermusic.org/about_icma/about_master_frameset.html The ICMA cosponsors the annual ICMC, which, since its inception in 1974, has become the preeminent yearly gathering of computer music practitioners from around the world. The ICMC's unique interleaving of professional paper presentations and concerts of new computer music compositions—refereed by ICMA-approved international panels— creates a vital synthesis of science, technology, and the art of music. You can find a web page with more information regarding the last ICMC at http://www.icmc2006.org. Florida Electroacoustic Music Festival http://emu.music.ufl.edu/femf/index.html The festival features an international selection of contemporary electroacoustic art music. Concerts included juried presentations, curated concerts, and concerts of special interest or topics. Papers presentations, lecture demonstrations, and studio reports are also presented during the three day spring festival. This festival is organized by the University of Florida School of Music which is a well known and respected institution, this festival has a long history this year is the 16th annual festival. ConFlux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psy-Geo-Conflux http://confluxfestival.org/conflux2007/content/view/11/63/ Conflux is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice. Although this festival is young it is highly regarded in the field of psychogeography, here is an article from the village voice about this festival http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0319,zimmerman,43875,1.html

Again I would ask that you reconsider calling these "local music festivals" calling themselves international. These festivals have a long and respected history and are truly international, they are highly competitive events featuring artist from around the world at the top of their field.

Delete per nom. Obvious SPAs and COIs involved here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:19, 26 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, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pon and Zi[edit]

Supposedly these have been on TV, but I can find no source. Lots of google results, but I'm not seeing anything I would use as a reliable source. That might change, but unless this article is referenced, it should be deleted as non-notable. — coel acan — 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

179 Google links outside Wikipedia, including http://www.ponandzi.co.uk/ . Anthony Appleyard 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 13:55, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATT. The Ghits I find are not from reliable sources. (PS Pon Zi?) --Charlene 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this on the internet before, but I didn't think it was well known enough for an encyclopedia article. I had no idea what the comic was called when I first saw it and I had to look for the name. — Selmo ^(talk) 03:31, 23 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 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of War (history)[edit]

Article is a dictionary entry with very short context. WP:NOT Stoic atarian 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Little chance of ever turning into a "real" article. --Latebird 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- information on the titel should be included in the articles of those it was given too rather than a standalone article. Thunderwing 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 17:32, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Delete and let slip the dogs of war. This factlet doesn't seem to me to be notable enough to require its own article, and without attribution the information shouldn't be merged. --Charlene 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Charlene sums it up best ... "this factlet doesn't seem to me to be notable enough to require its own article". So, delete per WP:WINAD. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. The factoid is true, but it's already in the individual articles; nothing more need be done save for deletion. Ravenswing 17:26, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:47Z

Coach O Song[edit]

I don't know anything about college football but something tells me this isn't notable. Postcard Cathy 15:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN Something tells me it's just silly. YechielMan 17:01, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN. Haha; I agree. Sr13 (T|C) 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN per everyone else. --Charlene 00:35, 23 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. --Ixfd64 05:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehad.net[edit]

Not notabable (Wikipedia:Notability (web)), and the web address doesnt even work. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of course it doesn't work, did you read the article? Also, this is a notable domain.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable domain? So we make articles on Wikipedia for all notable domains even if they dont work? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on closed websites - but they must still satisfy WP:WEB like still-operating ones. Whether sources write about a website when it's operating or after it's closed doesn't matter either. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:21Z

Delete. Does not warrant own artcle. SYSS Mouse 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a single passing mention in Wired does not notability make. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:17Z

just because the american media doesnt discuss a website doesnt mean its not valid......how often to you hear about or from al-jazeera in the united states??? the provisional authority banned the station in iraq after the occupation.....you cant delete an article just because no one has heard of it....thats precisely why it SHOULD have an article (-ME)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess according to the above note I put my comments here. The website's claim to fame is that it was ran by Islamic terrorists and some dope decided to "hack it" and change the password.[7] Some quotes from random articles I accessed:

"Jehad.net recently carried a message from bin Laden’s official spokesman, as well as copies of two purported jihadi training manuals: “The Mujahideen Explosives Handbook” and “The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook."[8]

"...of Islamist terrorist organizations, the Internet substitutes for the loss of bases and territory. In this respect the most important sites are alneda.com, jehad.net, drasat.com, and aloswa.org, which feature quotes from bin Laden tapes, religious legal rulings that justify the terrorist attacks, and support for the al Qaeda cause.29 In addition, website operators have established a site that is “a kind of database or encyclopedia for the dissemination of computer viruses.”30 The site is 7hj.7hj.com, and it aims to teach Internet users how to conduct computer attacks, purportedly in the service of Islam.31"[9]

It is fairly notable in its own right, regardless of the incident, based on the content that was there and who purportedly ran it. To my knowledge, it is one of the only so called "jihadist" websites that actually gained notoriety in the general public, mainly do to the "hacking incident". Do a google search and read up on the particulars of this domain. (Not being snarky - it is interesting) more [10] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40517] If this is the wrong place for comments and this discussion is still open, please notify me or move my comments. Regards,El hombre de haha 22:05, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:48Z

Odesstrafe[edit]

No citations and no relevant Google hits in English; perhaps the term should be in another language's Wikipedia. Hickoryhillster 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable internet neologism, 164 ghits. MER-C 14:27, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not so sure this is even a neologism as opposed to a hoax or something simply made up in school one day. The fact it appears to be a verb-form of a name or chat handle raises potential Attack Page questions as well Wintermut3 08:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as neologism. (Remark: "de:Todesstrafe" is "death penalty" in German). --The very model of a minor general 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a definition of something that doesn't even produce hits when Googled. At best, it looks like a hoax or, as mentioned, something made up in school one day. --pIrish 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced dictionary definition. Burntsauce 17:24, 25 April 200 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense, should be db-nonsense. Etten Joe

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6WIND[edit]

Software company that does not appear notable. Author contested speedy and asserted notability on talk page, but (1) the claims of notability don't make sense to me (maybe some software person can check them out); (2) no sources are cited to show notability (the attempted cite to Google doesn't seem to work). NawlinWiki 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6WIND's feedbacks:

Software company http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7712668971.html and http://www.quagga.net/thanks.php and http://cvs.quagga.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/quagga/ripd/ChangeLog?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup and http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-oct-2003-dec-2003.html#DVB-ASI-Support and etc. (on demand on Linux and BSD for more)
Google http://www.google.com/search?q=musica+detexis

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, a lot of mentions on dodgy-looking tech sites, but not much else. The fact that the article isn't written for a general audience doesn't help.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims of notability are not backed up with sources, and thus don't look very strong, and I speak as a Computer Engineering student. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:13Z
I don't understand the previous comments: please, have a look at the IPv6 backgrounds and network processor backgrounds. Vjardin 12:28, 23 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 Evangelism. Nothing sourced to merge. Sandstein 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soulfeast[edit]

Contested speedy. Possibly original research, possibly nothing more than a dictionary definition. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. YechielMan 17:18, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NEO. RGTraynor 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Evangelism - the fact that someone made the article may suggest that it is a legitimate search term 86.10.74.11 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (User:Jdcooper not signed in)[reply]
Merge (with Evangelism) and redirect per Jdcooper --Aarktica 15:36, 28 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Group International[edit]

Since a prod was contested, the author has added a whole list of references to establish notability. After looking through them, I'm kind of undecided, since some of them are press releaseses, quite a few of the articles are from the same author (Thomas R. Cutler) or mention the company relatively briefly. Overall I'd might keep it, but wanted others to take a look. S.K. 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 35,000 ghits, combined with the current quality of the article, is enough. YechielMan 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ keep, provided that the description that they are a "provider of enterprise business solutions" gets edited to something more specific and concrete, and less buzzwordy. They seem instead to be a software business, not a chemical company; their products do not involve "solutions", and emptily grandiose promotional prose like that does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@SK: I was similarly undecided about my articles. However, I looked into Mr. Culver's contributions elsewhere and opted to give the benefit of the doubt - he's a regular contributor to nearly two dozen industry publications, most in the manufacturing and distribution sectors, where this company's software is used. @Smerdis: I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the use of "business solutions" as "grandiose". However, as it is the commonly accepted way to describe products/services that solve business problems, your point about buzzwords is well taken and I have edited accordingly. Missysedai 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

". . . (E)nterprise business software for manufacturers and distributors" is much better, describing both the actual product and who might find it useful in relatively specific terms. FWIW, "business solution" is a pet peeve of mine: my strongly held opinion is that the phrase is vague, and reeks of overconfidence. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:15, 17 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, Mailer Diablo 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the supporting articles were written by the same marketing consultant and say very little about the company. Although this article throws out big numbers, those simply refer to the annual sales of the companies that it is targeting. I see nothing that independently gives any basis for determining that this company is notable. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an excerpt from a prospectus. Suggest author consult WP:CORP before re-creation. --Aarktica 15:40, 28 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 Anjel. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:59Z

Tiffany Beaudoin[edit]

meets neither WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, completely unsourced. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak delete without prejudice, says nothing that isn't in the Anjel article (which I think should be kept even though it technically violates WP:MUSIC) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tiffany is a big part of the story with Anjel.69.114.197.41 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)— 69.114.197.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Tiffany is a artist and she was with anjels,also Nativida never came out with music and yet shes not being put up for deletion.Nycboi1 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)— Nycboi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP she was a singer in a group,just like the anjel page this pae should be kep't to?70.23.28.187 06:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)— 70.23.28.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anjel. Tiffany does not appear to be independently notable but since she is a possible search string a redirect is appropriate. Should she achieve independent notability at some point an article can be recreated. Otto4711 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is good because she is apart of Anjel.69.114.197.41 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, completely fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. There's nothing in the article about the subject other than her name and age. Furthermore, the Keep single-use !voters rely upon her membership in this Anjel group as proof of her notability, yet according to the group's article (which is in itself a gossipy mess worthy of AfD) it never actually released an album, had any airplay or performed a single concert ... so what? Under those circumstances, the group has no notability absent the members, and Beaudoin has no independent notability. RGTraynor 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anjel was nominated for AfD a couple of weeks ago, it just scraped a keep despite (or because of) a strong stench of sockpuppetry - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, and agree entirely with your assessment. I have that in mind to file another AfD after a couple months when the dust settles a bit, and take a stand against the sockpuppets. RGTraynor 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC or redirect. The sock "votes" aren't helping, Tiffany. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:44, 24 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Cafe and Alternative Bookstore[edit]

Article does not claim notability and does not cite any sources. Google yields only 49 results, none of which appear to be reliable,[11] thus a verifiable article cannot be written.

The article has been a battleground between User:TakingYourselfTooSeriously who has been introducing the unsourced "controversy" section and an anonymous editor removing it; both admit to having been/being part of the organization, thus having a conflict of interest. TakingYourselfTooSeriously also insists that the original author has a conflict of interest.

Given the lack of reliable sources and the edit wars on this article, I feel that it is best deleted. -- intgr 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Virgin_Molotov_Cocktail and ChrisErb were also a part of the cafe. This violates COI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TakingYourselfTooSeriously (talk • contribs).

Delete - an edit-war is a content dispute, and as such is not valid grounds for deletion. However, there does not appear to be any reliable sources to establish notability. There appears to be some claim to local notability in some of the keep arguments from the previous AFD that resulted in "no consensus", but again, I can't find any sources to even establish that. -- Whpq 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep because there should be sources. It seems notable enough to keep trying. DGG 06:46, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - over 600 Ghits excluding mirrors; whilst some of these just list it as a venue, there are enough that actually discuss it to convince me that it's a focal point of the Canadian hard-left scene & warrants its own page. Two of the three reasons given by the nom (WP:COI and edit wars) are invalid reasons for nomination, and the third (lack of attribution) seems easily addressed. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The count on the first page of search results is wrong since it also includes duplicate mentions on a single web site. If you click on the last page of results, you can see that there are only 38 results. The only reason why I mentioned the content dispute was to add weight to the argument — we cannot have a neutral article without any sources and an army of editors with a conflict of interest, so that it is bound to be either a battleground or a biased non-verifiable mess. -- intgr 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete single shops are rarely noteable and no reliable sources showing this one is.Geni 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Even 600 G-hits would be, in fact, pretty damn low, but intgr is correct; 38 unique hits - most of which are Wikipedia mirrors and their own releases - is pathetically low, and has zero reliable sources. The group's own webpage states that the project has failed and more sources are not likely to appear. RGTraynor 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, changing to Delete. You're right - on close reading of that website it appears it's actually some kind of local music venue with a peculiar name and a nice line in self promotion, and not the Canadian equivalent of City Lights they publicise themselves as - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, heck, I've been in Fredericton. It's a freaking small city, and if it wasn't the provincial capital and the site of the University of New Brunswick there'd be 57 people there. The kind of local club worthy of Wikipedia articles are like Club Passim, in which the likes of Bob Dylan and Tracy Chapman fought to play, and Bruce Springsteen tried and failed to play. Fredericton's not a place likely to generate an indie venue of that degree of notability. RGTraynor 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete Eusebeus 11:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Potentially useful. --Remi 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please see WP:USEFUL. -- intgr 21:42, 24 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unicode characters[edit]

If this list would be complete, it would be well over 1 MB large, besides, there's another such list on Wikibooks. Prince Kassad 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is incomplete, but we could possibly transwiki the list from Wikibooks to here. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or move to Wikipedia space 132.205.44.134 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete it is too incomplete to be useful, See the Unicode article for a list of better tables. DGG 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could always copy the list from Wikibooks. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 19:38, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no useful purpose given that all this information is easily accessible from the character map. In an incomplete form it's pointless, and in a complete form it will be unmanageably long. A goodly chunk of the characters won't even display correctly on most people's computers, anyway. If it must be kept, keep it as a character map style grid, rather than this sprawling laundry list - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an ISO standard. See other members of Category:ISO standards or even List of ISO standards. See also Unicode - jc37 13:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is clearly useful and the space on wikipedia doesn't seem to be a problem (note how many pages of history there are for some articles). Dean Sayers 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this could have been Speedy'd at the beginning (as it was obviously work in progress), I think it is 'full enough' to stay. Of course, the other options are:

Move to Userspace
Keep article, but split it up, i.e. List of Unicode characters 0000-0999 List of Unicode characters 1000-1999 etc etc (this helps with the space problem).

Personally I'd sooner split it up but only as a secondary option to keeping. --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but split as NigelJ suggests. The entire Unicode code space is clearly too large to fit into a single article. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit to the standardized subsets. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the possibility of spliting. Not sure how large this format would make the list. Then again, we could REALLY go nuts, and in the process rename to Table of Unicode characters --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no convincing arguments have been presented for the deletion of this list; encyclopedias can and do provide tables of this sort, and there is no reason that an electronic encyclopedia, not bound by the limits of paper, cannot do the same. Burntsauce 17:03, 25 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, default to keep. Sandstein 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberband Man[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was a very notable song of this title back in the 1970s. It was a major hit and warrants an article based upon the WP:SONG provisions, however it's impossible to tell whether this article is about the same song (presumably the article is about a cover version). No vote as I'm unfamiliar with this group's work, however I will support keeping the article if it's expanded into an article about the 1970s song. 23skidoo 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original song is by The Spinners - yes, very popular, hit #2 U.S. - as far as I know this T.I. version has nothing to do with it, except perhaps use of a sample? I don't know and I certainly can't tell from this article. - eo 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the face of it. Not sure what to make of 23skidoo's info. YechielMan 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing showing notability except an NN award. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song was a fairly sizable hit for T.I. I remember it received fairly frequent rotation when it was out. Article rather sucks in its current incarnation and could certainly stand to be expanded, though. GassyGuy 05:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song was featured on three greatest albums, it went to #30 on the Billboard Hot 100, 11 on Hot Rap Tracks, and #15 on Hot Hip-Hop tracks. I have rewritten the article and added numerous references.Chris Croy 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to Keep. Thanks, Chris Croy. Looks much better now, will look even better with an infobox. At some point I'll probably move this article to make room for the Spinners' song of the same name (as it was a much bigger hit) but at least at this point I don't think deletion or merging is necessary. - eo 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is one of T.I. most notable songs, Their is no reason for it to be deleted or merged. QuasyBoy 9:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Put it in the album article if you want to keep the info. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 28 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 to Double Up (album). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:50Z

Blow It Up[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blow It Up. Or merge. Either way is fine. YechielMan 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge. No problem with re-creation if it does become a notable single. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge it with Double Up. If it becomes a single, re-create it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KyleOwnz (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Idioma 03:44, 26 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 to Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:51Z

Trap or Die (song)[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is a songTru Soulja 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:26, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would be Merge, but there's nothing to merge. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:06, 22 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 to Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:52Z

Trap Star[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is a songTru Soulja 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:26, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "it is a song" doesn't fly as an argument. YechielMan 16:01, 22 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 to Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:49Z

And Then What[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is a songTru Soulja 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:25, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. YechielMan 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though there's little that's not in the album article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:10, 22 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 to Back by Thug Demand. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:52Z

Tuck Ya Ice[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with eo. He's been right before, i.e. similar nominations today. YechielMan 01:08, 23 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 to The Inspiration. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:53Z

Bury Me a G[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is a songTru Soulja 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:25, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even pretend to be notable. It reads like some kind of joke. YechielMan 16:15, 22 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 to The Red Light District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:53Z

Two Miles An Hour[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. YechielMan 16:00, 22 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 to Hoodstar. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:54Z

Nike Aurr's and Crispy Tee's[edit]

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it hasn't been released yet. YechielMan 16:09, 22 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 The Parent Trap (1998 film). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 06:55Z

Hallie Parker and Annie James[edit]

Per WP:FICT: "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." FisherQueen (Talk) 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This material is essentially all covered in The Parent Trap (1998 film). JavaTenor 21:43, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please close the debate now, since nobody has supported anything but deletion after 6 days. --Metropolitan90 00:36, 23 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 to Fenton, Michigan. Sandstein 15:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack R. Winegarden Library[edit]

PRODded, but tag was removed by anon IP. Fails WP:NOTE,WP:ATT EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations provided to satisfy the above. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'merge Generally, town or mall city libraries should be merged into the county system. As there is presently no article for the system, use the content here to create the beginnings of one one. I think what this amounts to is rename and edit to have the broader scope. DGG 07:49, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fenton, Michigan. As much as I love libraries, I don't see that they generally have much opportunity to become notable (nor are libraries usually managed as part of a county system -- county "systems" are typically cooperative overlays to provide rural residents with library services). --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 22 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 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PunishHER[edit]

Speedy removed and prod subsequently removed to no avail. This album is only rumored, nothing on Remy Ma's website, Amazon.com ([12]) or allmusic.com ([13]). Unless proper citations are given showing a concrete release date, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not publish rumored albums. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious and unsourcable crystalballery. A1octopus 18:10, 17 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, Mailer Diablo 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punish the article with deletion. Crystal ball, not verifiable. YechielMan 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but first sentence are speculation filled with weasel words. Dimitrii 14:34, 27 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. Sandstein 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Fairway[edit]

Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources. The one "reference" provided can be seen here and the two sentences reference absolutely nothing in the article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chip Fairway's notability has been established as a wrestler who has held titles in IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association, both notable promotions, appeared on the first Brian Pillman Memorial Show as well as appearing on both WWF and WCW television. Additionally, the nominator could have contacted me if he felt the article had been improperly sourced or placed any number of templates including ((citecheck)) rather then immediatly nominating it on afd. However, I've since specified the source in which Chip Fairway's particular "gimmick" is ranked no. 9 on a list of wrestlers whose personas are those other then a typical wrestler ("Keeping Your Day Job"). noted as one of the more unusual "gimmicks", others on this specific list include notable wrestlers Brutus "the Barber" Beefcake, Isaac Yankum and the Repo Man. MadMax 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment When you talk about notability, perhaps you'd like to stop talking about things that are notable to wrestling fans that are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and instead use notability guidelines? Has this person been the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources? No. Is there a good deal of verifiable information available about him? No. Wrestling in minor wrestling promotions does not confer notability on him. Minor league baseball players are not generally notable, therefore neither are minor league wrestlers. An unsourced claim that he appeared on TV as a jobber does not make him notable, we don't have articles on every single actor that has ever appeared on TV, just the notable ones. There was absolutely no need for me to use ((citecheck)), as I checked the reference myself and it did not verify anything in the article at the time. I suggest in future instead of applying the unhelpful method used by the wrestling wikiproject of simply adding references to the bottom of the article like a magic umbrella, you attribute information to the references. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please refrain from making widereaching, misleading generalizations about WP:PW and stick to the subject at hand MPJ-DK 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject at hand is the deletion of this article, perhaps you'd like to follow your own advice and use my talk page in future? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weither or not you feel the article itself is properly sourced, which seems to be your major issue with the article, Chip Farway is a notable wrestler. IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association are both notable promotions and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show is a notable event. I'll be the first to agree that Wikipedia should not resemble a wrestling trivia site, and wrestlers such as Texx Reed or promotions like as the recently deleted South Cali Pro Wrestling are clearly examples of non notablility. However, there are notable independent wrestlers specifically those who have wrestled for notable promotions and events. Wrestling as a regular competitor (nevermind winning titles) in a notable promotion does make a wrestler notable, regardless weither its properly sourced or not. There are plenty of wrestlers who have been included in Wikipedia whose career highlight was competing as a "jobber" for the WWF and WCW. This is not a notability issue, this is a matter of providing references as in many wrestling articles nominated for deletion. MadMax 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, your comments have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines on notability for people, which can be found at WP:BIO. Rather than making up your own guidelines out of thin air, I suggest you use the existing ones. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

I'm not simply picking independent wrestlers at random an neither am I "making up guidelines out of thin air". The reason you propose the articles deletion is your claim he's not notable. However, while the article may be poorly sourced in your opinion, the fact remains he is notable as a professional wrestler having won titles in two notable promotions. Regardless, this article already has one reference as per a published book (as well as numerous ouces used by other wrestling articles as reliable sources) and I don't see how his notability above the "average" independent wrestler is still in question. MadMax 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes you are making guidelines up out of thin air. You're saying he's notable "for x and y", yet neither of those are in the notability guidelines. You claim two of the promotions are notable, yet neither of them has been proven to be notable, in fact they are unsourced at present. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. You are quite correct in that he's probably as notable as the "average" independent wrestler, who by and large are not notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are half the wrestling articles on Wikipedia, but I don't see anyone calling for their deletion. If you feel these promotions are non notable, you are free to nominate them for deletion. However, as they presently exist on Wikipedia, the assumption is that they are notable. According to your reasoning, if Bret Hart or Ric Flair were unrefernced due to ther accomplishments, then they too should be nominated for deletion as well. Also, please note I said "above the average independent wrestler" (winning titles in two major independent promotions, featured in a published book, appeared at notable event, etc.) not "the same as". Despite your own opinions, I've provided several references suppporting his notability, references which have been used in numerous other wrestling articles. I would urge anyone voting in this discussion to take this into consideration. Also, I've since provided references established both promotions notability and have removed the unreferenced tags. MadMax 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm nominating the articles at a steady and slow rate, I would only get accused of a violation of WP:POINT if I nominated 50 wrestlers for deletion in one day. You fail to understand the difference between someone's name on a title history page and a non-trivial source. The published book is a paltry two sentences, again not a non-trivial source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied you were violating WP:POINT, and I understand your reasons for the articles nomination however I simply disagree with them. You claim subjects are non notable regardless articles clearly asserting nobility. Using this argument, you go on to make the claim that because the article may or may not be properly sourced, their achievements can be disregarded. You've nominated other wrestling related articles based on this point yet it has been shown through many prior nominations (see: World Xtreme Wrestling or International World Class Championship Wrestling) that such references can be provided. Also, if you feel independent wrestlers and promotions are by themselves non notable, you may want to consider discussing your views with WP:PW if you believe they should generally not be included on Wikipedia in regards to future afd nominations. MadMax 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop relying on proof by assertion, and provide evidence that this person meets WP:BIO, specifically multiple independent non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding an article only two days after it has been created up for deletion seems a bit over the top. You didn't even give it a chance to grow! Govvy 09:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn independent wrestler, plenty of them have been deleted as of late, isn't notable at all. Biggspowd 04:55, 22 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, Mailer Diablo 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:A as there are no non-trivial reliable sources apparently available to support this article. Burntsauce 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:A does in no way even mention the world "trivial" in any regards, just that the sources have to be attributable - like say the book used as a source. But I'm sure you'll try again ;) MPJ-DK 05:09, 27 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Segal[edit]

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because being in over 100 movies is quite impressive and notable. Just add more references, but otherwise, seems significant enough and clearly some readers/editors are interested in this lady. --164.107.223.217 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid being in over 100 movies doesn't establish notability, per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Over 100 films, mentioned in the article. Another time-wasting AfD abusing the term "notability." Dekkappai 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid being in over 100 movies doesn't establish notability, per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Epbr123 is right, lots of movies does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for actors, pornographic or otherwise. Valrith 17:46, 18 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, Mailer Diablo 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I disagree with Epbr123's apparent crusade to keep the porn off Wikipedia, in this case she appears to have no awards, independent coverage or notability within a niche genre. All the people !voting keep may want to take another look at WP:PORNBIO as the porn criteria are different than those for mainstream actors - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article right now that argues notability (especially since film count got closed out of the criteria) and the closest I could find to her winning an award is that she appeared in Real Female Masturbation 5, which was nominated AVN Award for Best Specialty Tape, Other Genre in 2001. That, folks, is just too tangential. Tabercil 00:45, 23 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. --Core desat 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trap (Internet meme)[edit]

Contested prod. A non-notable protologism for androgyny, with no assertion of notability. Apparently confined to 4chan, YTMND, and "similar web forums," though I can't find any instance of it used in this sense on YTMND. None of the references mention the term "trap" even once. I can't find any reliable independent sources at all confirming that this protologism is notable. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right, though I have a few anime buddies who are quite insistent about this one, so... here are some search results. They do take a little digging, because it's hard to narrow the search down properly, but I found a few anime blogs and reviews using the term. Here's someone using it on the MegaToyko forums, but the thread dies too quickly to see if anyone knows what the poster is talking about. Maybe it's not so much an Internet meme as an anime fandom meme? I found a few Bridget trap references on YTMND without looking too hard, for what it's worth (see itsabridgetrap, bridgettrap, and bridgetisatrap; YTMND links are discouraged).

I could probably find more, or maybe do some but this is really silly when my involvement with the article started with capitalizing the 'I' in Internet. -.- One of the people who actually added content to the article should pick it up from here if that's not enough. Workingonmygooglefu 02:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's always another interesting link on the next page of Google hits. Wiktionary lists 'transvestite' as a meaning for (slang, pejorative) wiktionary:trap, and wiktionary:transvestite lists 'trap' as a (slang, pejorative) synonym. Workingonmygooglefu 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is used on numerous web forums and you can find a not work safe wiki article at ED. However, I seriously doubt there are reliable sources about the term. –Pomte 10:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable meme by any means. JuJube 11:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 22 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. It should be noted that the same user argued to keep several times. --Core desat 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RootThisBox[edit]

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

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

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

This article was created in spite due to a dispute unrelated to Wikipedia (see brief: HTS is awesome - rip offs are not) and is misleading in its entirety. It is intended to be divisive (the real RootThisBox is located at www.rootthisbox.org). Furthermore, the entire text is copied from this article in revision: Talk:HackThisSite/rev1 -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I can't see how this passes WP:WEB. I've googled but don't find any multiple non-trivial works that discuss this website. --Charlene 01:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per self referencing the_undertow ^talk 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archnishop As a member of both sites i gotta say that allthough rtb might seem irrellevant it is quickly growing larger than hackthissite itself. The article kerowin linked to lacks credibillity and is an outlet of personal issues against the author of rootthisbox. — Archnishop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep scenestar Kerowren I believe you yourself are using this deletion procedure for your own agenda.

You as a prominent hts member are (understandably) In favor of hackthissite. However I do find it highly inappropriate and to some extent offensive that from your own viewpoint of this situation you try to remove content from wikipedia which is in your opinion "controversial"

As for the copying of parts of the revision. The revision has been somewhat forgotten and albeit being under revision for over 6 months has yet to be used in the actual article. Last time I checked it showed very little activity considering only small minor edits have been made in the past months. Also, I would like to point out that me using it as a template/framework for a future more extensive article is perfectly OK under wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License.

In repsonse towards charlene's argument of notabillity. The website has been around for years and has a dedicated following. However due to a dispute over the domain the .NET TLD was chosen over .ORG

.org In its current form has little more to do than a domain squatter gaining traffic from effort the efforts of the previous owner.

Reaffirming Delete - I have no prejudice towards rootthisbox.net scenestar, frankly, more power to you, but my concern is that you created the article so as to be divisive and "legitimize" rootthisbox.net. I say this because from what I have read on sources concerning the matter, it has been discussed and understood that rootthisbox.net is in no way a re-incarnation of RootThisBox.org, but your own separate project started after prominent mods expressed dissatisfaction with your lone choice to move the TLD:(There are other numerous sources testifying to this.)

That alone is my concern, that if you are indeed holding animosity towards HTS that you did not create this article in spite. Please note also that in no way is the revision forgotten, it is being continually edited, and that it was recently put up for a requested move to become the main article. And on an another matter, your version has no where near the same number of active users as HTS. It only appears to do so being that you copied the entire database. So users who have never even heard of rootthisbox.net appear to have registered. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Those texts were released by hackthissite itself and therefore lack NPOV. But in respond to those lame alligations; I was personally appointed by Jeremy_Hammond as project leader --Scenestar 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Delete simply for the crap you're talking, scenestar. The .org site is the "real" RootThisBox project, and I haven't seen that many people move from .org to .net really. Hence I don't believe that you can say that the site has a dedicated following, or even that it's been around for years - because rootthisbox.net hasn't.

Either way, the stuff going on between RTB.net and HTS shouldn't matter here. To me, this is about notability, and if a webbased project like this doesn't get enough hits on Google, that's enough reason for me to vote Delete. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looking at the above comments, I think AfD should stay out of this internecine dispute between members of different sites. DGG 09:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, shouldn't Wikipedia stay out of this? MER-C 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tiberius rootthisbox.net rocks, it is a refreshing break from all the constant drama that pollutes hackthissite — 65.175.248.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep --R e m i 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is not a vote. MER-C 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a battleground for users of various sites to wage their wars. Let's stay out of this. MER-C 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to point out that by deletion wikipedia would in fact become involved in this childish conflict between sites notably because the article was put up for deletion by a prominent member of hackthissite. I find it once again very distressing that wikipedia policies are being abused by Kerowren for his personal agenda
Delete per WP:WEB; no reliable, independent sources to establish notability. --Muchness 11:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about salting, perhaps scenestar can consider moving this particular article revision to RootThisBox.NET -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per WP:WEB, this site is non-notable. Regardless of it's status as a clone of HackThisSite (and I'm dissapointed at the utter hijacking of both the HackThisSite and RootThisBox articles) --EJFox 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that user EJFox is author of several defamatory posts towards several RTB members and is extremely biased. -The preceding signed comment was added by Scenestar (talk • contrib)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and g1, patent nonsense/no context. NawlinWiki 01:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland Homeway League[edit]

obvious hoax Lemonflash 01:00, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:18Z

Matthew D. Martin III[edit]

No references provided to back up the claims made in the article, and insufficient evidence of notability. I can see that an essay has been written by an individual named Matthew Martin, but there is no evidence of its importance.Strangerer (Talk) 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otebig 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this essay is so brilliant, why isn't anyone talking about it, and specifically who called it brilliant? It could have been a notable individual, but it could also have as easily been his mother. There's no evidence and no attribution, and from the Google search I just did it doesn't appear to be attributable. --Charlene 01:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -steventity 02:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There isn't even an indication of where his articles were published. I suspect that the author of this article has a conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs and weasely. the_undertow ^talk 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dcandeto 04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify and delete and ask for references before recreation. "His most recent article ..." - published where? Nevermind, I've copied to his user space, (Martin article copied to a subpage) asking him to work on it Shenme 04:34, 22 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. --Ixfd64 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Kyung Cho[edit]

Sister of Va. Tech killer Seung-hui Cho. Contested speedy; I think this one deserves a full AFD debate. See article talk page. NawlinWiki 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability is established well past the level for WP:BIO. She is the subject, not just the source of multiple, independent reliable sources (see talk page). Her prominence and 'rising star' career has been described as a contributing factor in her brother's psychological make-up. Her success as the daughter of immigrants has been contrasted with the difficulties face by her brother. In addition, her eloquence has helped the world to sympathize with her family's predicament. Ronnotel 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading through the delete votes, I find few that directly address whether this article meets WP:BIO. The standard for inclusion is clear: it is whether she has been the subject of multiple independent reliable references, which I believe she has been. There is no exception for whether she was only made famous by being the relative of a mass murder, or whether she deserves to have privacy, etc. I sympathize with Ms. Cho and her family, however, I think by any fair interpretation of WP:BIO this article should remain. Ronnotel 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability beyond being a relative of someone infamous. She is a primary source about a legitimate article subject, not a legitimate article subject herself. Articles should not be written based on speculation that a subject may become famous in his or her own right, so unless she does Oprah and gets a book deal out of this, I say no dice. --Dynaflow 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation should she become notable in the future. We'd have to be awfully careful not to contravene WP:BLP here, and to be honest I don't think she's notable enough in her own right yet that we should bother. Notability generally takes some time to develop; most people don't become notable overnight. We all know examples of relatives of killers or other criminals that have had a few minutes' attention only to slide back into their preferred obscurity. A few minutes' attention isn't enough to prove notability. --Charlene 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynaflow Pete.Hurd 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. She works for the State Dept., so who knows what she could go on to do. For now, though, no real accomplishments that merit an article -- just an accident of birth. —GGreeneVa 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynaflow. If Cho didn't commit the mass murder, would she still be on Wikipedia? I think not. Sr13 (T|C) 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no but that's not the argument here - it's that she has become notable both through her actions and by how she may have been an influence in her brother's life. Ronnotel 03:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and bulk up Per WP:BIO, all arguments for deletion are based on subjective reasons. All the information comes from Time magazine New York Times, and others prime sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
Delete. Grossly insensitive and inappropriate, and I am likely to speedy it very soon unless convinced otherwise by arguments much stronger than those here. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I take exception to your characterization. In fact I am very sensitive to the family's grief. However, by her actions Sun-Kyong has placed herself on the public stage by becoming a spokesperson for the family. She's been the subject of many reliably sourced articles. Can you explain why you think this is insensitive and inappropriate? Ronnotel 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that it's the presence of the article I find insensitive, rather than the subjective attitude of the contributors. Despite feeling compelled to make some statements, it's an involuntary notability and likely a fleeting one, and this article puts the focus very much in the wrong place. Given your reasonable comments I won't speedy it, however. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see your point and appreciate the thoughtful response. Ronnotel 03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other delete comments. This article is pure recentism -- she was mentioned in every newspaper published today but that does not mean that she will continue to be the subject of public interest in the future. As a remote second choice, redirect and merge to the article about her notorious brother, who is likely to be the subject of public interest in the future. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Multiple sources, but kind of thin. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Dynaflow, just a relative of someone infamous. She could achieve notability in her own right, but hasn't yet. Exposure is not notability. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynaflow. No justification for including information about someone who not only has not established notability, but may very well in fact be wanting to avoid the public spotlight after this horror. We should not forget that we are human beings and we should show empathy for fellow humans. Please let this woman have her privacy, as it is apparent that is what she wants. Khorshid 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly unnecessary. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable before this incident, not notable apart from this incident, and not asserted as such. Therefore her 'notability' such as it is is inseparable from the incident, and can be more than adequately addressed in the article on that incident. Shenme 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Relatives of well-known figures are almost never notable except in rare cases. Biggspowd 04:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. She is a private person and not notable, except for a relative who was notorious, like Hitler's sister. Edison 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin! =D --Dynaflow 05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ronnotel. DickClarkMises 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way, other than her relation to the psycho killer. Chris 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hard to believe we're having this discussion at all. The sister is simply commenting what someone else has done. ACK Mikeblas: Exposure is not notability. Apart from that, a teeny bit of respect towards a person who has been involuntarily catapulted into the spotlights of the international media wouldn't hurt either. --Ibn Battuta 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe mention her in the article on her brother, or recreate when she does become notable, but making a statement to the press and being the sister of a murderer do not constitute notability. Biruitorul 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - She is notable as a spokesperson and this should be given time to expand as the first victim of her brother Emily. Bnguyen 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, she is not notable and deserves whatever scraps of privacy she has left. For comparison, David Kaczynski actually turned in his brother the Unabomber and has written and spoken publicly about this decision. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, please delete this. Even if she would have preferred to keep her privacy, it would have been very difficult for her not to comment (especially as the parents apparently hardly speak English), and the press would no doubt have made her seem insensitive if she had declined doing that. But she is so far not known for anything else and does not deserve the punishment of a page on Wikipedia reminding everybody she ever meets that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech killer. (And please make sure this discussion does not get into Google's cache or the many sites copying Wikipedia content either.) If she ever becomes "notable" in her own right, I suppose the relationship is difficult to avoid, but that can be dealt with at that future time. Pharamond 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will fully support this article's recreation should she ever become notable for anything other than being related to and making a statement about an infamous spree killer. Jeff Silvers 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Merge relevant info to the brother's and massacre's pages. Seung-Hui Cho is the place for content on his family and family's reaction to the massacre. - BanyanTree 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It could be that her work in Baghdad will lead to her becoming N in her own right, but at present this page is as inappropriate as the page on Hitler's dog (which I'm about to incur the combined wrath of dog-lovers and nazis for by prodding). As it stands she has no reason to have her own page other than being catapulted into the public eye by something a relative's done, and I agree with all those above who say that it's horribly insensitive to have a page on her up which serves no use other than prurience and will probably become a vandalism target - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, she doesn't even work in Baghdad, but in "an annex near the department's offices in Washington". In case this is kept, I've sourced that.--Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnecessary and most certainly it's mere prescence (unless she does something notable on her own) violates WP:BIO. Yanksox 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary, although she can and should be mentioned in the article about her brother since she has made public statements regarding his actions. Otherwise I don't see the need for her to have a separate article. 23skidoo 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is not notable, and only is brought to attention through the mishaps brought about by her brother. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, according to Wikipedia's definition of notable at WP:BIO and WP:NOTE she's clearly notable. But that says more about what a mind-numbingly awful guideline notability is than it says about the appopriateness of this article. --JayHenry 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't for her brother, would she still have an article? Being the sister of a murderer does not make someone notable. AgentPeppermint 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily. Good grief. --BigDT (416) 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if people don't agree with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, then they should try to have them changed. Unless they do, this article meets those requirements. -- Craigtalbert 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in and of herself. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just mentioning it in his brother's article suffice. --Pejman47 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable, shouldn't be given an article because of what her brother did--Daveswagon 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - She is only known by association, she has herself done nothing that meets the requirements for Wikipedia recognition. And the article's not even written in an encyclopedic fashion. A speedy delete is needed. --Mystalic 01:34, 23 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 to Buxton Festival. WjBscribe 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton Festival Fringe[edit]

Subject, if notable, is not verifiable. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't doubt that it exists, but with 600 ghits, it's not notable enough for me. The level of detail that can be said about such a subject is minimal. YechielMan 16:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It claims to be one of the largest fringe festivals in the United Kingdom. --Eastmain 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Buxton Festival as notability as a separate article is doubtful. --Bduke 01:57, 16 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing notability guidelines. The first ten results from Google already don't show any outside sources; what are the chances that the remaining sources are independent sources or even relevant? Sr13 (T|C) 03:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Buxton Festival. BTLizard 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that it would be a fine addition to Buxton Festival. Dimitrii 15:33, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:20Z

List of eponymous albums[edit]

Listcruft; not maintainable, no obvious point. Discussion as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#List of eponymous albums includes the suggestion that it be transferred to a category, but the original category was deleted, and there seems no point resurrecting it. Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - seems arbitrary, and i can't imagine a use for it. the_undertow ^talk 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How would it be "not maintainable". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, to be complete, it would be vast — the only reason it isn't is that there's a deep bias for a certain type of music from a certain region built into it. Moreover, it's going to continue growing... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of Presidents and Popes is going to grow too, should we delete them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list, would be category clutter, but a single article is no harm. Carlossuarez46 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT Articless are not lists of loosely associated topics. The only thing that connects these albums is a trivial, coincidental connection with the titles. Not exactly significant. Interesting trivia, not encyclopedic. Crazysuit 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable and redundant list. — JyriL ^talk 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as collection of loosely associated items. To those who said keep: "useful" and "no harm" are not valid grounds for keeping. Punkmorten 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, as a music fan, I find it interesting. Wiki is not paper, and this is the type of list which serves as a valid extension of the article Eponymous while not cluttering that or other music related albums. In fact, that article lists many types of Eponymous lists, including List of eponymous diseases, List of eponymous medical signs, etc. Oddly enough, this listing isn't on the page, so I will be adding that. As someone who views Wikipedia as a way of serving the music community through informative, extensive articles, I fail to see the justification for deleting such an article. --Ataricodfish 03:52, 21 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is it possibly useful? It'll never be complete or updated. Indeed, it's very arbitrary. -- Mikeblas 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list and directory of albums with nothing in common other than the coincidence of being named after the recording artist. Otto4711 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 07:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a good example of stuff that is true but holds no encyclopedic value ("That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). Pax:Vobiscum 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. And for some reason manages not only to leave out Faust but misses both the albums that Jerry Garcia released called Garcia. BTLizard 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Boingo ? What good is a pointless list of albums if it doesn't include Boingo? Useless. Captain Infinity 20:28, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:21Z

Jonah Kim[edit]

This article is clearly a resume, in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It was most likely created as a vanity page, or by his manager: User:Globalartists, has created this article, and nothing else. The sources are not verifiable, in addition to being laden with peacock terms. Also, the article fails to meet WP:NOTE, as the only source given is his personal webpage, and I can't find any others confirming notability. [14] CA387 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Global Artists may be found at 1648 N Wilcox Avenue, Los Angeles, according to the state of California's Talent Agency License Database. BTLizard 13:15, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:21Z

Solar hit[edit]

Insufficiently sourced nn neologism Dl2000 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even a dicdef, not even a believable neologism. It's just a typing exercise. Put it under a magnifying glass on a clear day. Shenme 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Okay...some sort of experiment? Sr13 (T|C) 07:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for something that drifted into your mind while you were bunking off school getting stoned. BTLizard 13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It is a common term used in many cultures. Someone will be curious and find the answers he/she seeks here. User:RyanW124 06:23, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:22Z

Holly Out[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. John254 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible transwiki to Wiktionary. Failing that, delete. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, 938 ghits. MER-C 04:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unknown reference to somebody whose SO is named 'Holly'. Please note that of those ghits, the first twenty checked have nothing to do with the nn neologism. "take holly out", "get holly out of there", "throws Holly out of the ring". I get more real ghits out of "brillant paula", who is notable (at least in some circles). Shenme 05:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an attack page - admittedly of a rather gentle nature - against somebody called Holly. BTLizard 13:25, 23 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 as copyright violation, and redirect to decantation. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:25Z

Decant[edit]

This is a pure dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I nominated it for WP:PROD on the grounds that it was a dictionary definition and appeared to be a copyright violation from a Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I wasn't 100% sure about that. The article creator removed the PROD tag and provided sources for almost everything in the article -- but that means that the article is basically a combined copyright violation of two different dictionaries (a Merriam-Webster and an Oxford). Due to the use of exactly copied text, I don't think Wiktionary can use any of this content. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Copied from those refs to here or wikt:decant is bad, but anything that could be should go over there, not here. Wow. Shouldn't this have been speedied as obvious copyvio, especially when documented as such by contributor? Wow. Shenme 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation. I've verified that the definitions cited to Webster's Collegiate are indeed exactly copied from there. —Cel ithemis 05:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note Please delete without prejudice as "Decanting" (using the gerund form as per style guidelines) might be a viable article. Wintermut3 09:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Decantation. EALacey 10:36, 22 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 rename to Campfire cooking. I've merged some info into Campfire too. - Richard Cavell 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking on a campfire[edit]

WP:NOT an instruction manual. Poorly-referenced, poorly written. Mikeblas 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - instructional aspect should certainly be trimmed, but there is a good bit of encyclopedic content. --Eyrian 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT instruction manuals. Move the pertinent parts ("Be careful not to burn food, self, or forest") to backpacking or some other article. (What is the wiki for instruction manuals?) Shenme 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Campfire cooking which makes the name sound less like an instruction manual, then remove the instructional parts to make more encyclopedic. Otherwise, I have no real objection to deletion, though oddly it might have been suggested for deletion back in the dark ages. Oh, and the wiki for instruction manuals would probably be Wikihow. FrozenPurpleCube 06:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks --Selket ^Talk 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wikibooks. Can people remember there is a wikibook section?! Good article, but not here. 64.180.83.71 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suppress the how-to aspect - cooking on a campfire is mentioned in many works both scientific (ethnography, archeology) and popular (e.g. western literature). In my opinion, a very notable theme. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge into Campfire. --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ioannes Pragensis, this subject can be handled in an encylopedic context; please remove any and all original research. Burntsauce 17:21, 25 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 - bad-faith deletion with Teh Pulpo being a ReMine opponent and Walter ReMine being an admitted impersonator DS 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter ReMine[edit]

NN. Teh Pulpo 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Apparently exceeds my ability to recognize non-notability. While he himself gets 278 'real' ghits, the search [ "Walter ReMine" biotic Message theory ] gets about 200 'real' ghits. I guess the chief problem is the limited audience for his ideas? I'm biased towards leaving the marginal in, awaiting the long-term view. Shenme 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has multiple articles written from independent, restrictively published sources. --Eyrian 06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Walter's work has yet to be remarked upon by a reliable third-party source. Walter ReMine 06:21, 22 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. --Core desat 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity Houses[edit]

No reliable or verifiable sources. An article on temporary marriage in Iran (using valid sources) would be a legitimate effort, but this article is very poor quality. Khorshid 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verified. Same ref to a dubious 'proposal' is used twice, with a third ref to some statistics. Nothing says this thing actually exists. All these articles (googling) are from the same time period back in 2002. If such a thing actually had been implemented they would be something more and later. This is bogus, and likely meant for embarrassment of Iran or WP. Let's deny both potentials. Shenme 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued above. A proposal is in itself rarely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. Crotalus 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThis article has many problems, but it can be improved. The article is about a really notable issue. The article used to read like an essay but I am fixing that. There is a New York Times article about the issue which is cited in the article[15]. Shenme is definitely right when he says the article is "meant for embarrassment of Iran". Unfortunately that is the way the article was written. But I have rewrote it and it is nuetral now. This article can be fixed. --Agha Nader 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only know that the Islamic law about temporary marriages is much disputed between the different legal schools; but I can see that the article as written here is too much of a stub to be useful, and still has a nn pov. DGG 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very dubious. Note that the New York Times article cited doesn't actually say that the houses ever existed in reality. I suspect someone's pushing an agenda. BTLizard 13:31, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:23Z

Yeshiva Gedolah Of West Hempstead[edit]

Non-notable private institution that "currently services close to 20 young men" CitiCat 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's a small school. It's a very small school. Very very small. And affiliated with http://www.kesharim.org/ which itself is only three years old. Ouch. Not notable. Shenme 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most yeshivas are small and generally those which are notable are so because of non-standard teachings, incidents that took place there, and the like (as with many small institutions). Google doesn't reveal any non-trivial independent third parties which are discussing this yeshiva. --Charlene 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a public relations announcement. The yeshiva fails WP:SCHOOL notability without question. YechielMan 07:23, 22 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. Sandstein 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake "The Snake" Roberts: Pick Your Poison[edit]

nn DVD release, WP is not a directory, just a match listing of a DVD, does not needs it's own article. A precedent case, the similar Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story, has previously been deleted and speedied. Any info for this could be easily put on Roberts' page (and other similar DVD releases). Biggspowd 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I don't object to the DVD being on the wrestler's own article, at least by title. There are literally dozens of wrestling DVDs/videos made every year. If there's any notability to any of them in particular, that can be handled as it comes. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you're listing precedents then there are a long list of WWE DVDs that have been up for deletion and kept. MPJ-DK 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That afd is not a legitimate precedent as that tried to tag about a dozen DVD pages, which varied in notability. There was no clear consensus, and many voters were torn between what DVDs should be kept or not. Doing things individually instead of grouping is better since not all DVDs are equal, and the Benoit DVD page was deleted, and this is very similar in terms of style and notability. Biggspowd 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - torn between which should be kept and which shouldn't, which leads to the logical conclusion that SOME should be kept right? Which also leads to the conclusion that this entry should be judged totally on it's own, that's the "legitimate precedent" set right? - not based on what happened to the Benoit DVD on the basis of this DVD - and this DVD, even if the article doesn't do it justice is a documentary about the career of Jake "The Snake", the matches listed are "Bonus" features and thus does not define the DVD. If it was a DVD which's main feature were matches I'd agree it should be deleted. MPJ-DK 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The DVD in question is a legitmiate documentary of a notable person. MadMax 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no one is questioning that the DVD doesn't exist or isn't legitimate, or that Jake Roberts isn't notable, the question is if it is notable to have it's own page, which it is not. Biggspowd 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WWE hyped this up and treated this as a major release. As stated above, the worker it is about is notable as well. Kris Classic 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I am going with keep, if the dvd is biographical in nature then I feel that it should be okay to have on wikipedia. However I feel that the page needs more explanation in the Overview section on what is going on in the DVD. Govvy 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every DVD released. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Phew that's a relief then that not every DVD is listed on here, not even near every wrestling DVD/Video released, heck not even every WWE DVD ever made is listed here. That argument is pointless here since we're discussing the validity of THIS specific DVD and it's inclusion on Wikipedia not if we should add ever wrestling DVD ever made, could we please discuss the validity of the inclusion of THIS specific DVD? MPJ-DK 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say keep it and have someone expand the main feature section. MPJ-DK 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF someone with the DVD is able to carry out MPJ-DK's suggestion in a suitable manner. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I kinda suggested that!! Govvy 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COmment and then I took credit for it ;) if this article is kept I'm going to nominate it for the Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week so that we can get it formattet right and have the documentary part expanded MPJ-DK 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops! Okay I'll cite Govvy as having the original idea^[1]ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the documentary's content is about his life, which is sufficiently covered in the main Jake Roberts article. Just rehashing that info into a page about a DVD is just totally redundant and unnecessary. I would suggest that the main Jake article has a bit of info about the DVD, but not its own article. If there are verifiable things in the DVD that are relevant and important in his life, just put it in his article. The DVD doesn't cover any new ground. Dannycali 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not watched this DVD but from reviews it seems Jake makes a number of completely unverifiable claims that may not be appropriate for the main article. For example, I've read that he claims his crack cocaine bust in Florida AND his animal cruelty bust in England were both law enforcement conspiracies. Things like that give this DVD a unique element. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree 100% with your statement. All the DVD is is a bio of Jake, that is already covered in his main article. Merge anything absolutely necessary to his article. The Benoit DVD page got deleted, so this and all the other low-selling DVDs about wrestlers should be gone too. They also have their own pages. Dannycali 00:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of similar articles isn't grounds for automatically carrying out the same action. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have decided to change my mind from keep to delete, I mean how many books are out there and how many DVDs are out there? The way articles have been done you use ((cite book)) or ((cite dvd)) at the bottom, yes you can explain about the information that comes from them. But in all honestly I feel we don't really need these articles as long as the DVD is just listed at the bottom of the actual biography article. Govvy 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Jake "The Snake" article and list the DVD in a "Filmography" or something like that on his page. Yes I did change my mind on this after long consideration on the matter MPJ-DK 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge/Redirect, take this content and put it on the actual wrestler's article. I'm not convinced that the DVD itself is notable on its own, but it's interesting enough to go on the actual person involved's page. Lankiveil 09:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete There is nothing about this particular DVD that warrants its own treatment outside of the subject's main article. Eusebeus 11:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Govvy (23 April 2007). ""Keep"". Wikipedia.

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:24Z

Volley League[edit]

Non notable competition, played among friends. Google provides Zero hits. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete not notable. "According historical research ..." but no refs, nor any description of the timeframe of this history. The guest appearances are "However there is current speculation ..." The only 'Ballymagee' I see is "Ballymagee Primary School". Everything reads as WP:NFT. Shenme 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unattributed. Google searches show that "Volley league" is a common name for amateur volleyball in Central and Eastern Europe,[16] but I don't see anything in NI other than Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and spamtraps.[17] --Charlene 07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it does exist at all, it is only a group of friends playing. No references, no sources, nothing on google.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no proof given this exists or is notable. Qwghlm 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This either a hoax or something made up in school. BTLizard 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can remember playing this in the playground in Kent (not Northern Ireland!) in about 1982, but like most playground games it's 100% non-notable with no possibility of reliable sources being found ChrisTheDude 14:42, 23 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 to East Coast Wrestling Association. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:24Z

ECWA Hall of Fame[edit]

Hall of fame for a low-level independent wrestling promotion that exists in name only. Should not have own article, clearly nn. Biggspowd 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a wrestling fan, but ECWA looks like an ongoing thing. http://www.ecwaprowrestling.com/ http://www.ecwaprowrestling.com/eventcenter.html Should the list be migrated to be part of the article East Coast Wrestling Association ? Shenme 05:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the ECWA main article MPJ-DK 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As per MPJ-DK. MadMax 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ECWA is one of the more well-known indy feds, but it's still just an indy fed. If the HOF at least existed in physical form I might have reconsidered. TJ Spyke 16:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Govvy 11:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested with main ECWA article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:20, 24 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-humor[edit]

Entirely original research-- which it has been tagged as being for the last five months; no reliable source has been put forth which actually discusses this apparent neologism as a concept-- as claimed in the article; a magnet for individuals' favorite non-joke/anti-comedian. See also, WP:NOT#OR: "[Wikipedia] is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge". --Leflyman^Talk 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless referenced. This is a valid term[18] but most of the article seems to be personal observation/preference. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. This exists[19]. I can appreciate it[20]. But I'm not sure the article helps me understand it. And it doesn't give the references needed to be sure they understand it. I want enlightenment. ( <-- note the period) Shenme 06:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find this defined anywhere reliable. Definitely qualifies as a neologism. Mark Chovain 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment The article refers to anticlimax. According to the theory Isaac Asimov expounded in his Treasury of Humor, anticlimax is the essence of all humor. --hbquikcomjamesl | Talk 10:55, 23 April 2007 (PDT)
Cleanup —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:29Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Will Beback as repost of previously deleted page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 09:11Z

David J. Silver[edit]

Recreated page of previously deleted material. New links appear to be self generated and fail to establish notability. Prior concerns raised in the first AfD debate and on the Administrators' noticeboard Delete (This is my first AfD nomination...please advise if this is not the best direction to take in this instance, thanks.) -- Greatwalk 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to first discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Silver It should also be noted that the Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was given an indefinite block for vandalism related to the spamming of articles with his name and removal of the AFD link from the original article. All in all.. Speedy delete --Bobblehead 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete If you can confirm that the page was deleted previously, you don't have to list it here. Instead put ((db-repost)) or ((db-g4)) at the top (see WP:CSD) and an admin will delete it. Notwithstanding, the fellow appears not to be notable, and the article was written by what amounts to a single purpose account. YechielMan 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I'll do so in the future. --Greatwalk 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm concerned that since the AfD notice was just removed (and replaced by another user) that the user who did that might remove the CSD notice as well. Edit because I forgot to sign. --Charlene 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it. It was a recreation of a previously deleted article. -Will Beback · † · 08:51, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:27Z

Disco grindcore[edit]

Absolutely unremarkable invented musical genre. Speedy was denied, prod was contested. Pioneering disco grindcore band "Holy Atomic Monosaur" receives zero google hits. Noted disco grindcore drummer "Tucker Leary" receives minimal google hits. Searching "disco grindcore" yields mostly unrelated genre lists. Bongwarrior 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT, WP:OR. --Selket ^Talk 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable and non-verifiable. EALacey 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The creator has now added two references, but neither mentions "Tucker Leary", "Holy Atomic Monosaur", or "disco grindcore". In fact, neither contains both of the words "disco" and "grindcore". EALacey 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. TheLetterM 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tucker Leary is presumably the Tucker13 who created this. A one man genre. BTLizard 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as an imaginary musical genre. Burntsauce 17:19, 25 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 per CSD A3 ("No content whatsoever")—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9[edit]

This started out as a procedural nomination, as I happened to come across an improperly tagged article. However, it's pretty clear that it's a hoax, as it gives results for a reality show that hasn't even aired yet. (The infobox gives airdates of September-December 2007, and Cycle 8 hasn't even wrapped up yet.) NORTH ^talk 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete as obvious hoax (G1). So tagged. --Selket ^Talk 08:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I misread G1 (skipped the word "not"), so just delete as a hoax in a week. --Selket ^Talk 09:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the recent edits it might qualify as patent nonsense, although it's blanked at present. -- NORTH ^talk 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a version in the history that is not patent nonsense, one should revert rather than speeying. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The empty version with just an infobox and a tag that people seem to keep reverting to suffices. -- NORTH ^talk 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DES ^(talk) 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:07, 22 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Dollars Man[edit]

This article about a pejorative term is mostly original research and novel synthesis of cited works. No sources are cited for the origins or usage of the term itself, only for the labour statistics and arrests for prostitution. The sources themselves do not use this term. I disagree with the de-prodder's suggestion that the article should be renamed, for if we remove all the uncited material about this term itself, we'd have bits of trivia that would not go well under any other title. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 09:10Z

I suggested it be renamed because your complaint seemed to revolve around the fact that the name was not sourced and therefore, appeared to be made up by the article's author. IF the rest of the article is valid and the only issue with the article is the name "50 dollars man" than I suggest that the article be kept and renamed with a more appropriate title. You said that the literature cited for the rest of the article did not use that name. I suggest using the terms used in the references. And I do believe the article is worth keeping for sociological reasons as well as public health reasons. Postcard Cathy 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this could somehow be completely rewritten to be based on sources then I would vote to keep, since the topic is interesting. As it stands, the article is too far gone and is virtually entirely original research. The article doesn't bring forth any sources that prove that this is a well-documented unique Singaporean phenomenon. nadav 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of the Wikipedia:NUS Scholars Programme project. nadav 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is essentially a sub-topic of the Prostitution in Singapore which doesn't exist at all. The current article is an essay and would need a complete rewrite anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive end/linebacker[edit]

Not an official position, also incorrect information, no sources to establish noteworthiness, and not enough content to justify an article. Also confusing and incorrect as outside linebackers in a 3-4 are almost always called outside linebackers, every player on this list is listed as either an outisde linebacker or defensive end on their NFL bio. Basically it's just some fans trying to reclassify thinngs based on maybe one story from a sportswriter. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't a widely accepted position in football. Recury 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pre nom. Quadzilla99 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this run? Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 19:09, 26 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, may require some cleanup per discussion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Ivory[edit]

Stub article about a person selected as a Parliamentary candidate in the UK. The general election is probably not for two years, and he has no other notability. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - he was the subject of multiple independent etc etc last year when (while he was chairman of South Norfolk Conservatives) he publicly said "Tony Blair should kill himself and cheer us all up" (or something along those lines), but that aside he hasn't really come to any attention - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Google news archive results are mostly about that one event, but there are other events amongst those. Also, he was an active in politics prior to running, as I have now added to the article. I am neutral on this article. John Vandenberg 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'd have thought any [serious] candidate for [a significant] public office who is mentioned in mainstream media would, by definition, be notable. One aspect of being encyclopaedic, for me, means that nearly every public figure [(where 'public' means visible to a significant population)] should have an article. If this chap gets quoted somewhere, and I wonder who he is, wouldn't it make sense to be able to find a short Wikipedia article? I guess I am an inclusionist; I don't see the harm in having articles for minor figures and minor topics so long as they pass some triviality [but not trivial] threshold. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a cabal pronouncing somebody to be "non-notable". Trevor Hanson 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [Original text went further than I meant. DGG has it right. Trevor Hanson 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - remember that the UK has 659 MPs, and nine major political parties - while a lot of those parties are regional so won't be contesting every seat, each seat will have a minimum of three serious candidates (Labour, Lib Dem, Tory) - that's a lot of articles - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a valid point, though "a lot of articles" (out of 6,838,353 articles in English) is a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything surprising in 2,000+ bio stubs being added each UK election cycle. A newspaper research desk would presumably be doing the same thing. (These comments may not belong here, but strike me as going to the heart of the matter discussed in M:Inclusionism: How minor a topic is too minor?) Trevor Hanson 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, thanks to user:jayvdb, the article now has six media citations, two website references, and a handful of basic bio facts. For my money, it's a scanty but useful summary of who the person is. If I came across his name in a newspaper account and looked him up on Wikipedia, I think the current article would cross the threshold of usefulness. Trevor Hanson 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't go quite as far as Trevor, and I think those contending for purely local offices are not necessarily notable. But he is the candidate of a major party for a national legislative seat, and given those two factors, I think he's notable. However, I have found out that not everyone agrees with me about this. I'd be happier with a second RS.DGG 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more sources have been added. John Vandenberg 05:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mr Ivory or his agent may want to consider the legal implications of allowing him to be described here as a parliamentary candidate rather than a prospective parliamentary candidate. My recollection is fuzzy but as I recall it could result in money spent from now on being counted against his election expenses. BTLizard 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[21] may be relevant, and his bio on his own blog says Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for North Norfolk. John Vandenberg 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BTLizard's right - they're only PPCs until the election's actually called (some time in 2009-10) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keap. With several references, this article could probably stay on. However, it is pretty short, but could be expanded, not deleted. Harry Jolly

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR, then redirect to Structural analysis. Sandstein 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structural research[edit]

Reads to me like an original research essay to publicise a neologism. The article provides no references to establish that the term "structural research" is widely used to mean "imitation of natural structures in art and engineering", let alone that the term is established as relevant to Antoni Gaudí, Antonio Vivaldi, etc. (Well, there is a similar article on the French Wikipedia, but I don't think that counts.) EALacey 10:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --soum (0_o) 10:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. janejellyroll 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching something on this matter and found this article. As architect it is well explained.It is not neo or original:it is an established subject teached in universities. i think it is an uptodate rather neo i think we must not delete new immerging subjects but improve them. Leave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camwatch (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. People certainly study structure in literature, architecture, etc., but could you please indicate a source which defines "structural research" in the way that this article does: as the artificial imitation of natural structures? EALacey 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Structural analysis; although the article is rather near to Structuralism, I think thar readers would expect the former.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a good example in history on designs from natural sources for architecture.It is the Rose window of gothic cathedrals.Even the columns of gothic cathedrals are a research on the structure of trees.The whole gothic cathedral is a forest with light openings.[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_window] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camwatch (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 April 2007.
- Comment. I don't doubt that some architectural designs have been inspired by nature, but the article is asserting that this kind of inspiration is (a) a field of study in its own right covering all varieties of design, and (b) known as "structural research". Unless (a) can be established from independent sources, the article is original research. Unless (b) can be established, it's about a neologism. EALacey 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Solution.It seems that this discussion will not lead anywhere.The article in itself gave me a great idea.Thanks to the writer.You can do with it what ever you want now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drivefast (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 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 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year (film)[edit]

IMDb link dead. Creator mentioned that the director never created this but went on to work on another film. Here is what creator said on my talk page. gren グレン 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: the film has not come out, so there cannot be reliable sources, and it may fail the crystal ball clause. YechielMan 16:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A great example of why we have Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Future things change. Dimitrii 19:21, 27 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 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carp Flying Academy[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability asserted only in the vaguest possible terms ("Both student and cross-country rental pilots appreciate..."). Google hits mainly directory entries; no mentions in Google News archive. EALacey 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Dimitrii 19:28, 27 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. --Core desat 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

École acadienne de Truro[edit]

Simply not notable; or no reason has been provided and is likely to be provided; also the article was created post Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, who founded said school; notability is not inherited, especially when Couture-Nowak's entry itself is under deletion discussion. Pablosecca 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I generally try to follow keep-all-schools where possible there is nothing to assert or indicate any notability at all for this one. This was created by User:Plasma east after their article on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was nominated for deletion; I strongly suspect to prove a WP:POINT by creating a circular "this one's N so that one is too" argument. Willing to change my !vote if anyone can add any source, information etc to lift this above "this is a school in Canada", which is pretty much all this contains now - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small 1-teacher-per-grade school even if it's K-12. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about the extreme of minimal information. if the discussion on J C-N can help us remove some articles like this perhaps it will have been of some use after all. DGG 04:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are reliable sources for this school which are not available online. There would have been a lot of media coverage about this school and the need for it at the time it was proposed and around the time it opened, but the online files of the Truro Daily News and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald don't seem to go back that far. The politics involved in creating a French-language school in a community which traditionally didn't have one would have been quite intense. --Eastmain 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone finds some information about it, it can always be recreated — as it currently stands the article boils down to "this is a school" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find specific notability criteria for educational institions, but this school does not seem to pass the general notability criteria. PrinceGloria 16:15, 25 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 Blackout (entertainer). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:34Z

Gladys Ridgeford[edit]

Notability not asserted (subject of a prank call - how is that notable for an encyclopedia article?). Cannot find enough Ghits to even assert that the call was notable enough to be considered a (internet) meme, let alone the subject. soum (0_o) 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; might give it a line in the Blackout (entertainer) article, if that isn't deleted for non-notability. --Orange Mike 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- , or merged into Michael Biggins, or both --Orange Mike 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Finngall ^talk 21:00, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:34Z

Forest Rangers Football Club (Australia)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable amateur football club Mattinbgn/^talk 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Article does meet WP:NOT, WP:ORG. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not compete in either a fully professional league, or the highest level (Olympic in this case) amatuer competition.Ga rr ie 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior soccer club who could be briefly mentioned in the Peakhurst article. No Google News and the only Google News Archive reference doesn't refer to this club but a UK one. There might be a case for an article on the district but not on this club. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability at all. Qwghlm 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above, and agree that perhaps the club should be mentioned on the Peakhurst article.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:22, 23 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. w^L^{<speak·check>} 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Laurence[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete I don't agree with the nominators mass-cull but in this case I can't find any sources to defend her - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't agree with my mass cull of non-notable articles? Epbr123 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, clean-up is needed everywhere in wikipedia. If someone decides to get rid of non-noteable articles, for whatever reason, we should be glad.Dr bab 12:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC). (However, this article was considered for deletion only a few weeks ago. Is it necessary to re-list it already? I am unfamiliar with the subject of the article, so I don't wish to vote either way.)[reply]

*Keep I don't see what has changed since the last AfD, which was less than a month ago.. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It has since been decided that the number of films an actress has appeared in doesn't establish her notability. Epbr123 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I missed that. Might have been worth mentioning in the nomination. !Vote struck. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Recently survived AfD. Notability "criteria" are in a constant state of flux due in part to the nominator. Literalistically applying the "criteria" of the moment to delete articles on minor celebrities is an abuse of the term "notability." Dekkappai 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to keep. Pea ceNT 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blondi[edit]

This one is no doubt going to provoke howls (if you'll pardon the expression) of protest from dog-lovers, history buffs & Nazis alike, and I apologise in advance to the closing admin for the fact that you're probably going to have to wade through 200 lines of WP:WAX on this. I initially planned to prod this, but in light of the number of editors who've worked on it there's no chance this won't be contested. I realise she's a famous person's dog, but at the end of the day she's still just a ****ing Alsation, who accomplished nothing in her own right other than have five puppies (she didn't star in any propaganda films, or die while attacking the Russian soldiers, for instance). The sole source is a single-line sentence from the (itself highly controversial) Anthony Beevor book "Berlin: The Downfall"; although I've no doubt that every word in this article is true, she doesn't seem to have had much coverage even at the time. The only comparable articles I can find (in an admittedly not very thorough search) are Checkers, who is only covered in terms of the Checkers speech and not in his own right, Humphrey who probably just about scrapes through WP:N on the grounds of the press coverage regarding his alleged poisoning/shooting by Cherie Blair, and Socks who probably ought to go as well since his 15 minutes of fame are well and truly over. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now I just have to decide if I'm a dog-lover, history buff, or a Nazi... Okay, it's a really weak keep, but, I do think we WAX precedent. gren グレン 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find [over 150] google books and [lots] google news archive hits which ,from what small snippets I've read, shows that the article will be attributable to reliable sources. Has attracted enough attention to sustain an encyclopediac article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dog's the subject of multiple, independent sources, even if they're not cited on the article here. As everyone knows that Hitler's dog was called Blondi, and that he killed it before he committed suicide, it's probably one of the most famous dogs in history. Not in the Lassie class but nevertheless notable. Nick mallory 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Peripitus and Nick mallory. Jeff Silvers 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the pets of (in)famous people tend to be notable. In addition, the unusual manner of her death makes her notable. I just watched a documentary yesterday on the History Channel noting that all her puppies were poisoned by Himmler's cyanide as a test of the poison's potency. Ngchen 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N utterly, which states that to be notable a topic must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." A one- or two-sentence mention in a several hundred page book is a trivial reference. One-sentence mentions in news articles are trivial references. Those who are asserting the existence of such sources, please back up your claim by adding citations to the article before the end of the AFD. Otto4711 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - do passing mentions in dozens of books constitute notability? Biruitorul 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the main article on Hitler. Even if the dog received passing mention in many books about Hitler, that does not require that it have a separate article. See also Laddie Boy (dog); same plan of merging would be appropriate for that little-known Presidential dog, as well as Fala , Barney and Socks. Checkers is appropriately given a mention in Checkers speech. They got passing mentions as a consequence of who their owner was, so mention them in an article about the owner. Edison 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, famous for her infamous owner, died in an infamous manner in one of the major events of the 20th century. 129 Google News Archive results for "blondi hitler" when limiting the search to free articles (300+ when searching behind paywalls). --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further explaining my reasoning: the only possible location for a merge is Adolf Hitler, but there is far more sourceable information than it would be reasonable or prudent to merge into that article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totting up Google hits is not a measure of notability. All it tells you is that the words "Hitler" and "Blondi" were used in the same article. Try actually looking at some of those articles and you'll see that they are trivial mentions. Repetitions of "Hitler had a dog called Blondi," even several hundred repetitions of it, does not constitute non-trivial mentions of the animal and the dog is not the subject of the articles. Find a source or two of which the dog is the primary subject. Otto4711 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, appropos of nothing in particular, I now have stuck in my head, to the tune of Old McDonald, "There was a Führer, had a dog, and Blondi was its name-o." Otto4711 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Blondie could record it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then maybe Dick Biondi could play it on the radio. Edison 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there is sufficent published information to write a sourced article, not that the number of hits equals notability. On Google News Archive, the majority of the results are reliable sources, which is not the case with "regular Google". --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung. Famous dog, infamous owner, died in an infamous manner in one of the major events of human history. The article is totally verifiable and totally NPOV. To delete it based entirely off a narrow reading of the WP:N guideline would be ludicrous. --JayHenry 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not for any notability of her qua dog, but as a spin-off of the main Hitler article. That man is (unfortunately) one of history's most notable people, which is why even details of his personal life (if sourced) deserve a thorough encyclopedic treatment. Sandstein 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since we have articles on Harry Potter's friends' pets I suppose it puts Blondi in perspective. I still think all that needs to be said could be said on a single sentence on the main article, though. Since there are delete !votes I can't withdraw this, but if any passing admins want to WP:SNOW do feel free - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - content is referenced, we have other articles on famous dogs, and a dog owned by one of the key figures of the 20th century for over a decade, who was an important part of his life and helps shed light on his character, is quite notable. Biruitorul 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that there are other articles about pets of the famous and infamous is the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Please address the problem of the sources being passing references made while talking about the owner. Edison 05:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic comment He didn't own her for over a decade, the article says he got her in 1941 - iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. He still owned her for most of the war, and was in the bunker. We have articles on some pretty obscure people, just because they were in the bunker. Edison: passing references are good enough for me in this case. Biruitorul 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm usually a pretty strong deletionist -- however, aside from Checkers, Blondi was possibly the most geopolitically important figure of canine heritage in the 20th Century, and her contributions to the Nazi regime should not be allowed to be scooped out of the yard of history by dog-apologist historians. --Dynaflow 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just realized this whole discussion was doomed to Godwin closure from the very beginning. =D --Dynaflow 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Perhaps the most famous dog in international history. Certainly the most famous German Shepherd. -- Crevaner 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like other notable dogs, we have articles on Toto (dog), Lassie, Fala, Asta, etc. Carlossuarez46 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the dog is quite well-known. Everyking 07:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable. And per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:31, 24 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 fracture, no assertion of notability. If you want "want as much people as we can to know the band", a better site for this purpose will be www.myspace.com . —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:32Z

The Band Fracture[edit]

Band is not notable (by its own admission, only just begun), unencyclopedic. This should be a speedy delete, but since "owner" keeps removing tags, I thought I'd go through a process not so easily removed. GJD 12:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as band with notability not asserted (WP:CSD#A7); speedy tag restored. EALacey 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Adambro 13:32, 22 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 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recherche structural architecture[edit]

Non-notable neologism. There's a single Google hit for "Recherche Structural Architecture" -wikipedia, and that doesn't even look human-authored. Article possibly intended to promote the structural research article created by the same user. EALacey 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no meaningful content and cannot be sourced. YechielMan 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, close to incoherent. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:36Z

Stores inside Centrale[edit]

Contested prod. A list of stores will be constantly subject to change and seems unencyclopaedic. Readers are better served by the link from the article Centrale to the shopping centre website which has a store directory. Adambro 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this is close to the "Travel guides" example of unacceptable articles. Also, the details are probably unverifiable except by personal observation. EALacey 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a perfectly good list on the centre's own website which is far more likely to be kept up to date. Personally, I'm not at all convinced we need articles on Centrale or the Whitgift Centre; whilst that "million square foot" line makes it sound like some kind of super-mall, that's including the bingo hall and office space; in reality Centrale is a bog-standard shopping centre with less than a fifth as many stores as Bluewater or Lakeside while the (neighbouring) Whitgift is even smaller - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centrale. -- RHaworth 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure I see the value of a redirect from this, it seems quite an unlikely search term. Adambro 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey. Regan123 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an attempt to include the commercial spam that couldn't fit into the main article, and like similar addenda it should be deleted. are there any more like it? Now's the time. DGG 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. See also ood Gallery (Centrale). Martín (saying/doing) 09:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin means Food Gallery (Centrale) which I've redirected to Centrale. Most of it duplicated what was in the main article anyway, see the last revision before I change it to a redirect. Why there needed to be logos of the outlets I have no idea. Adambro 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopaedic, as Wikipedia is not a directory, and it would be difficult to keep up the list up to date if the creator loses interest. --RFBailey 17:54, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:37Z

Electrical Material[edit]

The article appears to stem from some material that might be contrived to be linkspam. Contributed by User:Msadaghd, user added links that were either "comming soon" (sic) or very poorly written entry level external links. Propose deletion, please comment User A1 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was incomplete. Adambro 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure content fork of Electrical conductivity. Not even worth a redirect as nobody's going to use this as a search term - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Electrical Material is already covered by Electrical_conductivity#Classification_of_materials_by_conductivity. No need of merging because the latter includes the first with a better writing style. Rjgodoy 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The matrerial is covered better in Electrical conductivity. One major failing of Wikipedia is all the duplicative articles. Edison 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor caveat - The linked article is better written, but it could use a bit of work in the accessibility department. If some 6th grader were to wander into the page, I doubt he'd get much further than the third line before giving up. Perhaps the lack of adequate non-technical coverage of the concept is what triggered creation of this page. MrZaius^talk 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant article. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It makes it more suitable to change the title of the page to Electrical Properties of Material, or something like that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msadaghd (talk • contribs) 2007-04-22T18:49:37 (Copied here by Rjgodoy)
Delete or turn into a redirect. Someguy1221 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Do NOT redirect) - In addition to the above, this article title is a neologism when used like this. "Electrical material" usually refers to the components of electrical systems such as wiring and switches. --EMS | Talk 18:57, 23 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 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Webber[edit]

Indie musician and filmmaker. As far as I can tell none of his LPs were released under a record label that allowed for significant distribution. As a filmmaker, the movies he's directing are to be released within a year or so. No sign of significant third-party coverage (at least not yet) so we're pretty much forced to assume that the article is an autobiography and the content is pretty much unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are added. YechielMan 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:A with zero reliable sources provided. Burntsauce 17:30, 25 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 Heroclix. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:38Z

Justice League (heroclix)[edit]

list of game figures, violates WP:NOT; Delete --Mhking 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason -- they are simply lists of game figures and as a result, violate WP:NOT:

Delete per WP:L and WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect though I have no inherent objection to articles on individual sets in the Heroclix franchise, these pages are indeed nothing but lists. I believe further content could be developed like the average set of Magic the Gathering on Wizkid's pirates game, but there's little to nothing on these pages that is worth including. If somebody wants to take up the challenge of describing the sets as opposed to just listing there contents, I'll change my opinion FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your assertion that these pages are nothing more than lists is correct. However, you should realize that we had, at one time, much more content regarding these sets and the pieces. They were deemed to have too much content and too many links and were targeted for deletion. In order to keep them up on Wikipedia, we pared it down to what you see today. Now you are saying that it is too little content!?!?! If the moderators would make these pages "protected" and not allow people who are not even registered users to modify and delete these pages, we could make them more interesting to gamers and potential gamers on Wikipedia. Firstlensman 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you could provide a link to the diff of one of those better versions? Or perhaps you might want to work on the page in your user-space. Right now, with just a list of characters, it's not very good. What would make the pages better is a description of the reaction and response, how the set sold, and where appropriate, addition of new types of figures and modifications to the game rules. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 17 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, Cbrown1023 talk 14:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing all the minatures in a given game is a bit outside what an encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechielMan and Starblind. This is gamecruft of the lowest order. JuJube 21:41, 22 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 as WP:OR, WP:POVFORK. WP:NOR is not subject to consensus, and Valich's comments here indicate that the article is intended to promote novel theories. The place to discuss these would be Genetic code, but discussion there would seem to oppose a merger. Nonetheless, if anyone wants to try and merge this, the content is available on request. In the meantime, I'm creating a redirect. Sandstein 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal genetic code[edit]

This article has been written by a single author. It seems to be "original research" in the sense that it is "a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". In fact, the author's own words seem to assert that it is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". On the talk page the author, Valich, says: "Radical integrative conceptual frameworks break down walls, explain phenomena, and fuel scientific growth. I hope this is the direction this article takes. It should evolve in theoretical structure, as will the field." There already exists an article appropriate for the subject, Genetic code. To be gentle, I had originally proposed the article for merger, but the consensus so far (see also comments on Talk:Genetic code) seems to be that there is little or no value in this article. Madeleine 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with merger I wanted to note here that, since this discussion started, Valich added some content to Genetic code (presumably some sort of merger). I heavily edited it to try to fit into the stuff that was already there, and added a website reference. There were no references in the content he added, and I found two factual problems. (A) "In common molds, for example, the DNA sequence "UGA" is translated into the amino acid tryptophan. In the standard code, it's a "stop" signal." As far as I can tell, this statement is wrong. The mitochondria of molds do have this alternate genetic code, as do mycoplasma (a type of bacteria), but mold does not. (B) "However, although Crick and Watson thought that the current canonical genetic code was "frozen," many now view it as evolving in complexity toward a greater number of amino acids." Crick and Watson? They figured out DNA structure, but the genetic code had a lot of work of other people over later years. Maybe Crick said something about it, since he was a heavy theorist and involved in the observations of frame shift and the triplet nature of it, but throwing in Watson's name makes me reject this statement as nonhistorical hyperbole.

I am not willing to sift through the Universal genetic code article to figure out which parts are real and which are not. I'm afraid the article has very little to contribute; in my opinion a support for merger is effectively support for deletion unless there is someone willing to go through the article and find worthwhile parts of it. -- Madeleine 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problems go further than that: Valich is trying very hard to make the case that the term "universal genetic code" is outdated, however, in doing so, she ignores that the existance of alternate codes were predicted long before the first was discovered. This means that the view of history is a bit biased as well, portraying the discovery of alternate codes as a complete surprise as opposed to the validation of a prediction already made on evolutionary grounds.

Frankly, the only way to use this article in a merge is to re-evaluate the sources. and check everything. Too many errors to use it without question. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a fork, and I'm not sure the references support it enough for it to be merged. We could do more with the Genetic code article, but I don't think this has anything to add. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Genetic code. There is some useful content here, including historic aspects. This article has significantly more references than Genetic code. Biophys 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have updated the article to clarify it, and have deleted some parts. The article provides a much more realistic evolutionary perspective of the genetic code than can be found in the genetic code article. It provides an approach with tons of insightful and important information that cannot be found on any other Wikipedia article. This is important for progress in the field and for expanding the horizons of those curious enough to delve into the subject. Somewhere we have to address the variations to the standard genetic code and the emergence of new amino acids - the 21st and 22nd, and up to 30 more now. I felt that this was the place to do it. Valich 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Then you need also to improve the introduction and make it shorter. Still I do not see any serious reason to have two separate articles, Universal genetic code, and Genetic code. Would not it be better to merge them and improve in the process?Biophys 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite a good article. i don't think its a POV fork, or devoted to a specific theory. I would change the title to evolution of the genetic code to make clear the fdifference in content. DGG 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete The Universal genetic code page is the work of a sole author, one whose talk page is a bit worrying. I see concerns raised that he doesn't realize when he's citing an Intelligent Design source [22], uses citations that don't say what his text implies they do [23]. I'm a pretty mainstream biologist, and statements such as "... we have no idea what lies before us in evolutionary time and space. You cannot label something as being "universal" if it only exists on one planet, and the evidence for it being as such only exists here" [24] make me do a double-take. I think the material in the Universal genetic code page needs to be vetted by other editors familiar with the topic. It is currently insulated by being in an independent article. The subject matter in Universal genetic code belongs in Genetic code. The salvageable material can probably fit easily into Genetic code#Variations to the Standard Genetic Code without disrupting that article too much. Pete.Hurd 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Changed from "merge" to "delete" on basis of more recent comments by nominator et alia above. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think that the article as it is should be kept due to already mentioned issues. If this is to be kept not only a new title is necessary (I wouldn't name it evolution of the genetic code as it also implies the evolution to the standard genetic code, whereas this article mainly deals with variations from the standard one), but one would also have to prune everyhing unnecessary elements, which, in my opinion, would not leave much. For an article dealing within the field of natural sciences it has to be more concise and not swarming with quotes and half quotes from abstracts of the cited articles. Honestly, I believe that it is easier to create an article on this topic de novo rather than try to disentangle the given article.CharonZ 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto the above comments for reasons to delete. If you believe there is something significant not included in the Genetic Code article - I say rewrite and include it in the Genetic Code article. Hichris 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I believe that Universal Genetic Code should be merged into Genetic Code. An experienced and meticulous editor should come through UGC and make sure that any significant additions and improvements that can be made to Genetic Code from UGC will be done. The article is very large, and I find it hard to believe that there is NO beneficial information that could be added to Genetic Code. Someone PLEASE carefully merge this. Thanks! WiiAlbanyGirl 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with madeleine's WP:OR complaint. The article is long and contains references, yes, but it's not clear that all the references are appropriate (see talk page, for instance), and length is no measure of quality or information content. In addition, the article IS arguing a POV, that deviations from the standard genetic code are somehow "significant" and constitute radical departures from the universal genetic code. This does not represent the view of anyone in the biological community, as far as I know - departures are oddities, hacks, and slight modifications, nothing more. Previous insertions into the article suggest that this argument has been advanced by the likes of Jonathan Wells, whose viewpoints are extreme fringe views, and who was quoted approvingly by User:Valich, which makes me leery of the author's motivations, as well. Graft | talk 03:25, 25 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, userfied. --Core desat 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pteronophillia[edit]

Unsourced, and will most likely stay so, according to the article itself. The very model of a minor general 14:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I love the closing lines: "All of this work has been done based off of nonfactual evidence". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a piece of gibberish OR which leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that this is someone's attempt to legitimise their sexual fantasies about chickens, although surely this warrants a move to BJAODN. My personal favourite line is "the ever popular fairy is indeed an ever popular target". I think I've met the guy he's talking about. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-identified original research, probable neologism, and possible hoax. But move to BJAODN, definitely. EALacey 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quoting from the article itself: "Closing- All of this work has been done based off of nonfactual evidence, as no actual scientific evidence or novels of any sort exist documenting ,at the moment, such a fetish. All of the notation has been done by a pteronophilliac with the aid of a physchology major and a masters thesis on fetishes". Fetish articles, in WP and online, are rife with protologistic constructions from arbitrary Greek or Latinate roots. This is no exception. Serpent's Choice 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral because i think it has to be significantly reworked. I've userified it in case I ever have the time. The term itself is totally non-standard, but the general idea is a very old mythical concept, for example Leda and the Swan DGG 04:20, 23 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[25] Pan Dan 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uchiha Clan's Dark Secret[edit]

Was in speedy but author added ((Hangon)) and requested an AfD instead, reason given for speedy was "As stated at the bottom of this page, "Remember, everything here is just a theory. Nothing is completely proven as of yet but, at the same time, what I have mentioned is actually fits with the Naruto series and gives you something to think about." This is reason enough for the article to be deleted." (WP:NOR). No stance. Cbrown1023 talk 15:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, Cbrown beat me to the AfD. Oh well. The article is complete nonsense and is nothing but original research. As stated by the author, it is all in theory. Also, the content of the article reads like a fansite or magazine article. An example would be: "You might be confused about this: when was it stated that Kakashi’s MS jutsu is Amaterasu? Well it has never been stated, it’s just another of my bold speculations." It also contains You's, Me's, and "...". It doesn't deserve an article. // DecaimientoPoético 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if this my article deserves to be deleted than by all means do so. I feel as though this is an imporant article because it makes you think and it makes good points as to the Uchiha Clan's origins. And if my article violates the rules and therefore deservers deletion, I have no objections.YungLegend07 15:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio from [26]. WjBscribe 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyvio, and even if it weren't it's totally unsourced fan speculation/OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of WP:NOR. Speedy if the author can't establish that he is the original author (Yasha on NarutoForums).--SarekOfVulcan 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was the one who added the hangon, as I was about to speedy it myself before reviewing the CSD, not the author.--Sar e kOfVulcan 15:55, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:39Z

Beefday[edit]

I believe that this is a hoax article. It was prodded once, but the tag was removed. I can find no confirmation of this "holiday." The meticulous formula for the adequate amount of beef, as well as the linking of the event to Zen Buddhism also raise my suspicions. Joyous! | Talk 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patent hoax. The Northern Irish may be lots of things, but Zen Buddhists ain't one of them - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious (literally :P) JuJube 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks. BTLizard 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonverifiable. Mukadderat 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete and utter bullshit. Burntsauce 17:16, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:41Z

Laz Rojas[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BIO, I think. Laz is somewhat well-known in the DOOM community for his various WolfenDOOM level packs (so he'd probably be notable enough to have an entry in the DOOM wiki on Wikia, for example), but that certainly isn't enough for a Wikipedia article, and I don't know if he's otherwise notable. That being said, I'm not 100% sure he isn't - maybe it's just me who's never heard of him -, so I'm listing his entry here. Schneelocke 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertation of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article states only that he's someone with a website, which hardly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people); if I'd come across the article, I would have tagged it for WP:CSD#A7. In fact, your statement that he's "somewhat well-known in the DOOM community" makes him sound more notable than anything in the article does, although not enough for the article to be kept. EALacey 18:57, 22 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:40Z

Nancy Beard[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular person was a secretary for the team. I feel this does not make her notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She is just a secretary. Resolute 16:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The small amount of detail in this article, if notable, can be included at Stanley Cup#Women on the Cup (which, incidentally, contradicts this article with regard to the number of women named on the cup). EALacey 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Jesu-christo, it was bad enough that assistant equipment managers were put on the Cup, but secretaries in the team office? The NHL had better get a grip on this nonsense. Peter Pocklington putting his dad on the Cup doesn't look quite so outrageous in retrospect. RGTraynor 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at WP:HOCKEY --Pparazorback 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banish into Martin Brodeur's glove, as per above. Sorry, trying to sound witty. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete Per comments by Resolute. I'd say banish into Brodeur's glove, but that's going to fail soon enough :). Jmlk17 07:33, 23 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. --Core desat 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for help[edit]

Nominated for deletion in Aug 2005. Last Afd. (Wasn't sure how to do this, if I jacked it up someone please fix, sorry). Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, this article is a how to and little else. All of the important information is redundant and what isn't can be merged with the appropriate article (as was suggested the first time around). On top of this there are no references (its factual accuracy is disputed), the radio section is almost entirely OR, I would say. All of this and not a comment on the talk page since November 2005. IvoShandor 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On second glance a lot of the article looks like original research. IvoShandor 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emergency telephone number, from which most of this is a content fork, with the last couple of sections merged to distress signal - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe but I really can't see anyone typing "call for help" into the Wiki looking for the result to be distress signal, I suppose it's possible.IvoShandor 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't really a good summary for the purpose. Two-way radio is somewhat accurate, but it gives the protocol wrong (call out emergency first, then wait for an ACK from the other end, lest you be talking to nobody). Material is better covered in other articles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never liked this article. It reads like directions. Could be a possible lawsuit.--ZayZayEM 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Distress signal is another place useful information could end up.--ZayZayEM 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the original nominator in the first AFD. The article hasn't improved much in the almost 2 years since then. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:41Z

Paul Boyer (hockey)[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular person was an equipment manager for the team. I feel this does not make him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. non-notable. Resolute 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. The only extant mentions of this person are trivial, and little biographical information exists beyond his job with the Red Wings. RGTraynor 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at WP:HOCKEY --Pparazorback 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Jmlk17 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comment on the notability of the subject is necessary, the article fails WP:A miserably. Burntsauce 17:15, 25 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 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magma Poetry[edit]

Does not assert notability of the magazine - tagged for notability for past month. Article existed since mid 2006 but has never been expanded over one sentence. Google search reveals no reason for notability Davewild 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Béka 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't assert notability. YechielMan 17:43, 25 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, default to keep. Sandstein 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorism[edit]

Ridiculous neologism; Fetches very few hits on Google, possible hoax. mcr616 _Speak! 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Poorism" may be a neologism, but Poorism is not an article about a neologism. It's an article about a type of tourism that at least two reliable sources, cited in the article, discuss. Both sources even call this type of tourism "poorism," which may help justify this particular Wikipedia pagename. Pan Dan 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be a neologism, but the article's about the phenomenon, not the neologism. The term is used by a number of sources ranging from the "Observer" to the Smithsonian. And don't know where the nom gets "very few Ghits" from, I get 15,000. As per Pan Dan, this seems to be the term in general use for this phenomenon so this is probably the correct page title (although possibly Poverty tourism would be more appropriate with this as a redirect) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try clicking through to page 16 of that Google search. There are only 153 unique hits. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See dark tourism, thanatourism, etc.. there are a bunch of different "neologisms" used to describe tourism. "Poorism" is obviously in wide use (ie. it is not a single person or companies term). -- Stbalbach 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Poverty tourism". Should not use the neologism as the title until it's better established. —Pengo 05:22, 29 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:42Z

The Lonely Lonely Bad Boys[edit]

Hoax. 53 unique Google hits for group with a triple platinum album most of them Wikipedia related. Disappearing to join a Dragon-Worshipping Cult in New Zealand ... VirtualDelight 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent hoax. Good BJAODN candidate, though. EALacey 19:50, 22 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primal sounds[edit]

Original research, and almost nothing links to it. Do we really need a page on this? At best, it could be merged or redirected into another article like onomatopoeia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into e.g. Speech, onomatopoeia, or vocalization if sources can be found as these sounds can and do convey important information. Else delete. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook example of original research. YechielMan 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar has a couple of references to this being used, especially when describing singing. The references don't seem to be published, though. I'm thinking that "Primal sounds" meaning human noises of some sort is a neologism, but it seems distinct from onomatopoeia, for what its worth. Either way, redirecting to onomatopoeia seems better than delete to me, because this could be a valid search term. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional information. My research indicates primal sound differs significantly from onomatopoeia. Please check out my edit. If you feel I am all wet - chuck it. But primal sounds do exist and are used today, principally in chants. These chants credit "primal sound" as part of their basis for legitimacy. Lynnbr2 4/20/07.

Keep. The article now has sufficient sources. Herostratus 14:35, 22 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, WjBscribe 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one scientific source present is a very general one indeed, and the article goes way beyond it. OR at this point. DGG 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the new sources, I'm still inclined to look at this as OR. Just because people have recorded themselves grunting at one point, it doesn't prove anything said earlier in the article. Lankiveil 09:52, 29 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. --Core desat 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Testament[edit]

also:

From the very first paragraph, it is obvious that the purpose of this article is to push a POV, not to explain or introduce the reader to an arcane topic: "The purpose of The Third Testament is to provide the intellectual and logical basis for neighbourly love being the very highest goal in life and the way to a personal experience of the eternal Godhead." The article is so heavily-weighted toward pushing its spiritual message, I fail to see how it can be edited into something encyclopaedic. I recommend deletion, and then perhaps something more closely resembling an article can be written by someone who does not have a stake in the subject. Charles 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unrescuable. As per nom, if this is a genuine cult someone can recreate a legitimate page on it later on, but at the moment it's pure OR and too incoherent to salvage - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to e an obfuscated offshoot of Christianity, but the principles behind it appear to be more mumbo-jumbo than anything. Evidently not a hoax (seems real), just seems kind of bogus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn-volumes which lie outside the canon of mainstream thought, and even outside the noncanonical works of Christianity or any of its subsets. --Mhking 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Also consider Martinus for AfD. JuJube 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, Martinus should be added to this AfD. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that... ---Charles 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note I have added Martinus to this AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Thanks. ---Charles 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for its determined resistance to an NPOV stance. As far as Martinus is concerned though, the answer has to be keep as it would have to be to an NPOV Third Testament article. There are plenty of people around who believe this stuff, along with Theosophy, Scientology, Channelling, Ascended Masters... the list is endless. BTLizard 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not quite certain I understand what you are saying. The mere claim that "there are plenty of people who believe this stuff" does not seem enough to justify keeping an article the claims of which are unprovable and which serves only to push a POV. If Martinus can be rescued, and made into an NPOV article about a man who developed an eccentric philosophy, that is fine. As it stands, it is certainly not acceptable. ---Charles 17:35, 23 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. Multiple keep arguments by a single user, as well. --Core desat 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Information Security Association[edit]

Speedy deleted by me as an article about an organisation that made no assertion of notability. Article's creator, who is connected to the subject of the article has argued that they are notable, have advised government agencies and points the following Google search [27]. As I am not linguistically capable of evaluating those ghits, I am listing the article for deletion so that we can have wider community input on the matter. I remain minded that this organisation does not meet our notability standards but make no opinion pending an evaluation of those ghits. WjBscribe 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put forth the following links (of more than 10,000 thanks to an independent google.com) from different sources for PISA in support for it being notable.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=pisa+professional+information+security+association&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3D

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=%E5%B0%88%E6%A5%AD%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%89%E5%8D%94%E6%9C%83&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3Dlang_zh-T

I do appreciate your point of view and I'd further appreciate if you would attempt the following google link and search for our organization. It comes out with more than 10,000 links and citations from different sources after being established since 2001.

Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 01:09, 23 April 2007

Delete The first search is invalid because it doesn't use quotes, merely searching for pisa+professional+independent+security+association. This means that even inside the first 50 GHIts, the search is picking up irrelevant hits from combinations of those words. A more correct search, for PISA+"Professional Information Security Association" reveals just 179 unique hits [28]. Given this, the fact that no notability is claimed, and the complete lack of sources, I have to go with a delete, though I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete User EliminatorJR's discusion on "correct search" is not the most correct because the acronym is included in the search. A better search should be performed using English and Chinese. It reveals 2,050 unique hits. About 30% of the name is cited in Chinese newspapers. [29] Nonetheless thanks to EliminatorJR for pointing out other forms of search under Googles which reveals a more realistic results. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 11:28 pm 2007/4/24

Speedy Delete. It is the responsibility of the editors of an article to assert notability. This article makes no attempt to assert any kind of notability. This article is nothing more than spam for this association. The assertion that some number of g-hits makes something notable is not true. In any case, 180 hits supports a finding that this group is not notable. Vegaswikian 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not to Delete~~ Vegaswikian's reasoning ignored the definition of notability, which is "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." [30] "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." It is believed that Vegaswikian has other non-bias consideration for a speedy delete rather than a normal delete. It is appreciated that Vegaswikian could further prove this thought process on a logical basis. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
~~Not to Delete~~ Vegaswikian's reasoning on spam is another example of labeling without justification. Wikipedia has its own definition, namely "There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [31] Neither the tone nor its content exhibits a tone of advertisements, not to mention a solicitation for a business (PISA is non-profit and has no business profit objective), sales-oriented (Vegaswikian fails to show any sales so far). In other words, Vegaswikian fails to show why a well-cited page (see above, 2,050 independent source) would still need further self-promotion of any sort. Lastly, PISA is an organization anti-spam, and its opinion has been submitted to an Office. [www.ofta.gov.hk/zh/report-paper-guide/paper/consultation/20041102/org/19.pdf] Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
~~Not to Delete~~ Again Vegaswikian's reasoning fails to update the latest link with more than 2000 articles showing up in google.com search. Referring to yahoo.com's site [32], Vegaswikian is welcome to enquire why yahoo.com would list PISA together with other information security organizations. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
~~Not to Delete~~ Under these observations it is proposed that virtually all Vegaswikian's propositions listed here are merely hearsay [33] and much are advised laid on grounds without facts and supports, and possibly ad hominem. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25

Delete not speedy because n is asserted. You can't get anywhere much by counting ghits. You have to look at them, so -- Looking at them, they seem almost exclusively repetitive directory information from local chambers of commerce. NN. DGG 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the Google Test isn't law, but it's a useful piece of guidance when you're dealing with something that could be notable but just really badly written. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not to Delete~~ It is suggested that our wise DGG takes a closer look at the links cited. No. Not many of these links are of chambers of commerce in nature. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
The above covers roughly 1/4 of the unique citations. Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
- Mailcpathetsang refers to a list of citations that I have moved from here to the article (people should always look at an article before commenting on its deletion). Mailcpathetsang, although you can give additional reasons, repeating your opinion each time is not necessary. We get it. Gazpacho 07:09, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:43Z

Destructive Forces[edit]

Fails notability guidelines for software (WP:SOFTWARE) and verifiability (WP:V). These concerns were raised in a prod, which was removed without comment. Previous to that edit, the page did include the statement "Because of the mod's sucess, it was placed Top 30 in ModDb's Top 100.", but I'm not convinced ModDb is a reliable source. Marasmusine 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 17:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mod's page on ModDB qualifies at best as trivial coverage. If a source can be found to establish that the mod is well known to the game's fanbase, it might merit brief coverage at Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour, where it currently has a list entry. EALacey 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey's comment. --Dariusk 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fan mod. DarkSaber2k 14:35, 25 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, lacks context. Fram 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azhakath Mahadeva Temple, Kulavanmokku, Kuzhalmannam - 678702[edit]

This stub does not provide much context. It is poorly written and reads like something that came out of an online translator. I was unable to find anything online that could help expand this article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The temple may or may not merit an article (it's mentioned at Kozhalmannam), but this one provides insufficient context and no comprehensible content. EALacey 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 07:13, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:44Z

Robin Hood: Return to Rottingham[edit]

It is pretty clear this is just something someone made up. Google searches for this title only result in the Wikipedia article in question, as the supposed movie does not even have an IMDb entry. Furthermore, most of the text in this article is lifted word-for-word from the article for The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning. It's obvious that without outside verification, this is just some fantasy created by a user.CatraDhtem 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, although I wouldn't mind seeing Weird Al Yankovic as King Richard. It's interesting to see that references to this supposed film have made it into several other articles. EALacey 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sightly Delete might be true Munkee madness 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs to be sourced if it's true. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article would suggest that Mel Brooks would clear this project in the first place, and from what little I can ascertain from Brooks' career, for him to allow this sort of thing - let alone a movie that goes direct to video or tv - would be something he considers to be debasing to his reputation. Mind you, that's just my own speculation - but Brooks seems like that kind of guy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--The Phoenix Enforcer (Talk to me) 21:05, 22 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 and page redirected to Counter-Strike by User:Jestix. Pea ceNT 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubnub[edit]

Redirects to a deleted page. Decided for AfD instead of speedy because history contains some content. Jestix 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I withdraw the deletion request again. I will just make it a redirect to Counter-Strike and finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestix (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:46Z

Morgan-Manning House[edit]

Contested A7 speedy. I think the reasons pretty much speak for themselves on this one. I wish Mr. Broughton's 4th grade class all the best, but Wikipedia is not their personal web host - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as containing no encyclopedic content. The class are welcome to create an article about the house if it's notable, but it would have to be based on reliable published sources rather than personal observation. And an "article coming soon" page is clearly unnecessary. EALacey 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After rewriting by User:Oakshade, this is a legitimate stub. EALacey 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, there is nothing stopping the creation of the page when information is available. Alternatively, someone could properly write up this National Register property before the completion of the AFD, though that would rob the 4th-graders of their chance to give it a shot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to keep following improvement. (Darn, I was hoping to see what the kids would come up with.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article completely re-written. It's an historical location that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places [34]. --Oakshade 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It still needs much expansion, None the less it's clearly notable , even from the brief stub here.DGG 04:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep following rewrite by User:Oakshade - if I understand the AfD rules right, I can't withdraw the nom now there are delete !votes - iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as both deleters have now changed their minds,, can this now be Speedy kept? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the subject is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a sure sign of notability, and the only two who had favored deletion have since withdrawn that position. Burntsauce 17:07, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:47Z

Narcolasticism[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax - 0 Ghits, the tone of the article has a distinct whiff of hoaxery and the image is a blatant joke photo - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G1 (patent nonsense). This is a joke article. --Ali 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a hoax. Ask anyone who has ever been in a class taught by somebody with all of the personality of Ben Stein, or those who wish to conserve energy by sleeping in class. That said, as silly as it is, I hate to say it, but I gotta go Delete, with maybe a side order ofBJAODN. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even though I suffer from this as well...Someguy1221 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author misspells "lose". That's all it takes, in my book. Captain Infinity 20:33, 25 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, default to keep. Sandstein 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triclavianism[edit]

Not notable. The article consists of a definition of Triclavianism, the assertion that the number of nails used to crucify Jesus has been debated for centuries (but not that this debate is of any great importance, or that the belief in three was ever popular or significant), and also a long quotation from a single book that itself only established that some people believed this, but does not say why this should be significant. The Storm Surfer 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important. As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails. Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism. Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this. Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using two to three and now four nails. Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted. Andrel 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my primary rational is based on what i've already noted on the article talk page, in summary, the author of the quotation in the article appears to be the only highly notable source that is verifiable who uses this term, the Catholic Encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word, the google search offered on the talk page isn't for the same word, the only other halfway notable sources i've seen for this term are a parody website and Stormfront.org, and because this single author being quoted appears to be the only really notable person who uses the term, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:NEO, while one notable and verifiable source seems to use the term, that person seems to be pretty much the end of it. Homestarmy 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has an entry on triclavianism. It is a real word, albeit obscure. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the websites you cite, the word is still in modern use. Andrel 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the websites I cite were cited by myself because they are not very notable websites in and of themselves for this topic. (And because they seemed to be basically the only two) Homestarmy 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is a red herring. There are many technical terms in Wikipedia which one would be hard-pressed to find on any "notable" websites. --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is not a red herring. (See how easy and fun it is to make blanket accusations about people's comments? :D ) Technical terms on Wikipedia that do not have notability to them should be deleted, their existance simply means the process is not 100 percent effective at deleting 100 percent of deletable articles 100 percent of the time. Even if they do have notability, if they are just dictionary definitions, they certainly fail WP:NOT a dictionary, no matter how notable they are, and should be transcluded to Wiktionary. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the argument that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" seems a little specious. The point is that the word is notable enough to have made it into the premier English-language historical dictionary. Granted, the purpose of an encyclopedia is a more thorough explanation of a concept than a mere dictionary entry, and granted, this article does not yet have such an explanation, nevertheless there is more to the concept than the mere definitional "The belief that Christ was crucified with only three nails". As mentioned below, this means only that the article is currently a stub. --joXn 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Andrel's initial counter-argument consisted entirely of "It's in a dictionary, it must be notable enough to keep on Wikipedia.", and going on that alone, I saw little recourse but to mention WP:NOT a dictionary. I already gave my hand at looking for more on this topic to expand the article with and came up with what I wrote on the talk page, and as far as I know, there is nothing more notable to this concept than a single author's mention of the word. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism. DGG 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article could be more expansive on the theological and art-historical applicability of the concept of "triclavianism", but that just means that it is a stub. The concept itself is interesting and of historical importance. --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This may seem like just being silly, but now I feel compelled to call your attention to WP:INTERESTING, though of course if the term's historical importance could be demonstrated, (One long quote from but a single historian and no sources which could be trusted much on history doesn't seem very important to me) then the article should indeed probably be kept. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 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. I see that this article is subject to content disputes, which might better be addressed by the mediation cabal. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72 Virgins[edit]

The article uses primary sources that is Quran, and Hadith to make a point. Even if sources could be found it is not evident to me that this subject even needs an article. In case we think that subject is encyclopedic then he could recreate article with secondary sources later. Current POV filled unsource, disputed article should be deleted. ALM 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is mainly primary sources, it seems there are a couple secondary sources whch are reliable. An encyclopediac article could come out of it with time. The topic is clearly encyclopediac and notable. Consitering the article is less than a month old, I think we should give it some more time to develop.--Sefringle 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly reverting to this version which seems the last not tainted by edit-warring. I don't see a problem with citing primary sources in this context, since all the article is using them for is "this is what the Quran says and here is the chapter & verse", rather than attempting an OR analysis of them. Even if it's not really what Muslims believe etc etc the fact that some people think they do and why is what this article's about (in the same way that we have an article on Well poisoning) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no prohibition on the usage of primary sources. Beit Or 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is discouraged.--Sefringle 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy Keep: This is another attempt to censor information. "72 virgins" is a very notable term in the media. Everyone knows about the term (200,000 hits in Google). Infact if you were to ask anyone on the street some of the things they know about Islam or found interesting to hear about, one of the things they would probably say is "whats up with the 72 virgins thing?" If you have concerns about OR, you should discuss that on the articles page. And as people said, its ok to use primary sources. The fact is that after I introduced the sourced statement that Quran mentions "women with big breasts", this article has become an issue. It was untouched before. Facts are facts, sorry. People want to know about the 72 virgins and we should improve this article instead of trying to brush the subject under the carpet. Unsourced? POV? I dont think so. Why dont you take these claims up on the Talk page of the article instead of just getting deleted. Now we'll see huge edit wars going on in this little article after this AfD fails. AfD'ing it was "lets just try to get it deleted first". As we can see now, doing things like this only causes more focus on the article so its good in a way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep KazakhPol 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .Quite notable and perMatt57 -- Shyamsunder 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep Having only primary sources is not grounds for deletion. As far as unsourced, this article is rather well referenced. SirBob42 00:23, 23 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 to Heath, Texas. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:48Z

Rockwall Heath High School[edit]

Not notable — Kpalion^(talk) 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails to meet any of the requirements of WP:SCHOOL - no independent sources or notable achievements have been presented. --Ali 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep large schools generally are notable within their area, but this one doesn't really evidence this. If this one's going to be deleted, Rockwall High School ought to go as well - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lead section onto the town page until it is expanded into a full article. Otherwise keep. — RJH (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to develop, otherwise merge and redirect to Heath, Texas per WP:LOCAL guidelines. Burntsauce 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Heath, Texas and remove the non notable lists. I suspect that at some point this will become an article, but not today. Vegaswikian 00:27, 26 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, default to keep. Sandstein 15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Karson[edit]

Yet another bio related to the Virginia Tech massacre. This article is about a student from Colorado who got arrested after allegedly mouthing off in class that he "would be capable of killing 32 people" following with "if anyone in here says they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying." While interesting, we don't need an encyclopedia article about every kid that's ever shot their mouth off in class. BigDT (416) 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this subject is so marginal as to border on a case of briefly-compromised anonymity. I support the call for deletion as per WP:N.--Dynaflow 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I greatly sympathize with all of the victims and families of this shameful incident, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ali 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this person is not even a victim. He's just some college student who got suspended for saying something grossly impolitic about the VT shooting. His primary involvement, and indeed his secondary involvement, in anything of remote significance is approximately nil.--Dynaflow 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ... I was just about to say that. I'm sorry if my nomination made it sound like this was a victim - this is about a student from Colorado. I have reworded the nomination to make that clear. --BigDT (416) 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, woah, woah. Did you read the entire article? E.g. the parts the come before his arrest for making inappropriate comments in class? The controversy over his newspaper was big news in Boulder for a long time. Moreover, see WP:NOTE, Notability is NOT SUBJECTIVE. If someone becomes notable for whatever reason, they are still notable. -- Craigtalbert 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not just another "Virginia Tech massacre bio" though I'll agree it is the largest part of the article. But the subject has been written about in reliable sources before over The Yeti and The Crux. This meets the criteria in WP:NOTE. Is substantial as the source material covers the topic in sufficient detail, there are multiple sources, source material is credible and reliable. There's much more than what I cited in the article, see google news archive results. It took me six hours to do the research and writing for the article and I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons. I wouldn't have written it if it didn't meet notability requirements. -- Craigtalbert 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will similarly try to not factor in your apparent stong emotions about the article. As for the Google test: In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.--Dynaflow 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, my "apparent strong emotions" about the article? If you spent as much time on a wikipedia article, on a topic that is more than notable, and it got axed because of other editors proprietary emotions on the topic, wouldn't that make you a little upset? Don't talk down to me. The article meets all the requirements in WP:NOTE, the google test isn't perfect but in this case it is further evidence in it's favor. You haven't produced a shred of evidence against it's notability except your own judgment. Yes, that makes me angry, and it's wrong. -- Craigtalbert 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referencing this statement: "I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons." Neither anger nor excessive emotions should come into play here. Your personal investment of time has nothing to do with whether an article is notable or not. We want to be objective here.--Dynaflow 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, they shouldn't be apparently they are -- on both sides. So, let's get back to the basics of notability. If you don't trust google news archive, then do the search on highbeam or lexis-nexis a la carte. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Multiple sources are multiple sources. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence otherwise. You don't get to ignore WP:NOTE, or pretend it say something it doesn't, just because it doesn't support your point of view. -- Craigtalbert 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection is that this is pure recentism and its already low significance will most likely fade even more over time. The article also suffers from a local myopia. If the article could be rewritten in such a fashion that the lasting significance of this person in a context meaningful to users of Wikipedia is made clear, I wouldn't object to it. the problem is, I can see no way that can be accomplished. Voltaire couldn't make this guy seem significant beyond Boulder, and perhaps not even in it.--Dynaflow 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read WP:RECENT before, and I agree according to the definitions in the essay, this article does have a lot of "recentism." But, as the essay points out, WP:RECENT is not a guideline, and is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Maybe Max Karson is significant outside of Boulder, but there is nothing in the notability requirements about that. I don't know why you're pointing out things that aren't guidelines and even if they were aren't sufficient reason for deletion in AfD nomination discussion. Maybe you can explain that to me? -- Craigtalbert 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection is the recentism; my criteria for judging whether the article suffers from a recentism bias is WP:N, and specifically WP:BIO.--Dynaflow 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you understand WP:BIO and WP:NOTE better than I do. I've been editing wikipedia for awhile now, and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on them, and like I said, if the article didn't meet the requirements in both of them I wouldn't have wasted the better part of a day on it, and a few hours on it now. So, could you kindly point out the contradictions between this article and WP:BIO and WP:NOTE so I don't make the same mistake again? -- Craigtalbert 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete this is ridiculous. If we had an entry on every schoolkid who got in trouble for acting like an idiot, we'd be up to ten billion pages by now. "The Yeti & Crux controversy" are nothing of the sort, they're a minor spat about a kid getting in trouble at school with no significant coverage - those "references" are to the schools website and the student law centre (and incidentally, are dated in the future). The only part of this whole saga with any non-trivial coverage is the Virginia Tech bit, and I'll bet nobody except his family and his principal even remember the story now three days later. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? The controversy over The Yeti was covered in The Rocky Mountain News (three times), The Colorado Daily, The Westword, The Daily Camera and Salon.com. Now, maybe you don't know how to use wikipedia real well, but each of those newspapers have wikipedia articles, and you'll notice that none of them are "references to school websites." -- Craigtalbert 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction then - the references are to the school's own website, the student law centre, a local paper, two local freesheets and a website who's lead stories today are "I like to watch The Apprentice" and "The best wet-battered fried chicken in New Orleans". I can provide far better sources for a story about a man who has sex with goats or a bird being eaten by another bird; that doesn't mean I think they pass WP:N. Show me a single piece of evidence that anyone outside Boulder has ever cared about this kid - or that anyone in Boulder is still talking about this now, three days later - and I'll reconsider. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the pigeoniverous pelican doesn't have its own Wikipedia article? That story was absolutely HUGE after DrudgeReport ran it on a slow news day.--Dynaflow 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The Rocky Mountain News and the Westword are published state-wide. Unless you're trying to say newspapers in Colorado don't count or something like that? If a newspaper ever writes an article about something that isn't of the utmost importance to the state of the world that it doesn't matter? Maybe you can explain to me what you're getting at. To address your second point, he was publishing the The Crux in Amherst, which seems to be significant enough to show that people outside of Boulder "cared" about him. If that's not, then if you do a Google News Search on "Max Karson" you'll see his story has been published by the Boston Herald, Daily Hampshire Gazette, First Amendment Center, KVUE, The Jawa Report , St. Petersburg Times, WDBJ, The Seattle Times, Inside Higher Ed, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Cybercast News Service. So, it seems pretty clear to me people care about him outside of Boulder. Can I prove that people in Boulder are still talking about this three days later? I'm not sure how I would do that. If you give me your telephone phone number maybe I can have some people I know in Boulder call you. I can tell you there are plenty of people talking about it on the CU Boulder campus. How else would you expect me to go about this? -- Craigtalbert 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a similar debate on a not-quite-unrelated subject that covers many of the same points as this discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho [EDIT], which started, with discussion that is also germane forthis AfD, here: Talk:Sun-Kyung Cho.

In this case this is either whole thing is either a complete waste of my time, or I'm correct in believing that editors are trying to have this article deleted for their own proprietary reasons. Not only have I wasted close to eight hours now on the research, writing, and subsequent debate on the topic, the people disagreeing with me claim to know more about wikipedia guidelines than I do, and won't explain where I'm wrong (if I am). I've made my point, no one has pointed out anything from the guidelines showing this article isn't right by WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. If your motivations for wanting this article deleted can be explained in terms of wikipedia guidelines, I would appreciate a quick write-up about them in my talk page. Finals are coming up and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this debate. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to pry, but do you personally know the subject of this article?--Dynaflow 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am a CU Boulder student, but I've never met him. When discussing his recent arrest with other students, staff, and faculty, it seemed that no one (including me) knew the facts of leading up to and surrounding it real well. So, I decided I'd do the leg work and condense the relevant information in to a wikipedia article, as it more than met the guidelines for one. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, it wasn't all that notable on campus, from what you're saying. 132.205.44.134 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant. Our decision whether to keep or delete this article is not based on whether the individual is known about on campus, it is based on the Wikipedia notability criteria. Adambro 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentism with no long-term ramifications or true relation to the Virginia Tech massacre. If any mention were necessary at all, a single sentence in that article would suffice. --Mhking 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. This person "has been the subject of [multiple] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Adambro 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adambro TJIC 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems like the whole article is here just to promote the guy. I mean, do you know how many nutjobs shoot off their mouths and create a whole fury about it being a "free speech issue", especially at college campuses? Do you know how many people, especially at colleges, "publish" their own "underground newspapers"? What's the circulation of those "publications"? I don't see anything particularly notable about this person or any of the so-called publications he created. Tejastheory 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I have no idea how many "nutjobs" "shoot of their mouths" and "publish" "undergroun newspapers." I don't know that you do either, and since the significant of this article is related to that, you shouldn't pose that question rhetorically. At least this "nutjob" seems to have a lot of people supporting him (see: technorati stats, and blogpuse stats). Moreover, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with your opinion's about the topic of the article, and everything to do with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO (which this passes). -- Craigtalbert 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. --Oreo Priest 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first of all, notable nutjobs are notable, and much of the news and their interest and present day notability of people could be seen as falling into that general category. Major national newspapers report what is notable to their readers. In borderline cases we can inquire whether it is or is not a major story, but this is not a borderline case. I am not sure of the reason for the attempt to remove the articles about individuals involved in these events. My instinct was strongly in the other direction, and I do not think of myself as particularly sentimental. Are we trying to prove the high quality of WP by rejecting anything that might be considered sensationalism? Frankly, that is hopeless, WP is a representative of the common components of our culture, whatever they may be. DGG 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a victim of violence, just of zero-tolerance. Numerous well publicized incidents, several newspaper articles about different controversial speeches or writings over an extended time and in different parts of the country. Comment Please use the name= technique in the inline references so the same sources do not get repeatedly listed in the reference list. Edison 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was wondering how to do that. I named all the references. I'm not sure if I did it the most correct way. If there's documentation on this (I searched and didn't find any) let me know. -- Craigtalbert 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I teach at a university on the other side of the country from Boulder. Since this story broke I've googled Karson's name every day to find out the latest. In addition to this case's obvious relevance to the (1) First Amendment, the Karson fiasco has wider implications regarding (2) the potential abuse of power by college administrators, and (3) academic freedom, which some might argue includes the right for students to question normative opinions. After the shootings, most instructors initially encouraged honesty and openness in classroom discussions about Virginia Tech. The classroom was a "safe space" where no single opinion/emotion was privileged as "right" or denounced as "wrong." For many of us, the freedom to speak openly about our emotions was an important component to the healing process. Nobody went so far as to support the killer; but some empathized with his pain and loneliness; others said they'd decided to be more sensitive in the future toward social outcasts like Cho Seung-Hui. The tone completely changed, however, when Karson was arrested. Not wanting to be the next arrest victim, students and professors reverted obediently to reiterating the politically correct, "Fuck Cho Seung-Hui" attitude. Karson's situation opens the book on a whole new set of questions: Can professors still allow critical thought? Are all ideas equal, or are some more equal than others? Should we encourage dissent, or should we fear its consequences? In the post-911 era of surveillance and zero tolerance, how can we protect the Max Karson's of the world from being too radical, or from simply saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? These are important issues, and I can assure you people are talking about them a thousand miles from Boulder. That said, I do advocate making some major changes to the article. The only thing newsworthy about Karson is his arrest following the Va Tech massacres. We don't need to know where he went to high school, or the nature of his pissing contests there. We don't even need to know about 'The Yeti' except for its suggested connection to his being arrested. Obviously, more needs to be added to the article as the story develops. I could see the Karson case going all the way to the Supreme Court, but I could also see it fizzling out in 2 weeks. Let's keep the article concise until we know the case's outcome, at which point expand it we can revisit deletion.M. Frederick 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's fine that you're interested in the case, your just because you're interested does not make the subject notable. It's also fine that you think the case may one day go to the Supreme Court but understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the case goes to the Supreme Court, we can revisit adding an article for Mr. Karson and/or the Supreme Court case. --Crunch 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NOTE. Coverage by multiple reliable independent sources has been clearly established here. Jpo 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not allow our vision to be fogged by recentism. This character is a non-notable publicity seeker of no interest or merit. His fifteen minutes is just about up. BTLizard 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is permanent, not temporary. As I said in my previous comment, this person meets the notability criteria set out in WP:BIO. I'd also highlight that the references goes back to 2002. Adambro 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability, in the extreme. If this is the level of notability required, then we can have about 1,000 articles for every decade a large university existed. 132.205.44.134 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deserves mention in the massacre article (as a related incident perhaps) but not a full bio article for someone who mouthed off. StuffOfInterest 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am in agreement with the points detailed by M. Frederick above, and as such I won't repeat them. The relevance of the article is to the circumstances and specifics of how Karson is being handled, not the man himself. resonance 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's several notable third-party articles regarding this topic. He seems to fit the notability requirements. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Point is he has been covered my numerous sources on his own accord outside of the VT incident. He is notable. Yanksox 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this guy is less notable than Nicholas Winset (Emmanuel College prof fired for reenacting the massacre), but we don't have an article on him. 132.205.44.134 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Comment from the deletion log, it looks like no one ever created an article for Nicholas Winset [35]. So, maybe you could explain why that is relevant to the status of this article? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If anybody is still talking about this guy in a month, then he warrants an article. Recentism at work here... Matt Gies 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Recentism" is not a guideline and is not sufficient cause for deleting an article. Please see WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not long-term notable, minor appearance in media related to a major event does not qualify. Perhaps reduce to one or two sentences in the "response" section of Virginia Tech shootings. Sad mouse 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any of these requirements mentioned in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Perhaps I'm missing them and you could point them out to me? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We went over this for every victim, some people wanted each to have their own page, but since their notability is restricted to the event, that is a more appropriate place. Likewise, while this guy is semi-notable, really it is just the event he is associated with that is notable. Sad mouse 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Karson meets the requirements in WP:NOTE, and WP:BIO — he is not semi-notable, he is notable according to those guidelines. I have not see anyone cite a wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Unlike the victims of VTM, it does not contradict other wikipedia official policies such as WP:MEMORIAL. Creating a wikipedia page for this guy doesn't mean that "we" are some how saying he's "good." All I've tired to do with this article is get people the facts about a notable person in a controversial situation. If you think there's POV, or would like to trim the article down, those are all good discussions to have — and I would appreciate the help and collaboration. But policies are policies and guidelines are guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He possibly meets the requirements (which is what I mean by semi-notable) - the only criteria which he could meet is that of multiple independent media reports, he fails all other criteria (which is fine, you only need to meet one criteria). My concern is that the subject of the media reports is actually the Virginia Tech shootings and not Karson. Using the example of the many victims who made the media multiple times because of the shooting, we decided that the subject of those media reports was the shooting and the victim was not the subject, so only those with external notability (eg the academics) kept their own article. So my position is to delete unless there are multiple non-trivial independent reports about Karson that do not involve the shooting. As a side note, I think you would be better off treating this discussion less personally, it certainly does not mean that your work is not appreciated. Sad mouse 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, those who continue comparing Karson's newsworthiness to that of the VT victims appear to be unfamiliar with the recent debates surrounding academic freedom. Academic freedom is defined as "the freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference." The Karson case marks a rare instance in which a student was arrested for comments made in a classroom. These developments have implications for the First Amendment, and for whether or not freedom of speech in the United States applies to educational settings. My point is that Karson's arrest represents more than simply a subplot to the VT massacres and is relevant irrespective of the subject of his rants. It seems that many folks from the "Strong Delete" camp are wary of rewarding Karson's apparent cry for attention with further publicity. I understand and share these concerns, and will join in voicing them on the discussion page. M. Frederick 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Either we follow policy or we don't. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Just because articles were written recently doesn't mean they can't be cited. Ronnotel 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within article retention guidelines. TacoDeposit 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting article, perhaps warrants a little bit of notice on the massacre page, but that's it. Definitely not an article. Nyttend 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, his case was mentioned in his local Colorado newspaper. This does not mean he passes WP:NOTE. Does everyone mentioned in every issue of last week's Rocky Mountain News get an article here? No. Being kicked out of school for being disruptive is hardly notable, even in the context of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, he was mentioned in the Rocky Mountain News, which is a "local" paper, though it is also distributed in Wyoming, and some other surrounding states, from what I've heard. But, you're right, if it wasn't for the 100+ other sources he's been mentioned in, that wouldn't be enough to pass WP:NOTE. -- Craigtalbert 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you notice that almost all of your "100+ other sources" are from papers near his college in Colorado or from his hometown in Amherst, Massachusetts? This is recentism and localism being confused for significant notability. --Crunch 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there wikipedia guidelines on localism? I looked and couldn't find any. WP:RECENT hasn't changed since I last read it — it's not a guideline, and if it was, it's not a sufficient argument for deletion. I would expect that there would be more media coverage in Colorado and Massachusetts for the reasons you gave. Either way, still passes WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. -- Craigtalbert 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ronnotel. This topic meet our standards. --Oakshade 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps, but we're debating whether to keep a biographical article on Max Karson not an article on the topic of free speech. There is a difference. --Crunch 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets and exceeds WP:BIO standards and upholds WP:A quite well. Burntsauce 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The worst part about the article, as it stands, is the way it is written. As Burntsauce notes, it more than meets biographical and attributive criteria. In addition to the VaTech controversy, Karson recently outed neo-Nazi Josh McNair. Given that he has been featured by both the Anti-Defamation League and the Drudgereport for his exploits, Karson's Venn Diagram is more than can be said for most of what qualifies as "notable" on this delicious slice of brutal populism we call Wikipedia. Double Dickel 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets the WP:BIO standards and is in line with the WP:A. Sohailstyle 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The article is well sourced and meets WP:N many times over. There's really no question about this. — coel acan — 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 11:13, 29 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 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas lengyel[edit]

Information in article fails WP:ATT. Even then I think subject would not meet guidelines in WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete' He is not an academic, he's an undergraduate who has apparently just received his BA degree. The nearest he;s gotten to be a scholar is to have taken a class with one/ Of the three references given, one is the general site for his college, and two are the student newspaper reports of a student variety show and a performance. He claims he's notable, so i don't want to call it a Speedy, but it's impossible to give the claim any credence. Zero published works--I can find no hits for his claimed book.. I suggest we remove him from the academic deletion sorting list. he's no more an academic than anyone who has a college degree. DGG 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is claimed but not established. The Google hits for "Thomas Lengyel" that appear to be about the correct person are trivial; e.g, being the subject of a photo taken in a journalism class. WorldCat can't find his supposed book. Article created by User:Tlengyel, suggesting a conflict of interest, and the other users who have expanded the article and removed the AFD template have no other edits. EALacey 11:47, 23 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 Ragnarok Online. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:08Z

Rogue (Ragnarok Online)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This content would be better if were moved to the StrategyWiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:27, 22 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. --Core desat 07:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Robot[edit]

Tagged with ((notability)) since january, and article does in general not assert notability. Was created by a user called jensrobot (talk · contribs), and does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. He does not appear to have any releases on other labels than the one he started (Illphabetik.com), and have so far only released his music free on the internet. Also couldn't find any publications to support any claims towards notability. Delete. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YechielMan 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idioma 03:49, 26 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 ~~Virginia Tech massacre~~ List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Core desat 07:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Samaha[edit]

Another Virginia Tech massacre bio. I suggest, in the interest of keeping this topic area presentable and not having xFD templates all over everywhere a speedy/snowy delete if everyone is agreeable to it. BigDT (416) 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, right? Obviously, the names are search terms for the massacre. Xoloz 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that ... I guess there's always the ~~rouge~~ bold option of a speedy redirect. --BigDT (416) 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete/Redirect I agree, speedy delete or redirect is in order Tejastheory 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there will undoubtedly be two or more major newspaper stories. I see no reason to eliminate any of these articles--what I would support is leaving them in place for 6 months and then discussing them in a centralized way. They meet our criteria. If we want to say that N depended on what a person actually does, rather than on sourceability, lets say it in general, and revise the contents of WP accordingly. I don't know that I'd be opposed. DGG 05:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with list of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Ixfd64 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Same as the other student victim articles. StuffOfInterest 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep" I think these biographies are important to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.241.39.254 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. Same as other victim articles. Christopher Connor 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like any other student victim. Nyttend 14:16, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:49Z

Nooner[edit]

Even if it is a real product, it sure isn't notable. No articles link to the page and it doesn't cite any sources. TheOtherSiguy 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most likely a hoax. Could not find any souces to back what this article says. Google search shows the term is most generally used for an entirely different thing. :D --soum (0_o) 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although I got a laugh from "It ... has not yet made a splash in the United States." EALacey 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is either a hoax or a shot at advertising...Flush twice.....--James.lebinski 00:15, 25 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 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Quirk[edit]

Municipal politician who attracts virtually no press coverage. Does not meet WP:BIO. Lincolnite 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect the real purpose of this entry may be found in the section headed External link. Spam. BTLizard 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for deletion. Unnecessary page - suggest local politician using to show he has an "entry" on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtuosoRusty (talk • contribs).

Delete. E-list talking head. Not notable or even close. Herostratus 12:02, 27 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. --Core desat 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takeover Radio[edit]

This article concerns a local radio station in the UK, or a "Community Licensed Radio Station". The station appears to broadcast children-produced content. The article includes a complete programming schedule, and now several of the "DJs" from the station are beginning to write articles on themselves. I'm uncertain how significant this station is in the UK, and hope to solicit input from native contributors. Clearly, the article needs cleanup; until verfication of its notability exists, Delete'. Xoloz 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article as it stands is purely promotional, and the radio station appears to have no significance to any editors other than those who are involved with the station itself.--Michig 08:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The radio station exists (I've listened to it) so why not? 87.113.77.61 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't satisfy WP:N - no secondary references. --Alvestrand 19:52, 25 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 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Bott[edit]

One of the aforementioned DJs for Takeover Radio. His notability is contingent on the decision there, I guess. Note the poor quality of the writing, however. Delete, pending verification from reliable sources. Consider The Dave Show part of this request as well. Xoloz 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both): The articles appears to have been written by the subject of the article themselves. Being a DJ on a local community radio station does not make him notable.--Michig 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Primary school... Brief illness... Dimitrii 19:53, 27 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 List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. There might be mergeable content here, but that is an editorial decision. --Core desat 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan[edit]

Beyond being killed at Virginia Tech, nothing notable about him. See also the still open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shaalan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily J. Hilscher, and the closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark, which resulted in a redirection to Virginia Tech massacre. Any information about commendations from Indonesia etc can be included in List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (if it survives AFD). Evil Monkey - Hello 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Update: The AFD on Emily J. Hilscher has been closed with the result being redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep because he is notable for saving Gil Colman's life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.197.205 (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep, because victim in one of the worst and most media covered school shootings ever. People WILL want to know about this person and it seems that more information is being added as to his notability by the moment. Very bad faith nomination . . . :( --172.167.132.145 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.167.132.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. How is this a bad faith nomination? Natalie 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is it just me or have I seen that exact same text used before? Tejastheory 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bad faith"? I seriously do believe that this article should be deleted, and am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia in anyway. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This person has exactly zero notability. As per the debates over the professor articles, I think a clear consensus has been reached over those that simply being a victim of the event is not nearly enough to be "notable". Rather, all of those are kept or delete according to their notability in academic or research terms. As a student, I don't think any serious academic notability will ever be found, and simply being a victim is not enough. Tejastheory 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the idea of having the article, but have trouble justifying this person's notably aside from their having made a stand to stop a shooter. While doing that was really awesome and deserves recognition, Wikipedia isn't the place to do that unless he receives something like the Medal of Freedom. --Matthew 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre or List of victims in the Virginia Tech Massacre. No new reasons here that haven't been said before, just take a look at the reasons in Emily J. Hilscher and Ryan C. Clark's AfDs. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Wikipedia is not for memorials and that's what this seems to be. eaolson 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Golly, this is beginning to seem like the film Groundhog Day: another day, another VT AfD. Can we stop this repetitive nonsense and speedy delete any future "articles"? All the previous arguments still apply, in particular, non-notable. WWGB 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that every single victim will have a page made sooner or later. Maybe we should go ahead and create pages for all the victims and just redirect them back to the list? That would probably save some time later. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not a bad idea - that might communicate the message that the issue has already been discussed and is settled, but of course it doesn't prevent anyone from editing the redirect. Natalie 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I know (unfortunately), but I would hope that it would give the impression that -- exactly what you said -- there has already been a discussion on the subject. This is definitely getting old quickly. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should be in EnviroGranny 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you elaborate on why you think this person should have an article? "Should be in" doesn't give the administrator who closes the discussion much to go on. Thanks! Natalie 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should also be noted that List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre just closed as a keep, citing that the members of the list were notable collectively, not individually. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ Keep(Corrected). Notable due to extensive media coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.95.224 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC); Corrected (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Under which conditions would this AfD fall under the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The information is coming from multiple reliable sources, notability is inherent in the coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh... same question as above. Under which conditions would this AfD fall under the criteria for speedy keep? Notice the link this time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - not a notable individual ugen64 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge any relevant information into List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. That is the most appropriate place for this. He does not appear to be any more notable than any of the other students who died. Thus, there is no reason for a seperate article. Rafy 04:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: "delete and merge" is not possible under the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- is not a professor nor is distinguished in any way -- attention to him is brought entirely because of his (tragic) participation in the events at VTech.Pablosecca 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and beiung killed is not enough to justify an article. Wikipedia is also not a newsmagazine with the top events of the week. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS for the views of several editors on this issue. Edison 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, for same reasons as Pablosecca. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as i have said for the others. They have received major individual news overage, or they surely will. The NYT and the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Ed. are all doing separate stories on each; their regional newspaper will as well. Even without broadcast coverage, that makes four. If the consensus does turn out otherwise, it implies major changes for WP:N, for it says that sourcing, no matter how much or how reliable, is no longer enough for a WP article. the sourcing requirement wa the one thread holding us together, but I'm prepared to work without it. DGG 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list or the main massacre page. --Witchinghour 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a memorial. His entry on the Resistance portion of the main VT massacre article is enough. —Ocatecir ^Talk 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list article as we did for that first victim, and we really need to do this for all the victims. The instant AFD debates that pop up are getting old. --Korranus 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. But fill all the information about the victims there as much as possible. I would love to keep this article though, but since I'm an amateur and don't really understand how Wikipedia works, I'm following the majority. He's notable enough though in my understanding, for his heroic act and such. Arie Riswandy 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect As with several other victims, no notability established beyond being a victim. Nom gives a good set of links for similar cases. StuffOfInterest 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, as was done with Emily Hilscher. I will support this article's recreation if Mr. Lumbantoruan becomes notable beyond having died in the massacre. Jeff Silvers 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; The information is contained in that article in greater detail; there is no need for a separate article on each of the victims, lest they have independent notability (as some of the VT staff do) --Mhking 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as in the three latest AfD discussions of VT victims. Victim of a tragedy, but no other assertions for notability. Medico80 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of you are missing the point of Notability. The point isn't to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules, the point is to eliminate articles we can never hope to write a decent article on. As DGG said, there will be more reliable media coverage on this guy than a substantial portion of our other biographicala rticles. As an aside, I strongly disagre with the above assertion that if we did X for Y person before, that means anytime Y comes up we should do X. No, if a mistake was made before there's no reason to repeat it for the sake of repeating mistakes.Chris Croy 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What mistakes? I'm just saying that there is no need to have this discussion 32 times. Medico80 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Medico80 -- which mistakes? Chris, what you're saying is that the community was wrong in its consensus, and more than once... interesting choice of words when Wikipedia is based on consensus. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome, but we're building an encyclopedia, and apparently that's easy to forget. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mistakes were the previous AfD's. Consensus changes. Sometimes it 'changes' solely based on who decided to show at AFD or which admin cleaned up the backlog. I say again: How someone acquires notability is completely irrelevent. If they are, they are, and that's it.Chris Croy 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent set by Emily J. Hilscher AfD. Subject does not seem notable enough to warrant a unique article. --ElKevbo 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons above and strong recreate of Emily J.'s article because MSNBC has been reporting throughout the day that police HAVE identified evidence of at least email contact of Cho and E.J. and therefore her role in this historical tragedy is garnering additional news attention and its encylopedic and research value is increasing daily. --164.107.223.217 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any such articles on the MSNBC website. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We really should wait until the news coverage has stopped before we decide which articles should be deleted and which are recreated for two reasons: 1) Notability will fluctuate in the next few weeks, and 2) after the news coverage has ended, there will be much less chance of our AfDs and DRVs being canvassed by SPAs and possible sockpuppets. We also should not forget that the List of victims was kept specifically because the group was notable, not the individuals. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. WP is not a memorial. --Keb25 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he obviously wasn't notable before this, and his death in this situation doesn't make him sufficiently notable now. Nyttend 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with list of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Ixfd64 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Christopher Connor 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable. This article will not set a bad example for further 'unencyclopedic' inclusions. This isn't someone writing about a local band. Evidence is that Mr. Lumbantoruan gave his life to save another potential victim. Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Joel K. 'Jay' Furr. --Neo-Jay 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with main article Virginia Tech Massacre, the VT students (including emily, ryan) are not yet notable with publications, honours, awards. However, the individual pages of VT faculty / professor victims should be kept (ref librescu, loganathan, granata). Also precedent on deletion and merging has already taken place on Emily, Ryan, Waleed Shalan's articles. (Personally I'm sad having to delete this article because he's Indonesian just like me, and from the same University as me, but we have to be consistent. No page for students, but give pages for prominent faculties based on WP:PROF) Chaerani 04:09, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:51Z

The most beautiful Arab cities[edit]

Opinion. Original research and inherently non-neutral. Deprodded w/o comment. Pan Dan 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research. Who says these are the most beautiful Arab cities? --Strangerer (Talk) 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every person on the planet will have a different opinion on this - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently not NPOV. --Xnuala (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. JuJube 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alternatively, if someone felt like taking the time to organize and collect the information, perhaps it could be changed into: "List of cities in the Middle east ordered by GDP" or "List of cities in the Middle East ordered by development investments" etc. --R e m i 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no contest here. The fact that I disagree with some of the listings is perhaps a sign of the problems :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Always going to be POV with this title. BTLizard 15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Original research and not neutral. —Anas ^talk? 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective and unsourced/unsourceable, violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Also, this Unites person does nothing else other than vandalising articles about middle-east countries with false data. Frigo 11:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An opinion piece better suited for someone's blog. --Oakshade 02:08, 26 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 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Nielsen[edit]

Somewhat related to above AfD on Dambaek entertainment. I am unable to find anything indicating that this person meets WP:BIO. Assertion of notability may be sufficiently lacking (a few vague statements, including "Mr. Nielsen's research... [has] not been published"... making at least half of this article violate WP:V) to warrant a CSD A7, but brought here in case anyone can find anything, and to avoid the appearance of systemic bias. Delete barring any sourcing from WP:RS that indicates this person meets any notability threshold. Kinu ^t/_c 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual; should have been speedied --Mhking 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the links at the bottom not help you chaps further and finding out about the notariety of nicky Nielsen in denmark?

Delete Cant be speedied if it asserts notability and claims published work; can be deleted here, because none of the work is published in reliable sources.DGG 05:32, 23 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. --Core desat 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialism effects on english language[edit]

Right now this article provides no useful information. "[The] English language has gradually evolved"... no, duh? Examples? Additionally, the page name itself is too awkward to be used for a future article. Delete. Guy Fuchsia 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that creole language is part of the result of this. 64.180.83.71 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic belongs in History of the English language, and the title is POV. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention even more directly International English, which discusses cultural imperialism. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Legitimate encyclopedic topic, but this article contains no useful content, and the title is too oddly worded and capitalised to be worth redirecting to anything. EALacey 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not necessary to state the blindingly obvious. BTLizard 15:12, 23 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 Merged and redirect to Ouse, Tasmania Gnan garra 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouse District High School[edit]

Stub regarding non-notable central school, see discussion at Albuera Street Primary AFD Ga rr ie 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion referened above.Ga rr ie 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ This may be salvagable by an editor with better access to sources but in its current state it doesn't state much more than the school's existence. Is it worth redirecting to the List of schools in Tasmania article? I would support allowing re-creation when better sources establishing notability are found. --Mattinbgn/^talk 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral pending expansion in the next few days.--Mattinbgn/^talk 04:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Unwritten Wikipedia policy seems to be that articles about high schools are noteworthy and should be kept. This high school is no different from the hundreds of others in Wikipedia; the difference is that this one has only minimal information. I suggest the Wikipedia community help expand the information in this article to include more significant and noteworthy information. Truthanado 00:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a central school (Kindergarten - Yr 10), not a "real" high school. I suggest there is one class each for K-6, most of them are probably combined classes - otherwise it would have split into two schools by now.Ga rr ie 06:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As Truthanado said, high schools are generally notable, primary schools generally aren't. I'll update this in the next couple of days. -- Chuq (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteEven by those standards, this one provides no information and no sources, and should be among the candidates for the few which aren't notable. . I'm somewhat of an inclusionist, and will tolerate an apparently informative article that can be sourced, or a well sourced article about something unimportant. But an unsourced article saying only the trivial is beyond my limits on any subject.DGG
Delete Note that a DHS is not a high school, it is effectively a country primary school which extends to Year 10. We were thinking of writing one for a DHS in WA but elected not to as we couldn't find any independent sources for anything other than its existence. Should merit a few lines under Ouse, Tasmania. Orderinchaos 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~Tasmania~~ Ouse, Tasmania per WP:LOCAL. If significant changes are made to this article, such that it is expanded with multiple reliable sources I may change my position. Burntsauce 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please explain how you would merge content for a single central school into an article about a state of Australia? Merge to Ouse, Tasmania I could understand. But how does one merge an unreferenced stub about a school into an article regarding a state?Garrie 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I meant Ouse, Tasmania and have gone back to correct my comment. Burntsauce 23:47, 25 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  ^(talk) 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable article. "Merge" anything useful (not available with ku:Special:Statistics (which isn't even fully translated)) to Wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on Wikipedias in other languages are quite helpful for the Wikipedia community. --Ali 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then move it to meta. "Wikipedia community needs it" is not an acceptable inclusion criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable website. Wikipedias are not automatically notable. Picaroon 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per m:Eventualism this article has good potential even if it is not asserting notability now. Wikipedias do not automatically meet WP:N but given the specific situation of kurdish and the Kurdish people, their language version is pretty special - if small... Witty lama 01:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So... you oppose deleting articles that don't meet our inclusion criteria, on the chance that they'll be better some day? Picaroon 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If and when it becomes notable, it can be recreated. AfD isnt a deletion sanction. We are discussing the subjects current state. By the way, this is a proposal to delete "Kurdish Wikipedia" article, not the actual "Kurdish Wikipedia" itself. -- Cat ^chi? 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do oppose deleting articles about topics that are on their way to notability. If it propves not to be notable, then is the time to remove it. DGG 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's on its way to notability? Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and set up some kind of policy for listing all the various language Wikipedias. Maybe that'll stop these borderline disruptive nominations. FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should set up a policy for deleting non-notable websites - oh yeah, we have one. Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't notable? But I've heard about it in the news. Does that mean we have to delete the whole site, or just the article on it? Seriously though, documenting Wikipedia is reasonable. This includes the foreign language versions. Thus I'd prefer a proposal on how to do so over these seemingly endless nominations. This is for full coverage, NPOV and because most of the foreign language versions are likely more covered in their native languages, and not English, making covering them difficult, but still important. FrozenPurpleCube 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...and "isn't even fully translated" is not a reason. --Killaruna | talk 2 me! 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is. It shows how much "complete" the language edition is. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all criteria, WP is WP:NOT paper. Yet another Kurdish article up for deletion, is anyone surprised? Carlossuarez46 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Kurdish language have to do with it? The site is non-notable, whether it's written in Kurdish, Igbo, or Pig Latin. Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Wikipedia with >5000, since we have articles on German Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia and so forth. I'm not sure I agree that we should have these articles in mainspace, but we can discuss that later. YechielMan 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the German Wikipedia is in another class - it is notable, because it has been covered by multiple independent sources. This article is on a non-notable subject. In addition, when those articles are nominated for deletion people will say "but look! the Kurdish Wikipedia was kept! Speedy close!" Picaroon 21:54, 23 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 are a lot of comments favoring a merge, but no strong consensus to do so. As merging is an editorial decision and a form of keeping the information, this debate is closed only as keep but discussion on whether to merge it or not is welcomed to continue on the article talk page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Family Guy[edit]

Most TV show histories on this wiki are placed on the show's main article. And what's with that unencyclopedic and offtopic "Uncensored" section? (trogga) 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Family Guy, no need for a separate article. --Canley 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate subsidiary article of Family Guy per Wikipedia:Summary style. EALacey 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. I did remove that "uncensored" section as completely unreferenced. Otto4711 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely redundant. Merge as needed with Family Guy, where this info belongs. / edgarde 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NOT#PAPER. Article is too long to merge, perfectly valid at present. Matthew 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SS. Good out of universe article. - Peregrine Fisher 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Family Guy. Neither article is terribly unwieldly, and merging would make a substantial, comprehensive whole. Captain Infinity 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the point of the main Family Guy article is to give an overview of the show, and should have a section on it's creation and such. Widdle down things and put back into that article. There are hundreds of shows in history far more important than family guy, and I don't see any "The History of C*H*I*P*S" articles floating around. Dannycali 22:48, 25 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 The result was delete. There really isn't an argument for keeping this page, and it's a classic demonstration of why Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ni (attack)[edit]

School fad neologism. A classic example of a page failing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Witty lama 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as total nonsense. This doesn't deserve the time of day on AFD. exolon 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-nonsense (tagged). JuJube 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that this page is silly it is not "nonesence" under the CSD definition - it is perfectly clear english. Furthermore, as per WP:CSD#Non-criteria neologisms do not belong at CSD. Witty lama 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing my vote, reasonably sensical albeit stupid. JuJube 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced school fad. janejellyroll 01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think it is worth noting that the original creator just blanked the page. Someguy1221 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry. I went away from my keyboard and my cousin blanked the page for a joke. I will restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianonavy (talk • contribs)
- Comment That's not a reason to keep. JuJube 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentFine then. here is a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianonavy (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~Look up Ni on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianonavy (talk • contribs)
- Comment And that is helpful how? In case you've forgotten, there's a popular sketch centered around the word "Ni", among a boatload of other things. JuJube 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "created by two students at an anonymous school" is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ianonavy - please address how this page can satisfy the criteria for a) WP:N#Notability_is_not_popularity, and b) Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This would be the best way to proceed. Witty lama 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do you think they think these things up in school on purpose? BTLizard 15:26, 23 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 g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh chapter brass[edit]

Brass band that does not meet WP:MUSIC: local tours and grant-funded recording only. Ga rr ie 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria at WP:BAND, needs more independent coverage / more touring (international) / self-funded recordingGa rr ie 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from the band's website. So tagged. EALacey 12:23, 23 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.