< April 25	April 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge back into Aaron Sorkin. NawlinWiki 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin[edit]

Unnecessary fork from Aaron Sorkin#Awards and honors - the important ones are already listed there. The "honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin" are not so notable or significant in themselves that they also deserve their own article. Masaruemoto 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. All those episodes ARE notable. The entire list is of notable episodes of TV shows, where in fact most of the episodes even have their own articles.-BillDeanCarter 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read his statment again, he said the awards are not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this a featured article list! It's basically a stub at this point, and will be improved, especially as the years go by.-BillDeanCarter 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the article title being wrong (Sorkin is American, so it should be "honors"), the awards he has won can be mentioned in his article (nominations are rarely worth mentioning). TJ Spyke 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is an extension of the FA on Aaron Sorkin. The material was previously in the main article on Aaron Sorkin, but the list grew too large, and these facts were in turn used to write up a paragraph or two summarizing the awards and honors he received. How many bytes does this take up? Not much.-BillDeanCarter 02:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnecessary. Should belong in Aaron Sorkin. Half are just nominations anyway. Black Harry 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the Aaron Sorkin article, and then at FAC they decided that it deserved it's own article, so I complied. And this article is not just nominations anyway because you can actually see which episodes got the nominations and awards. It's interesting to see which episodes were considered the best, and come on, every single West Wing episode has an article, so let's not worry about a single list. I wish the deletionists would create more often.-BillDeanCarter 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the FAC for Sorkin (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaron Sorkin), and nowhere in it is there any mention of branching off the awards section. In fact, this article was created 6 hours BEFORE Sorkin's article was nominated for FAC, so how did they decide at the FAC that this needed to be created? Please be aware in the future that people will check on your statements, so lying is not a good idea. TJ Spyke 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Lying? Leave the vitriol to me, I'm the one whose work is being deleted here. So 6 hours before, huh? You think that's coincidence? Maybe there was a discussion going on in and around the FAC nomination, but it happened during that time when the article was heading towards FA. Regardless, there was a discussion where it was decided to fork, and rightly so.-BillDeanCarter 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, you said they decided to do this at the FAC. So you lied there. Second, I see no mention of splintering the article on Sorkin's talk page either. So this splintering was never mention on the subjects talk page or his FAC page. TJ Spyke 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Please look up lie in Merriam-Webster. Wait, I'll do it for you. lie:It's to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. I am not so ridiculous that I would lie about something so utterly ridiculous.-BillDeanCarter 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof See here [[1]] where Shudda suggested de-listing during the peer review, which I still think was a good idea.-BillDeanCarter 08:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted to deceive people by thinking that others supported making this article. You just presented more proof that no one even suggested making an article for his awards (Shudda suggests one paragraph for it). TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my great attempt to deceive you about the creation of this list. I'm glad you have pointed it out. I finally admit to it. It was a moment of weakness. I'm in the habit of hatching lies that are based on truths, so that I can start a false war over an article's right to exist at Wikipedia. It's something I do, and you are in no way ridiculous. I am.-BillDeanCarter 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go delete all the Anime character articles if you have nothing better to do, but don't waste time deleting a list of someone's awards, who is way more talented than any of you will ever be, because it doesn't meet your standards.-BillDeanCarter 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other people will not help convince anyone. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i'd be for deleting all the anime character's pages. I someone were to nominate them i'd agree and do everything to have them deleted. If its so important to you why don't you do it? Black Harry 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, but that is besides the point. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - why don't you just trim this down and put it back? The current blurb in the article seems sufficient - you could flesh it out by explaining the number of nominations also. A whole article seems un-necessary. Also, the attitude is really not helping. --Haemo 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those nominations are just as interesting as the awards. For someone interested in Aaron Sorkin's works a nomination or an award are equally notable, because what you pull from that is that those episodes are the most worthwhile to watch from a critical point of view. If you ever stroll through a screenwriter's most critically acclaimed episodes you learn a lot. This is what this list provides, and it's not available anywhere else.-BillDeanCarter 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's not have unnecessary forked lists. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. Some editorial restraint needs to be exercised with only major awards being merged back into the main article. Cleo123 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list took time to pull together, and is the reason that the blurb in the article exists. If someone is interested in the works of Aaron Sorkin then they want to know which of his works received acclaim. It is outrageous that there are other lists out there (I will not waste time drudging them up, you know where they are to be found) that are of little import and yet exist here at Wikipedia. Let's not forget the context here, Aaron Sorkin is one of the most celebrated of screenwriters, and knowing which of his works are the most critically acclaimed is vital to any study of him. This list harms no one, and I could, and just might now, make this article an FA list. It is relevant, and I understand no one here even really knows who Aaron Sorkin is, but he is a modern day Charles Dickens in many ways, and we could all justify a list of awards for Dickens' serial narratives, couldn't we? We'd all love to know which chapters of Dickens were most favored. So let's end this ridiculous deletion, and Keep this article. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone is interested in every single nomination (which is not notable. Award wins are, nominations aren't), there are plenty of fan sites for those. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the hell is a fan site? Bury them. This is an encyclopedic article and for anyone showing up to read about Aaron Sorkin with an interest in TV writing, will be most interested in the Further reading section, picking up a few of his scriptbooks, and the awards section where they will compare the acclaimed episodes to those in the scriptbooks, to even their favorite episodes. There is real value in that list to the student of Sorkin's works.-BillDeanCarter 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What happened to comprehensiveness? Remember, Aaron Sorkin is his works. That's what he's well known for. So notable is any episode that won an award or was nominated. Those are the notable ones.-BillDeanCarter 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think everyone appreciates the time and effort that you have put into compiling this information for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, inclusion of a free standing article of this nature opens a potential pandora's box for Wikipedia as a whole. I am not adverse to the information being merged back into the main article, but perhaps it can be reformatted and consolidated a bit? Your passion for the subject matter is appreciated. I'm sure that you only want the article to be the best that if can be - but let's keep it one article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this banner? ((user increm))

I've put up all my arguments, no one seems to be considering them, and the not notable argument is bunk. Let's be rational, and not gang up on an article that was good enough for EVERYONE reviewing the Aaron Sorkin article during FAC. Only good idea come out of this debate is that the article be moved to List of the honors and awards of Aaron Sorkin.-BillDeanCarter 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorkin's article was good enough for FAC, not this one. TJ Spyke 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Have you seen some of the lists that make it through Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. GO look at them right now and we can end this right now.-BillDeanCarter 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.75 million articles, and the relevancy of this one is being argued over and over again by me. I think it's safe to say this article is staying.-BillDeanCarter 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is one most users accept (including many admins). So far, you are the only one who thinks it should stay, and you haven't provided a good reason. Heck, you even lied to make it seem like others supported creating the article in the first place. Also, I am not wrong because this article is NOT a Featured Article, Sorkin's FA status doesn't mean anything. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that to say, there is no pandora's box to be afraid of opening if you follow the philosophy that "with the incremental growth in the number of Wikipedia articles over time, items which were once deemed to be insufficiently notable to have articles may eventually prove notable enough for entry."-BillDeanCarter 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge How about going through [Category:Television lists] and bringing this hammer down on all of them. Instead of all against me, how about all against everyone doing what I'm doing for notable articles.-BillDeanCarter 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, try to calm down. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down? Are you kidding me? Not everyone can understand the value of every article at Wikipedia, so I'm trying to be as furious as I can in conveying the necessity that this article Keep. It's not even done yet!-BillDeanCarter 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being furious to defend your article will definitely not help. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have another article called List of the writings of William Monahan, an incredibly difficult article to pull together, not yet done, requiring me to travel to complete it, and I would go absolutely ballistic if it was deleted. So for me, this fight is much more than one article. I know people think Trivia all the time, one of the biggest fallacies in knowledge ever, because as long as you put things in the right context almost everything will have a meaning.-BillDeanCarter 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You best not look at [[this, then. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some of the articles you have created may have taken a while to compile (I'm pretty sure that this article took a while) but also remember that you don't own articles you have made yourself. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I write at Wikipedia is to share.-BillDeanCarter 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the eff? Holy crap, I just had an aneurysm. User:Sr13 has his own page at Wikipedia for his awards: User:Sr13/Awards.-BillDeanCarter 09:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a user subpage, it's not part of the mainspace. WP guidelines specifically allow users to create subpages for things like personal awards, see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should every celebrity who has won or been nominated for awards now be entitled to a free standing article dedicated to those awards - or just Mr. Sorkin? That is the Pandora's Box being opened here. BillDeanCarter, you do need to calm down. This is not personal. Cleo123 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can justify it, then why not. Think of all the articles that are related to Sorkin's works here at Wikipedia with no question of their notability. Every West Wing episode has an article, regardless of it's notability. Well, this list you all want to delete basically justifies the existence of a select bunch of those articles. Mr. Sorkin isn't just any celebrity, he is one of the few celebrities amongst Screenwriters, so it's deserved. David E. Kelley's awards and nominations would equally merit an article, if there are in fact enough, which I imagine there are.-BillDeanCarter 08:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I say- just mention the notable awards the person has won (say, the Emmy) and mention that in the article. Don't list the years or the miscellenious awards this person has won. Do this (if this has not been done already), then delete. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you have about a twentieth the number of awards that Aaron Sorkin has and yet you have your own user page for your awards? Where is your Delete coming from? What part of Neverland have you people taken me to tonight?-BillDeanCarter 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user subpage and a mainspace page are not the same. Read Wikipedia:Subpages. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. This user is far less important than he/she thinks he/she is. Jimbo Wales deserves his own awards page as does Aaron Sorkin. End of story.-BillDeanCarter 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't attack me. Thanks. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some counts and actual awards back into Aaron Sorkin. Sadly, effort is not a criteria for inclusion. I feel for you, BDC, I've had pages I spent a great deal of time on merged, deleted and diluted. But there's no such this as article ownership. I hope I'm not setting myself up for personal attacks here, and I'd like to ask everyone on both sides to keep it cool and assume good faith. Everyone here is just trying to make Wikipedia better. -- Plutor ^talk 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any pertinent information back to Aaron Sorkin. "Awards of" pages are generally superfluous, as they tend to simply be a dumping grounds for every minor and sundry award or accolade someone can dredge up. A short list of major, notable awards as a section on the parent article is more than adequate. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: per above as unwarranted fork, placing undue weight on this subject. God in heaven. The main article for Sorkin is already larger than the articles for all of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize Literature winners combined. That Mr. Carter considers him the greatest human being alive is possible, but if his defense of this fork rests on scouting out the talk pages of every editor daring to oppose his POV in search of dirt and insults to fling, then I strongly urge Mr. Carter to take a Wikibreak, during which he would be well advised to correct some of his profound misimpressions of what Wikipedia is and is not. RGTraynor 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so off-base. TJ Spyke attacked me when he called me a liar; I mistook the creation of this list occurring in FAC when in fact it occurred in peer review. Mr. Sorkin is not the greatest human being alive but one of the greatest screenwriters alive and so we should know some of the reasons why. The particular utility of the awards/nominations list? -- is that you can go watch all those nominated/awarded episodes afterwards. It's kind of a guide to the other Wikipedia articles on those TV episodes, whose notability themselves has never been challenged. How about leave this list alone?-BillDeanCarter 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, on this AFD, that the FAC suggested that you create this article. This does not appear to be true - it was never mentioned in the discussion for FAC, nor was it mentioned on the talk page for the article. I have not seen any evidence presented that creating this list was discussed at all. What was mentioned was what many have suggested here - that you trim it down to a single paragraph. While you may not have intended to deceive anyone, you do appear to have mislead people - and one would be inclined to believe intentionally, given that the false statement was arguing for your position. Your passion is appreciated, but you seem to insist on attacking other users, rather than explaining why what you did was a mistake, or was not misleading, and (apparently) combing people's user-pages in order to drag in unrelated material, in what I can only surmise is an attempt to reduce their credibility. You need to seriously cool off, and accept the advice that other, experience, editors are telling you. You don't own this article, and you don't own this list. --Haemo 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked in the entire discussion and here's the diff [[2]]. So stop calling me a liar, and let's talk about the more substantial arguments.-BillDeanCarter 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never called you a liar - and it's really insulting that you feel the need to slander me as such - I merely explained that I believed there had been a misunderstanding, or a mistake, and asked for clarification and some sembelence of good faith. However, you feel we need to discussion the more substantial arguments - so let's. The rationale for creating this list was the suggestion of one user on the FAC page - here, several different editors are telling you that they believe that this was a mistake, and that this topic would be better served by being trimmed and integrated into a single page. You have largely rebuffed this by arguing that other inferior stuff exists and so your article should stay, or that your article's subject is sufficiently famous that such a list is important. Only the latter of these is even worth seriously discussing - however, one will notice that most of the listings here are nominations for awards; not actually winning them. There is ample space availible on the main page for a summary of the awards he's won, and the number of times he's been nominated - if you feel those are important. Any more detailed information can be merged into the specific episodes that were nominated - and then linked from the article, contextually. This will not only provide the material you desire to be included in the encyclopedia, but strike a nice balance between depth and length. --Haemo 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reference work like Wikipedia should have a complete biography including nominations, and splitting from the main article is a good compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article. If the awards and honors are worthy of inclusion there, great; if not, they're trivia and ought to go. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge, when someone will simply suggest later on that it merits its own article. And round and round we go.-BillDeanCarter 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of a repeat performance is no reason to abdicate the issue and settle on an inferior solution. If community consensus is that the article is not encyclopedic, and is deleted, and someone recreates it then more than likely it'll fail a future deletion debate. And if it gets too "round and round" the entry can be protected to prevent future re-creation. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. If anyone wants to add the highlights to Aaron Sorkin, go crazy, but it's not worth a separate list nor should there really be any GFDL issue regarding credit that requires a redirect. --Calton | Talk 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - i think one needs to be dispassionate about an afd, and use guidelines, rather than anecdotes when trying to reach a consensus. i find a list of noms/wins to be statistical data. if wiki is not a list of stats, then it should be deleted. the_undertow ^talk 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you left out a noun or a verb. I think you left out a lot more too, and it's this disregard for facts that is behind all the great travesties. Why is Aaron Sorkin celebrated as one of the greatest screenwriters, well see the List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin for the proof. Dispassion? Absolute nonsense. I suggest everyone have a little more passion.-BillDeanCarter 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think my sentence stands as grammatically correct. dispassionate - yes, that is the nature of the beast. this article either meets guidelines for inclusion or it does not, regardless of anyone's feelings towards the subject. the_undertow ^talk 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which nouns or verbs are missing? "Badgering", perhaps? And as for "one of the greatest screenwriters", 1) that's your opinion, not something Wikipedia trafficks in; and 2) I'm not seeing the words "Academy Awards" anywhere there, unlike for Robert Towne, Paddy Chayefsky, Woody Allen, David Mamet, Billy Wilder, or Lawrence Kasdan, just to name a few off the top of my head. Not that they should be getting separate lists, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! How about Emmy and WGA? This is _EXACTLY_ why this list of his honors and awards has to exist, so that people who are ignorant about TV writers can learn a thing or two. You don't win an Academy Award for a TV series.-BillDeanCarter 00:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Emmy and WGA? Free clue: those other screenwriters have won those, too, and more. Someone unaware of the larger world of screenwriting really has no business gassing on about "ignorance". --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, your attempts to antagonize the creator of this article are not useful. [3] This is a valuable contributor and there is no reason to throw salt in the wounds. You've made your point. I would suggest you move on. Cleo123 05:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo123, your bad-faith attempts at mind-reading are not useful. I'm addressing his claims, and there is no reason to stick your nose into things you neither are following or have shown any interest in. I would suggest you move on to other bits of busy-bodying. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goody!, more lists of awards. Look what I found: List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards. Who wants to be the first to put that up for deletion?-BillDeanCarter 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea for some fun!, let's delete 100,000 articles in a week. A little bit of a challenge, I know, but we could seriously decimate a good part of this encyclopedia if we were successful. This reminds me of the film industry in a way, where you start of with one writer and his screenplay, and you fire him, hire another writer to rewrite parts, chopping a scene here, and then there, and before you know it the entire story doesn't fit together anymore and you're left with a real neat clean generic thing that's got consensus.-BillDeanCarter 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea for some fun!, let's delete 100,000 articles in a week By my rough count, 30,000 to 40,000 pages/images already get deleted every single week, so it's certainly an achievable goal. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic definitely doesn't help, and your argument isn't so good as well. If you don't like the idea of consensus (which is, by the way, official policy), you don't have to edit here. If you want those articles to be deleted, you can do that yourself and nominate that page for deletion. Don't be disruptive as well.

Also, deleting 100,000 lists a week seems like a lot to me. I don't think there are that many on this encyclopedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 02:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mon petit, I did not mean 100,000 a week, but 100,000 for one week as a one time deal. But that would be detail (or nuance for those silly literates), which we certainly cannot tolerate if we are to appease the crowd.-BillDeanCarter 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this pit bull demeanor is helping your argument in the least degree? Wrap your head around this: by and large, we disagree with you. Repeated jeering and polemics only suggests that you're employing them in lieu of any legitimate grounds or rebuttal. RGTraynor 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you guys have swayed me. I want to put the pressure cooker on the whole mass of articles at English Wikipedia. Let's raze every list that can't justify itself. I know, I tried to argue that this list was notable with arguments, but you all set me straight by repeating that it wasn't notable. I forgot that arguments don't matter, it is mob mentality (we do live in a democracy after all) that has the final say. So let's start a WikiProject even, and raze all that cruft, and for those who like to eat cruft for dessert, I'll even move some of those articles to your user pages.-BillDeanCarter

Disrupting Wikipedia in order to prove your point or exact some sort of revenge against the community would not be advisable. See WP:POINT. No one has "ganged up" on you or Sorkin. I believe the editors participating in this discussion have reasonably expressed nuetral, unbiased opinions. Your passion for the subject matter seems to have impacted your ability to maintain objectivity. For goodness sake, take a little break and calm down. You are a gifted editor and you are now harming your reputation within the community. Is a stand alone list really worth compromising your working relationships with others? Cleo123 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm about to resign. My list List of the writings of William Monahan just got AfD'ed. That's about all I can take. Lot of work went into that. I'm not fighting for it. Others will, and if it goes I will be gone for good.-BillDeanCarter 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, calm down. If you'll notice, that editor has nothing to do with this WP:AFD, and you have no reason to believe they're in any way related. Characterizing this as an "attack" and getting histrionic about it are really unnecessary, and insulting to the other users here. --Haemo 04:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this really push the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I don't really see how we're supposed to even have a discussion with you, when you're intent on acting like this. -Haemo 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent that we can't, and it isn't as if any such discussion would be fruitful. I suggest that the closing admin has enough upon which to rule without belaboring things further. RGTraynor 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank god. For a second there I thought there would be a tidal wave of sympathy for my situation. Here I believed that finally people would see a light (mine), and decide that a really nice list could be put together, with some comments about the controversy around some of the awards, and helpful links into the West Wing episodes that were nominated, and other interesting minutiae that makes reading such a joy.-BillDeanCarter 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when you're hired to write Mr. Sorkin's biography, no doubt all that minutiae will find a proper home there. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for hagiography. RGTraynor 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I believe I was done with writing about Aaron Sorkin's biography a few months ago, until some recent fetishist decided to go on a rampage (there have been other victims of Masaruemoto AfDs) and chop my article up. I was DONE. But now you want a biography. I'd much rather write a column about Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now threatening Wikipedia with some form of negative publicity as retaliation? Please, clarify. Cleo123 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I would much rather delve into the problems I see, than go back and write a biography about Aaron Sorkin. I am an incrementalist I am learning, and I believe some of the best stuff can be found when you move an article over into something depthier. For instance, my List of the writings of William Monahan (great I'm already starting my defense for that one), which looks at Monahan's articles, has been an incredibly interesting endeavor for me, and I know others would like to read it. His articles are scattered, hidden, no one reports on them, but I have found them piece by piece. Anyways, if Wikipedia isn't the place for that kind of intrigue then it's going to get dull very soon.-BillDeanCarter 04:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of your meticulous research and have little doubt that you are truly motivated by a sincere desire to make Wikipedia a truly comprehensive resource. Your efforts are to be applauded. Please, do not misconstrue debates over the formation of freestanding articles to necessarily be attacks upon the intrinsic value of the information contained therein. What is on the butcher block here is the article. Much of the information can be merged back into the main article. These are two different situations, and I don't want to muddy the water by discussing Monahan here. Forking off from the main article is frowned upon, to some degree, because precedents can be set that create problems elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Whenever possible, it is best to incorporate the data into the main article, which also minimizes navigational issues for readers. It's that simple. No one is attacking you or trying to diminish the value of your contributions. If you think of this as a "formatting" issue - I think you'll fare better emotionally. Keep your chin, up! This too shall pass... Peace, Cleo123 05:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you insist on attacking other users, rather than working with them. Please, calm down - it would be a shame if you left the encyclopedia over something like this. --Haemo 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Given the impassioned nature of the above defense, I was rather expecting this list to be longer than it. I see no reason why it cannot be pared down into prose form, listing the salient awards and perhaps a simple count of associated nominations ("...and was nominated for four others", or the like) and re-inserted into the appropriate section of the parent article. Serpent's Choice 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Serpent's Choice, above--additionally, if others can be persuaded to vote Merge and bring this matter to a swift resolution, I'll pare down the Aaron Sorkin article myself so it can better accommodate the information. It's a very well-done list, as lists go--I believe I can work it into the article pretty seamlessly. I'm not proposing drastic revisions to the main article, by the by, just some light copyediting to tighten things up. Best regards, Wysdom 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mine says "delete", but if you read what I've been saying, I really mean "trim and merge". --Haemo 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: the subject may be notable, but a list of his awards is not notable enough for a separate article. There is a long paragraph on his awards in the main article. We do not need this duplicated by a spearate list. Peterkingiron 22:19, 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 as non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 13:46Z

Big Beat Battalion[edit]

non notable as a band and reads like an advertisement, doesn't meet wp:music Aerno 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some sources can be provided to assert notability. I could not find any information on this band. --Cyrus Andiron 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article reflects a band which is getting rising air play, and is being noted in serveral music magazines and articles. I think a clean-up of entry would be better suited then a deletion. Hackajar 21:20, 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, WjBscribe 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and let it be recreated should they satisfy one of these criteria.the_undertow ^talk 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs to establish notability. Idioma 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability, reads like an ad. Resolute 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. A simple google search only returns things like myspace, wikipedia itself, and "free music downloads". GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough at this juncture in their careers. Cleo123 06:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Did it snow? Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 08:44, 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 No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Downes[edit]

Not a notable person. This artist bio does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases -->Creative professionals - no independent 3rd party reference / no significant or well-known work, or collective body of work / no permanent collection in a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance. Other claims by editor and others do not show notablility other than ordinary notability for this class of profesional. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already had third-party references, but they were incorrectly listed under external links rather than references. I added some material. I think that the article now passes WP:BIO. --Eastmain 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem I noted is not a lack of references, it is a lack of references that meet Wikipedia's criteria. None of the links supplied in that article meet the criteria because: 4 of them are media announcements derived from press releases from a commercial gallery (a gallery press release is not a independent 3rd person source that establishes notability), and one is NOT about the subject at all, it is about the subjects husband and what a good wife the subject is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete - three of the references are in a language I don't speak a word of, one only mentions her as part of a laundry list of artists and one is about her husband rather than her, but I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that she's more important than this article as it stands makes her seem - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:52, 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, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the majority of references do not directly discuss her works nor profession, in any depth, whatsoever. all the references seem to do is prove that she exists. the_undertow ^talk 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spanish references are as R as English.The one in ElMundo is a full feature length article, primarily about her, and at considerable length; a key phrase is "la obra de Doris Downes como producto de una refinada sensibilidad plástica, un espíritu inquisitivo y una técnica pictórica -basada en la acuarela- que consigue un gran efecto de frescura y luminosidad." which should be clear enough. The others are less significant & wouldn't do as sole sources: circulodelarte is a brief article about her,. and the one in e-barcelona is a significant part of a general review. Yes, her husband is more famous but that doesn't keep her from being N in her own right. DGG 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i dont think that phrase in quotes is 'clear enough,' by virtue of the fact that it is not in english. since this is the english language wiki, i think refs should be in english. one can see the difficulty in verifying a source when one doesnt speak that language. it also is problematic when a user has to take the word of another, especially when it comes to an issue of verifiability. imo, the el mundo article is nothing more than an open invite to her exhibit. there is something in me that believes the article is not doing this woman justice, but so far, i don't think these references are of much use. the_undertow ^talk 07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Sorry to drop in another comment... don't want to troll, but the phrase "la obra de Doris Downes como producto de una refinada sensibilidad plástica, un espíritu inquisitivo y una técnica pictórica -basada en la acuarela- que consigue un gran efecto de frescura y luminosidad." translated via Altavista.com's Babel Fish is "the work of Doris Downes like product of one refined plastic sensitivity, an inquisitive spirit and a pictorial technique - based on the watercolor that obtains to a great effect of freshness and luminosity." I fail to see how this quote in any way gives notability since, #1 - being "good at painting" is not in Wikipedia's notability criteria, and #2 - the quote is by the subjects husband, Robert Hughes - totaly failing the independent criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, is this AFD a joke? The subject is very clearly notable. Additional references simply need to be added. Cleo123 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs better references.--Vintagekits 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: fails WP:BIO. Only 142 Google hits, many of them not referring to this subject, and of the ones that do, almost all of them (like the references cited) are trivial mentions in connection with her more famous husband. I'd like to see some verifiable proof of notability, please. Ravenswing 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As with every time I use the "not referenced" reason for a delete !vote, I've made an attempt to find "proper" references, and am drawing a blank on this one. I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I think the people saying "just add more refs" need to try and dig some out rather than assume "they must be there" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mm, I do the same, and I agree with you: the "just add more refs" or "it seems notable" arguments drive me up a wall. This is an encyclopedia here, and we can't assume a goddamn thing. Policy explicitly states that it is up to the editors who wish to save an article under threat of deletion to find and insert the proper references, and lacking those references, an article must be deleted. Ravenswing 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGT. Eusebeus 15:54, 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 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGem Productions[edit]

Non notable company. I can not find any third party items, but it appears to be in partnership with many companies/organisations, and/or the central company in a group. It was created by what amounts to a single purpose account- creating lots of articles related to this company, and with no real editing outside of it. Delete, unless sources can be found. J Milburn 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Technicalnote 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) This company has worked with many big companies and is affiliated with notable organizations. I used to work for a Circuit City store in the San Fernando Valley and I remember iGem Productions doing some internal marketing work for them as well. I feel they are as notable as other agencies such as Saatchi and Saatchi or Ogilvy & Mathers.— Technicalnote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--Macaddictguy 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I included iGem Productions in wikipedia because of their charitable contributions to education, educators, and for creating an non-profit organization promoting educational reform. I work for the LAUSD and was impressed at how much this company cares about charities and education. Most companies donate money to charity for the tax incentives, whereas this company offers real services to schools for free, and does not even ask for documentation to write it off. They help schools because they genuinely care about education and our youth. As a gift they created a distribution system for a Community Outreach program which enabled thousands of under-privileged families in Los Angeles to be effectively fed. They did not even publicize doing this, which I felt was incredibly humble and notable, thus meriting inclusion in Wikipedia.[reply]

Comment: Nothing that has been said confers notability as per WP:CORP. The lack of contributions, and mirrored inability to express opinions correctly in AfD debates, as well as the incorrect use of signatures, makes me think that Technicalnote and Macaddictguy are the same person. If so, I implore you to read WP:SOCK. J Milburn 17:39, 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, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment; I spotted the identical signature misplacement and came to the same conclusion as you (that they were sockpuppets) before I realised you'd got there first. Fourohfour 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per no 2ndary sources the_undertow ^talk 02:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the sections of the article on Professional Affiliations (the state & two local chambers of commerce, and D&B --no trade organizations.) and--unique in my experience-- IGem_Productions#Advertises With DGG 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inclusion in Wikipedia is not a reward for good deeds, unless such deeds make the company notable. Lack of secondary sources asserting notability does not help.

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

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

Result was Keep. - Caknuck 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Stocken[edit]

Vanity page. This person's main claim to fame is booing a respected and eminent composer (Birtwistle). Seneca_2007 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough. Has at least two major published works, several recordings and seems an important contemporary musician. Quite a well written article to which the subject has contributed fairly little, apart from a POV removing rewrite 12 months ago. –MDCollins (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From the history of the page Frederick Stocken himself drafted the majority of the current article so it represents his opinion of his own work. He deleted biographical information critical of his work without explaining why. I can't see any evidence on the page that he has published any major works. Of the two published works described one is an instruction manual which Frederick Stocken describes as popular but there is no other evidence. The issue is not if he is notable but whether this is a vanity page written by him and his friends. Paul Cadman 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer this page to be deleted if it is only going to refer to bad reviews of my music. There are plenty of other good reviews of my pieces that could appear on this site, though alas, not many of them are on the internet. These are reviews in mainstream national publications, so if you would like to have them, I could send them. However, if I were to add those to the site, then it really would be a vanity page! I did not choose to have an article about me in widipedia, and simply expanded the information to include the factual stuff that is already there. The user who constantly wishes to link the information to views that are heavily one-sided of my work clearly has his own agenda. Frederick Stocken.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per he was published. i don't feel that one major edit by the subject justifies ridding wiki of the article. the_undertow ^talk 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, F.S., if there are other reviews please either add them to this page or add them to the article yourself and tell us. They do not have to be online, but if print only it would be informative to include a short key quotation. DGG 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep while I do agree with the nom that it seems a bit like a vanity page, this guy still seems pretty notable and as the_undertow said, he was published. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of the person who made the last-but-one comment, here are some press quotes about my music for what they are worth - most comments critics write, both good and bad, are usually just journalistic gunk anyway:

“At last a young English composer has chosen to write accessible, beautiful music which is unashamedly passionate and melodic.” The Evening Standard

“…it is music which makes me believe that a new Sibelius or a new Elgar has been born.” The Spectator

“… one of the most promising talents of his generation….it is refreshing to find a composer who is producing music which is clear, profound, free-flowing and superbly composed.” The Sunday Telegraph.

“Stocken is forging his own language.” Nottingham Evening Post.

“Stocken’s work will also prove popular with players for he has written very much a showpiece for the violin.” The Strad.

“The Agnus Dei of his Mass was beautiful and quite striking with ladders of woodwind rising against the sound of the solo singers, soon to be shattered by the sound of war (as in, but not like, Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis.)” The Tablet.

“Stocken has managed to create something like a ‘symphony of the city’ that is suitable for our time, which makes you breathless and sometimes invites you to rest.” Wetzlauer Neue Zeitung

“Frederick Stocken has written a surprisingly melodic score especially for this entertaining spectacle, reminiscent of the late romantics.” Giessener Anzeiger.

Although by and large I try to stay out of musical controversy now, it is true that I was fairly vocal in the mid 1990s with criticisms about the 'new music establishment.' I think a lot of the points I made way back then were, and still are, valid, but for many years I have just wanted to get on with my own composition, and other musical activities, and that whole period in my life is (and seems)a long time ago. Frankly, being in the front-line - and firing line - proved to be a very harrowing experience on a personal and creative level. Since then I have been very fortunate to have had a number of commissions and performances. However, in the age of the internet, my past as an 'enfant terrible' - or whatever you like to call it - keeps coming back to haunt me, and there are quite a few people, who still seem to take considerable exception to me. What's especially annoying about this in the case of my being included in Wikipedia is that, even if you decide to keep this article about me, and just to make it a factual page - which is what I attempted to make it - what is there to stop someone coming along and changing it back to what is currently there, ie making it an article that only contains references to bad reviews of my work? There is someone out there who seems intent on making it like this, and has been fairly persistent. Frederick Stocken

Keep: Seems notable enough and the article isn't badly written. Speedything 08:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This fellow is garnering regular reviews in the mainstream media, which by the standards of contemporary orchestral composers is a very strong degree of notability. Whether the links provided are disparaging or not is irrelevant to this disussion. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is clearly a notable modern British composer, if such a thing isn't a contradiction in terms, and anyone who booed Harrison Birtwistle certainly knows something about music. His music has been reviewed in a wide variety of newspapers and the fact that he edited this article to make it more accurate is no reason to delete it. Nick mallory 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for interjecting again, but IF this article is kept on Wikipedia - and I know it may not - please could one of the editors ensure that there is something to counter-balance the one very negative opinion of my work that has been inserted as a link. That this might be possible has already been suggested by someone earlier in this discussion, but I would really hate to see the article kept, and only have this real stinker of a review listed. I think that the very first article about me on Wikipedia, which, needless to say, I had absolutely nothing to do with, didn't have this link. This Wikipedia article is the first thing that comes up about me in Google at the moment and I have already had several remarks in the real world from people who have read the Wiki article and have sympathised about the bad reception of my music. However, this is only a very one-sided representation of the critical response to my music. As I said originally, if there cannot be any counterbalance to this negative review cited, I would much rather not have any article about me at all. Do I have any rights in this matter? Frederick Stocken

Keep as per Nick mallory and Pleather. That Stocken's work has attracted significant attention is a fact. As for the "Guardian" link , Berlioz got terrifying critiques too. "Molti nemici, molto onore". Stammer 18:08, 30 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 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Das U-Boot for LEON3[edit]

Maybe because it's so technical and lacking in context, but I can't figure out what makes this product notable. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While right now it may be hard to find notability in the article at this time, perhaps some cleaning up or expansion could remedy the situation instead of deletion. Jmlk17 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That would be fine with me... are there reliable sources that we could add to confirm the notability? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:19, 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, WjBscribe 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up nothing outside of Wikipedia. YechielMan 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per this is an instruction manual, and an arbitrary one at that. the_undertow ^talk 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only systems currently supported for this "universal" loader are 2 simulators & 1 add-in board , all from the same NN company.DGG 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a how-to guide, and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Guinnog 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to manual; it may be a decent article if rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia article. — Wenli 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Someguy1221 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to guide. —dima /talk/ 04:34, 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 and move to Wikisource, here. NawlinWiki 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Retrospection[edit]

This articles content is minimal- it is basically a reprint of the poem (which is what Wikisource is for) some background details, some talk of a metaphor at the start, and a list of themes. I don't think there really is much that can be said on the subject. Despite the fact it is the only one of her poems mentioned on Charlotte Brontë's article, it doesn't appear to be one of the more notable- it doesn't get mentioned much. I am not going to say it doesn't exist, there are a few web references, but not many. Delete. J Milburn 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - Given time I probably could write a sourced-and-referenced wikipedia-valid article on From Retrospection - one of the earliest published works to not only evoke an elaborately worked out fantasy world without ever describing it but to implicitly compare it to the real world (a mainstay of 20th century writing, from The Hobbit to Comfortably Numb) - but Wikipedia isn't the place for an article consisting purely of a reprint of the poem itself and a couple of lines of literary criticism - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:06, 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, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource because they don't have a copy of the poem. Since there's not much else in the article except some background information, my instinct is to delete, but I don't feel strongly about it. At any rate, the article should not contain the full text of the poem; that should be linked to from elsewhere, as is common for such things. YechielMan 01:01, 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 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seargeoh Stallone[edit]

NN celeb kid. Ckessler 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable and unneeded article. Jmlk17 21:09, 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, WjBscribe 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't waste our time. Nobody cares about Sylvester Stallone's three-year-old son. To say he fails WP:BIO would be a major understatement. YechielMan 01:03, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious company names used by Microsoft[edit]

A list of fictitious, mostly one-off company examples used by Microsoft, with no apparent encyclopedic value. No assertion given on why any of these fictitious company examples are notable. Krimpet (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly sourced and not an indiscriminate list (ie list is discriminate). Nardman1 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three of the seventeen entries on the list are sourced; I'm not sure "mostly sourced" describes it very well. And while the list itself is not indiscriminate, as the inclusion criteria is narrow and clearly defined, the issue at hand is whether the underlying concept of the list is itself notable; I highly doubt that any independent reliable sources have been written about the significance of the example company names Microsoft uses in its documentation. Krimpet (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I'm leaning toward keeping this. Its not much less encyclopedic than some of the other lists here on Wikipedia. This article is probably more encyclopedic than Companies in Atlas Shrugged, for example, even though I'm not trying to single just that one out. Unless we should also delete that article I mentioned, I guess this should be kept. Life, Liberty, Property 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points. One, Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, so the "rules" are a little different. See WP:FICT. Two, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason that this article should. If you think that the Atlas Shrugged list should be deleted then you can nominate it, but keeping this list because that one exists is not a persuasive argument. Otto4711 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep MS is notable enough that this list is probably appropriate. DGG 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contagious -- what aspect of Microsoft's notability carries over into this list? --Calton | Talk 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging into Microsoft, but this is too long to be merged. There are also barely any sources that I can see, so I would go with delete but this is enough of an important topic to delete. So I go with keep, based on the process of elimination :) GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to correct myself: Apparently the sources are in the links (they are redirects), but that still doesn't prove Microsoft owns them (it could be some random website owner pointing to MS). GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the point? Who is going to find this useful, and when? It seems very crufty to me? BTLizard 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of fake names used by a company for demonstration purposes. No encyclopedic value whatsoever in this collection of trivia. The fact that Microsoft is notable does not mean that every single aspect of their training material or sales pitches is. Otto4711 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of trivial information. Is it in any way notable or encyclopedic? It seems in contravention of WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the cited "fictions" are notable as fictions: they seem to be slight mentions in generic company publications and software. Editors on other "list of fictional ___" pages typically remove items that fit but aren't remotely noteworthy. Feeeshboy 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I actually got some of the content of this page from an earlier Wikipedia page, and I updated the content as well as adding more company names. I think it's informative enough to be kept, but it could maybe do with a bit of cleanup and sourcing. Rubena 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability of this aspect of Microsoft's business. There don't appear to be multiple non-trivial references. This is not information one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. This would surely be of little interest or practical use to many people. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a compendium of mostly sourced trivia. -- Whpq 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Microtrivia -- and I mean that in more than one way. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unbelievably trivial. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia list. Gazpacho 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful for those of us in the (IT) industry. Many of the examples given are pervasive company names that one comes across often. It is worthwhile to be able to identify both the origin and the fabricated nature of these companies. When troubleshooting, one doesn't want to be sidelined into trying to fix the Terranova database. btw could somebody add a Terranova reference? Also helpful is any shorter URL that can lead (from a client's PC) to microsoft.com. Can anyone beat Contoso? Sorry; my login details aren't available and I don't want to create multiple a/cs. Biffo.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.143.149 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No value. Arbustoo 05:25, 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. Krimpet (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television-originated phrases[edit]

WP:NOR because the article is attempting to equate an instance of a well-known television phrase being referenced in a newspaper headline with that phrase "entering the English-language lexicon". It's not that straightfoward. There will always be TV shows that spawn popular catchphrases, that doesn't mean they are part of the Enlish language though. The only genuine example that has actually become part of language is D'oh!, because it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Masaruemoto 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You're right. This might be an application of WP:SYN. Each individual phrase can be traced to one or more sources, but combining them into a list may be problematic. That being said, exactly the same amalgamation was performed in list of Internet slang. YechielMan 01:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 04:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently subjective and therefore POV. Also apparently infinitely extendable - I could add "you're fired" (The Apprentice) and "you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment" (House Of Cards) straight away. But I shan't. BTLizard 08:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most undoubtedly WP:SYN, individual elements/examples can be easily sourced but the attribution of the concept as a whole is lacking. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. --Infrangible 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing I can add that hasn't been said, but I noticed the creator of this article, TheEditrix2, is attempting to bypass the inevitable deletion by creating a duplicate article List of tv catch phrases. It has been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor. Croxley 02:11, 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 No consensus and therefore default to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick John Gladman[edit]

Copyright and plagiarism concerns. Article is nothing but a copy of the first listed reference with minimal rewording. -- Diletante 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on a lack of notability. My feeling is that this doesn't qualify as a 'blatant copyright violation' (originally tagged for speedy as a copyvio) and the source is attributed (thus not plagiarism per se), suggesting a clean-up tag would be sufficient if the subject were sufficiently notable for inclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is the most notable of all biography articles the user has created. I also disagree that this is not plagiarism. consider

article: "Gladman attended a Lancastrian school until apprenticed at 14 as a pupil-teacher to Robert Soar, headmaster of the British and Foreign School at Bushey, Hertfordshire."
reference: "He attended a Lancastrian school until apprenticed at 14 as a pupil-teacher to Robert Soar, headmaster of the British and Foreign School at Bushey, Hertfordshire."
article: "Gladman acquired a 'Queen's scholar' scholarship to the Borough Road Training College, London, for one year's teacher-training. In 1859-62 he taught at a small British and Foreign School at Godalming in Surrey. "
reference: "he was admitted as a Queen's scholar to the Borough Road Training College, London, for one year's teacher-training. In 1859-62 he taught at a small British and Foreign School at Godalming in Surrey."

If one uses directly copied sentences like this you must use quotes and attribution or it is plagiarism! You can use ideas without quotes if you give sufficient citation, but this is a near verbatim copy of a page that does claim copyright on the text. -- Diletante 01:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the sourcing / citation issue - this guy just isn't notable enough (after reading the ADB article I was left wondering why they bothered, maybe they had a quota to meet?)Ga rr ie 03:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken about 10 minutes to word-smith the article so as to eliminate most (perhaps not all) concerns related to copyright violation and plagiarism and to allow it to be considered for deletion on merits of notability rather than technical concerns. This is in keeping with the general admonition to Just Fix It. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "wordsmithing" just obsfucates the fact that this article is plagiarized at best or copyright infringing at worst. You can't just change words areound until it bears no resemblance to the original text. Until it is re-written from scratch it will be plagiarism!!! If there was a non-plagiarised version I would have just fixed it by revertying to that version but I was following the wikipedia guidelines for copyvio by placing the speedy delete tag there. -- Diletante 15:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If there is agreement with this statement, then could some other admin please delete the article immediately and I will retire from editing because a) I obviously do not understand what content is suitable for inclusion for Wikipedia and b) I'm a danger to the legal standing of the resource. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need, I have rewritten the article to satisfy my original concerns, though this does not address notability concerns that others have voiced. -- Diletante 22:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious notability. Even the ADB entry says that his reforms weren't revolutionary. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as a probably not notable local figure. WP is not a specialized biographical dictionary, but a general encyclopedia. DGG 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Inclusion in a biographical dictionary with a national scope demonstrates that an editorial committee, whose competence in the area of their national (in this case Australian) history is likely superior to that of random wikipedians, has determined that the person is notable on a national level, even if that may not be obvious to someone unfamiliar with the context (I'm reminded of a recent proposal to delete as "non-notable" a stub article on a member of the Académie française, probably because the proposer was simply unfamiliar with the obvious notability implied by that membership). It is likely that the article needs more work to clarify the importance of Gladman to a global readership, but deleting the article opens up a rather huge can of worms. Why should Wikipedia, for instance, keep the probably tens of thousands of entries on players of American football, which is, after all, a rather uninteresting game that hardly anybody outside the United States gives a f**k about? How many of the American football players with Wikipedia articles even have entries in the American counterparts of the Australian Dictionary of Biography? Pharamond 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia keeps all those football players because WP:BIO specifically includes athletes who have played in a "fully professional league." While the bar for athletes is too low, there is nothing in WP:BIO specifically giving a free pass to everyone in this biography. What of WP:BIO's criteria is claimed that he passes? (And quite aside from anything else, that biography has over ten thousand entries. Heck, I got into Who's Who Among American High School Students, a publication that seems to be just as discriminatory.) RGTraynor 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some ten thousand biographies presumably representing all of Australian history (as short as that is) isn't that much, especially in an encyclopaedia with 1,7 million articles. Wikipedia would have no problem swallowing every single one of those ten thousand, as well as the fifty thousand or so people included in the Oxford DNB and every other comparable reference work that tries to cover the notables of the entire history of a nation. To compare it with Who's Who Among American High School Students, which apparently includes a pretty large selection of a small subset of a population at a certain point in time, is not really appropriate. As for his notability, well, it isn't obvious to me... but I know nothing about the history of Australian education, and I would rather trust the editors of the Australian Dictionary of Biography to make that decision for me. Pharamond 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'm missing the point here but why is this guy in the Dictionary of Australian Biography? As far as I can tell from this article he spend his entire life in southern England — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gladman was influential for all Australian schools in two ways. Firstly, Gladman's work as inspector of schools was foundational in the years when civilisation in Australia was broadening to include educational standards superior to previous times. Gladman's suggestions influenced the curricula of Australian Schools. Secondly, Gladman's textbooks were an essential part of teacher education. Even as late as the 1930's, a beginning teacher may be given a copy of Gladman's 'Control and Teaching', pointed to their classroom and told to go teach. Such an incident happened to JP Rodgers, a noted Sydney High School Principal (for some thirty years from the 40's to the seventies). I have Rodger's copy. I modelled the Bio from his 1875 edition/copy. Cliff Turney, in compiling his history biographs on Australian educators cited Gladman, as have other researchers, but most of these were before the days of the internet, and this probably stymies some.DDB 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The assertion that is not notable falls as Gladman was recognised by his peers and those that followed as the educational authority in Australia, having credit from his Brit background when few others in Australia could lay similar claim. DDB 05:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment your input suggests that the person is certainly notable enough for inclusion. However, and this is where a lot of Wikipedia biographies fail, the things that make the person 'notable' are not included in the article. If this strong influence on Australian education during the formative years of the nation can be described and documented, then the article should be kept. In its present state, there is no indication of how important the man is. Internet Schmiternet - citation of online sources is helpful but not essential - that's why the URL parameter is optional on most citation templates. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. It drives me nuts when people swallow whole and unquestioningly the unsourced assertions in AfDed articles. WP:V requires multiple reliable sources. Does anyone have any others? RGTraynor 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I intend to scan some of the elements of the 1875 published "Control and Teaching" book. Among it's contents is an expanding page (folded) that shows a detailed curriculum for a week. It had been adopted widescale by schools in the following years. The French Education Minister in early 1900's boasted that he knew what every French student was doing by the clock, Gladman's folded curriculum was similar in effect. It irritates me that I've not the resources of an institutional researcher in Australia, yet some lazy ones are asking me to chase down stuff which they could do better. I think Gladman was only referred to deletion because of payback against me for supporting/creating Turney earlier. DDB 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rest assured, nominating this for deletion had nothing to do with you, DDB. You don't need to scan in pages of a book to place a citation in the article and supporting material that demonstrate notability. If you have such material in hand that clearly describes the place of this person in history and don't share but merely complain - I'm not sure what to call that, frankly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentHad I added the material at the beginning, an ambit claim of original creation of material may have been used as a trigger for deletion. I've grown cautious after continually seeing the same names in relation to deletions. DDB 02:49, 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 Speedy delete a7, affirmatively asserts nonnotability, no sources, see WP:NOR and WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splinter Theory[edit]

Tagged by User:John Cross; I'm completing the nomination. This is a philosophical idea invented by a high school student, that according to the article "is not a well known theory, and has not yet been discovered by many people nor websites, thus making it fairly hard to track down". Clearly, any article about it could only be original research. —Cel ithemis 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day - and this article explicitly states that it was made up in school one day. Rklawton 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Rklawton. -Mschel 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per its OR. and this theory although not titled as 'splinter' has been around for centuries in the form of reductionism. just thought id drop a lil knowledge. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty much the dictionary definition of something made up in school one day. Resolute 05:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Blatant OR full of personal opinions. Fails WP:N, WP:ATT, and WP:SCI. Even the statement this this could become popular is a personal opinion and fails WP:CRYSTAL. --EMS | Talk 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't want to dismiss the idea but the fact is that it has to be recognized outside Wikipedia before it becomes notable. Thanks to the user who completed the nomination.John Cross 18:40, 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 by Majorly in line with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. WjBscribe 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sevier County Sheriff's Office[edit]

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Bristol Tennessee Police Department
Cut Bank Police Department
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office
Gatlinburg Fire Department
Gatlinburg Public Services
Kingsport Police Department
Pigeon Forge Public Services
Roanoke City Sheriff's Office
Roanoke County Sheriff's Office
Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office

Nom - fails notability. See also what Wikipedia is not. Rklawton 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that most police departments are written about often enough that multiple independent sources can be found, although this may require a search of the newspapers (which may not have the full text of all back issues online) in the area served by the police department. --Eastmain 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I can find multiple, independent, verifiable, reliable sources about me, but I don't rate a bio because I'm still not notable. Why is this sheriff's office any different? Rklawton 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is its own site. Undoubtedly local newspaper stories can be found, but unless something particularly dramatic happened there involving the sheriff's office, they would probably best be considered incidental mentions. As with other topics, probably large city police departments are notable, and sheriff's offices for really major counties, but not in general. merge into the country article.DGG 04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sevier County, Tennessee. Major but local public services are best covered in the main county article, not a separate article unless the service is of exceptional notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 09:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent articles. Individual city/county services are generally best treated with a small section in the parent article. There do exist exceptions, for example, such as New York City Fire Department which has enough history and notability independent of the general NYC government to warrant its own article. The general rule of thumb is that if the section would make the parent article too long, go ahead and fork it out - but a detailed list of jurisdictions and accounting of employee positions is WP:NOT and when you excise that you're left with basically "it is the fire department that serves Sevier County". Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeAny sheriff's or police department will be in the news locally many times a year, and are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but as a part of info that is usually only of local interest, they usually do not need a stand alone article. Most do not get regional or national coverage (and if they do, it is usually because of a one-time crime report). Unless the sheer amount of encyclopedic information would be too long for inclusion in the article about the county or other governmental unit which controls the department, they should be given appropriately if not exhaustively long coverage there. It is not usually desirable to include all minute detail about a school, fire department or police department, such as the names of the individuals supervising various departments, since they change frequently and Wikipedia would soon be stuck with a stale copy if the individual who created the microscopically detailed articles moved on to other interests. Better to keep the description to brief descriptive and historical details which are less volatile, and link to a website of the department for up to date info. In contrast, he police departments of world-class cities and national police agencies are often notable for coverage of their activities and for their cultural notability in fictional works, such as the FBI, Scotland Yard, and the Los Angeles Police Department. See the (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL which expresses the views of a number of Wikipedia editors. Edison 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all per Edison and Arkyan, fails WP:V, WP:NN. They may be mentioned a lot, but how much about them are of particular encyclopedic interest? RGTraynor 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Edison has a good point that these should be merged to the article on the government of the jurisdiction or about the jursidiction. Only if the main article becomes unwieldy should the law enforcement aspect be broken into a separate article. --Kevin Murray 21:23, 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 by Majorly in line with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. WjBscribe 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoke County Sheriff's Office[edit]

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Bristol Tennessee Police Department
Cut Bank Police Department
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office
Gatlinburg Fire Department
Gatlinburg Public Services
Kingsport Police Department
Pigeon Forge Public Services
Roanoke City Sheriff's Office
Sevier County Sheriff's Office
Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office

Nom - fails notability. See also what Wikipedia is not. Rklawton 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if for no other reason than countering systemic bias. I can guarantee you that "Bangalore, India Sheriff's Office" would never survive an AFD. Likewise for Rklawton's next nom, immediately below this. YechielMan 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which is sad, because Bangalore has many times the population than all these places combined, and has existed for at least 470 years. (Although I'm not sure it has a sheriff's office per se.) --Charlene 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roanoke County, Virginia for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevier County Sheriff's Office. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Roanoke City Sheriff's Office is a similar article. Can we AfD them together or merge them at the same time? Rich257 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I see your point. This article's original editor created about a dozen such articles for small/non-name city support organizations for different cities/counties. Since several are for different entities, I thought it might be useful to address them separately. I missed the article you just mentioned, so I'll send it up shortly. I think I'll also cross-list them for reference. Rklawton 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into parent articles. Individual city/county services are generally best treated with a small section in the parent article. There do exist exceptions, for example, such as New York City Fire Department which has enough history and notability independent of the general NYC government to warrant its own article. The general rule of thumb is that if the section would make the parent article too long, go ahead and fork it out. With a little prudent editing this article is basically a few lines of history and basic information that easily fit in the main article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into parent articles, per my comments on the first listing of the group, and per views of editors expressed at (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL. Edison 17:05, 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 by Majorly in line with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. WjBscribe 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office[edit]

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Bristol Tennessee Police Department
Cut Bank Police Department
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office
Gatlinburg Fire Department
Gatlinburg Public Services
Kingsport Police Department
Pigeon Forge Public Services
Roanoke City Sheriff's Office
Roanoke County Sheriff's Office
Sevier County Sheriff's Office

Nom - fails notability. See also what Wikipedia is not. Rklawton 01:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As before. The only source is its own site. Undoubtedly local newspaper stories can be found, but unless something particularly dramatic happened there involving the sheriff's office, they would probably best be considered incidental mentions. As with other topics, probably large city police departments are notable, and sheriff's offices for really major counties, but not in general. merge into the country article.

DGG 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sullivan County, Tennessee for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevier County Sheriff's Office. Information about public services in a county is OK within an article about that county. During the merge, the formatting of the page should be fixed as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into parent articles. Individual city/county services are generally best treated with a small section in the parent article. There do exist exceptions, for example, such as New York City Fire Department which has enough history and notability independent of the general NYC government to warrant its own article. The general rule of thumb is that if the section would make the parent article too long, go ahead and fork it out - but a detailed list of jurisdictions and accounting of employee positions is WP:NOT and when you excise that you're left with basically "it is the Sheriff's office that serves Sullivan County". Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into parent articles, per my comments on the first listing of the group, and per views of editors expressed at (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL.Edison 17:11, 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 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's Greatest Actor[edit]

Just a list of actors chosen for a TV show, was tagged for lack of sources 2 months ago but still has none. Fails WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS. Not that notable either. (And possibly a copyright violation - have Channel 4 given us permission to reproduce their list?) Masaruemoto 01:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this per above. Doczilla 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be an interesting list if sourced, but fails WP:V and others. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio of Channel 4's intellectual property. Jack Nance? Corvus cornix 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list puts Sean Penn before Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Ingrid Bergman or Humphrey Bogart. No disrespect intended, but do you have your head up your ass? --Infrangible 02:11, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of AZA member zoos and aquariums[edit]

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Directory listings, including full addresses and links to websites. Masaruemoto 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I worked on this at one point, but it provides nothing that e.g. List of zoos can't. I would co-nominate List of CAZA member zoos and aquariums & List of WAZA member zoos and aquariums for the same reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list, delete addresses and website links. The list itself is fine but I don't see why it can't stay provided the addresses go. Additionally, List of zoos is not the same as the list of zoos that are members of the AZA. Cburnett 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (I would rather have the addresses deleted than the list but I still think city and state should remain. Cburnett 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. If it matters to Wikipedia whether on not an institution is a member of the AZA then the fact should be mentioned in the institution's own article. As to this list, let the AZA publish its own directory. BTLizard 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are navigational guides. By your argument, things like List of ambassadors to the United Nations should be deleted too, which is frankly absurd. With addresses removed, it is not a directory. A list of things does not make it a directory and the examples at WP:NOT#DIR do not compare to this list. Cburnett 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that many users don't realize Wikipedia:List_guideline exists. --R e m i 09:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does exist, but I don't see that it helps. Surely WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is the relevant criterion. BTLizard 09:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. Isn't this entire list merely a reformated copy of (reference) page linked on the bottom? Carlossuarez46 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of facts are not copyrightable. Corvus cornix 21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the formatting of facts that is copyrightable, not the facts themselves. Sorry, but to consider that, say, a list of planets in the solar system is copyrightable is absurd. More absurd than a list of zoos (sans addresses) being considered a directory. :) Cburnett 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus as it relates to various top 100 or top 50 lists is that they are copyrightable, and regardless of how the formatting has been changed, it's copyvio to repeat them here verbatim. If lists of facts are not copyrightable but merely their formatting, then one could copy an almanac into unformatted text, or the CRC, or the PDR, or any other "lists" of "facts". I am skeptical. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus is that various "top 100" lists that have subjective criteria for their listing is that they're copyrighted. This is an objective list that has no voting or judging criteria, therefore this is no more a copyvio than a list of NBA teams. Corvus cornix 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to read Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. In short: a list of members of a group is not copyrightable because there is no originality, no creativity to make that list. Like I said, facts cannot be copyrighted but their formatting [and presentation] can be. Period. Cburnett 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is NOT exact copy of the table taken from the link at the bottom, so I do not see copyright violations. The list is well wikified. Most important, it may be helpful for some readers, which I think is the ultimate criterion.Biophys 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, well, see WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at WP:USEFUL. But this "is not a policy or guideline". Biophys 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this list goes, so much a lot of other lists.BeckyAnne 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very good reasons given by Cburnett. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't Category:AZA member zoos and aquariums possibly be a better solution than a list? — Scientizzle 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the leaving of the city and state. You can't add city & state to categories. Cburnett 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sect (Planescape)[edit]

Gameguide material written in an in-universe style that consists of a few sentences about the "sects" in the game and then a list of redlinks with a description of each "sect." No sources cited, no indication that these are in any way relevant outside the game (little assertion of why they're relevant in the game as well). Better suited for a gaming wiki with a mention in the main game article here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Also, there is no supporting references for this article. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:14, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 01:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all useful information already in Planescape, and not a useful redirect --Pak21 13:34, 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 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of title roles[edit]

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information; "any movie, any television (show), any play, any book, any game, and any other works of fiction" that features a character in the title. This takes "Indiscriminate information" to a new level. Masaruemoto 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - stunningly indiscriminate. --Haemo 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite amazing. People sitting around in school thinking about movies. BTLizard 09:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We may be confusing indiscriminate with loosely related but it's still WP:NOT and still does not belong. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hugely unmanageable list. NawlinWiki 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But perhaps a category could be created? NBeale 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:47, 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 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Musical Racket[edit]

Non-notable one man band, no contract, no record label, no google hits aside form WP and band's Myspace page, no references killing sparrows 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searching for his songs or albums yields wikis. Their "official" site is on geocities. Musical notability is on a par with my grandma's. --Bongwarrior 06:40, 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, WjBscribe 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark E Smith famously said "if it's me and your granny on bongos then it's a Fall gig". Sadly, The Musical Racket feature neither musician, so delete. BTLizard 09:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external links are to myspace and his own website. Nothing to show notability. YechielMan 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete they don't even have a domain name, just another band that wan't to get listeners by writing their own article on on WP. Samuel 22:53, 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 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel X[edit]

Contested speedy and PROD, so brought here. No evidence from WP:RS that this person meets WP:BIO or the correlary for pornographic actors. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. I agree with whoever prodded it. YechielMan 16:53, 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, WjBscribe 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom on the sources. --C56C 19:00, 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 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stablewars[edit]

Delete - non-notable web-based fantasy game league. No independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of this game. Otto4711 06:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. DBZROCKS 12:35, 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, WjBscribe 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The moon might be notable without a source. This website is not. YechielMan 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 19:12, 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 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Rohan[edit]

Contested prod of mine. Since prod one published article has been added - but I've searched google, Ingenta and Blackwell Synergy and I can't find anything that brings this guy anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO or WP:PROF for notability. CTO of a university spin-out company with no other real evidence of notability is just not enough in my book. Madmedea 13:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His main claim to fame appears to be being CTO of a company that doesn't pass WP:ORG (no press listed, none found in Google news archive). That's not enough, and the minor academic accomplishments don't make up for it. —David Eppstein 01:02, 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, WjBscribe 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be found. In technology someone in industry without a PhD can be a notable researcher or inventor, but there have to be some documented research areas or inventions, etc. as for other scientists. DGG 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eppstein, after moving the listed publication to the company (which still may not be enough to save that from a prod tag). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 23:35, 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 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ryan (actor)[edit]

While Mr. Ryan is a legitimate actor, according to IMDB his credits are limited to "Pace" on a single episode of The Tudors and "Junkie 2" in Layer Cake (film). I don't see any notability at this time. IrishGuy ^talk 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non notable unless sources can be produced. I don't think single episodes translate into notability. --Cyrus Andiron 17:29, 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, WjBscribe 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non notable actor.--Vintagekits 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet. NawlinWiki 19:13, 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 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gullevi[edit]

Procedural nom. Possible WP:HOAX nominated for speedy deletion. Sending to AfD because per WP:HOAX hoaxes do not meet WP:CSD and on off chance this might be for real --Shirahadasha 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (db-bio) real or not, article does not assert notability in any way. JuJube 02:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy because someone might have information. DGG 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes a claim to notability, so not speedy, imo, but not remotely close to notable. Resolute 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it's a hoax but there's no assertion of notability - she's just someone who owns some shops somewhere, which isn't sufficient evidence of notability. andy 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no sources. NawlinWiki 19:14, 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.

Result was Keep. - Caknuck 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hess[edit]

There is no assertion of notability and the text of the article is all taken from http://www.hornsociety.org/PEOPLE/Honor/Hess.html without any assertion of permission. Theredhouse7 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:Notable or not, it is a copyvio. All content on that website is copyrighted. -Mschel 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been rewritten and now does not violate any copyrights. -Mschel 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. Resolute 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following rewrite. Resolute 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserts notability as important horn player of early 20th century. I've rewritten to eliminate the copyright violation and added sources. NawlinWiki 19:36, 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 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation (card game)[edit]

Something the author of the article made up one day, crediting himself in artcle. No online mentions besides this article. 2005 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notable. -Mschel 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Nor is it a free web host. Nor is it a game guide. Resolute 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be tempted to suggest a redirect to Asshole (game) as before I looked at the article I thought it was one of the many variations on the theme (such as "President" or "Capitalism") but I can't seem to find any actual references of anyone using "Corporation" as a variant name. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable game made up by article author. NawlinWiki 19:38, 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 speedy redirect -- RHaworth 02:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCS Sports Trivia News[edit]

It is a copy of BCS Sports Trivia. Dreamy 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the page it is copied off of? -Mschel 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't be a dreamer - you could have redirected it rather than wasting time with AfD. -- RHaworth 02:56, 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 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching Midnight[edit]

Forthcoming movie. OK it has been previewed at festivals but can we say it is notable before the general cinema-going public have given their verdict? -- RHaworth 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, independent film still in production, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CRYSTAL. YechielMan 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. --C56C 19:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)(3rd nomination)[edit]

Silly and Redundant article. Any thing related with any of the UW campuses has a "University of Wisconsin" in its name (e.g.University of Wisconsin-Parkside School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Student union, etc.). It is pointless to list parts of these universities. There is no need for this article. It can be replaced with University of Wisconsin System, which includes all the University of Wisconsin campuses and former institutions. (This is a nomination for deletion of a redundant article) Miaers 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator. Miaers 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless and routine disambiguation page, which seems to have been caught up in an extremely contentious (going so far as an arbitration filing) dispute about names of related articles. Newyorkbrad 03:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. Given the nominator's history with this topic, this almost seems like a pointy AfD nomination. --ElKevbo 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with ElKevbo; this is pretty pointy. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although I originally nominated this article deleted and objected to it being re-listed and further recreated, I believe that the article can now serve a purpose. I do however, strongly object to any proposal which seeks to redirect University of Wisconsin to this re-direct page. Like those before me, I have trouble seeing how this is not disruptive editing, especially since the nominator has failed to even leave a notice on the page up for deletion! Cheers, PaddyM 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re-nomination appears to bring no new arguments, and is therefore a complete waste of time. Also, as noted above, nominator has not followed procedures anyway. Andrewa 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to that page, there is a slew of links within it. I believe the page serves a purpose which would allow people to more quickly find what they are looking for. With the amount of "University of Wisconsin - (fill in the blank) it seems almost necessary. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; although I disagree with Paddy on the redirect issue, that's not the one on the floor. --Orange Mike 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm not sure what this looked like in previous incarnations but as it stands it is a valuable dab page, particularly in terms of listing all of the schools in the UW system. There is some superfluous information in the "See Also" section - Wisconsin Range is a mountain range in Antarctica, somehow I very much doubt someone typing "University of Wisconsin" will be looking to end up there - but that is an editorial decision and by no means grounds for deletion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even in the previous discussion, this page served a reasonable role for disambigutation, the addition of further content directing people to the proper article makes it even better. I'm all for trying your hardest to fix a problem, but this isn't one. FrozenPurpleCube 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep (full disclosure: I am a former student of UW and a current student of UWM) I fail to see why this ought to be controversial. Given the sheer number of schools and entities associated with the UW system, a disambiguation page is a useful way to seperate them. No valid criteria for deletion have been listed remotely linked to any wikipedia policy. "Silly" is not a criterion for deletion. Furthermore, I cannot think of any valid reason that an article should be nominated three times for deletion. While consensus can change, two deletion debates (and a DRV if I recall) should be more than enough to establish the opinion of the community. To further re-nominate articles rapidly gets into the point of pushing a point. Wintermut3 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first AfD was closed as a delete. It then went into DRV which narrowly overturned it and sent it back to AFD for a relist, which resulted in AfD version two. So in effect it's only worked its way through the process once before (Afd to DRV back to Afd) so it's not really a rapid-renom POINT issue. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the previous versions of this page may have been uneeded (only defining UW-Madison, UW system, and the former UW), the current version is a very good resource. However, this DOES NOT mean that I agree to change the redirect of "University of Wisconsin" to this page. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was closed as a speedy-keep by a non-admin. I re-opened because non-admins are not supposed to do that (see non-admin closing, and the history indicates that an admin already decided to re-open discussion after closure. However, looking at University of Wisconsin (disambiguation), I don't see the AFD notice tag on it. Was this forgotten by mistake, or what? FrozenPurpleCube 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently yes. You're welcome to put it there if you like. YechielMan 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reinserting my closing comments into the discussion: "As a disambiguation page, it serves a useful purpose, and it's not redundant with any other page. For what it's worth, I think the redirect of "University of Wisconsin" should stay at UW-Madison." I stand by my decision to close, as I explained on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page. I'm not going to say anything more about this because the final result will be the same. YechielMan 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NewYorkBrad matt91486 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers is now editing the page in a manner which contradicts what I believe to be the guidelines for dab pages, to an extent that I believe constitutes disruptive editing. Could some other editors see whether I am over-reacting? If not, is it time for concerted action? --Orange Mike 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Newyorkbrad. 1ne 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In reply to User:Orangemike above, the problem is that for all his disruptive behaviour, Miaers does have a point. There are others (I am one obviously) who find the current redirect from University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison quite bizarre and unhelpful. Those who are already familiar with UW in its various apparitions don't need a lot of help in navigation; The rest of us are left wondering just what is going on. Eventually we discover AHA! They're just having a little local war (now half a century old) about the college names. If Maiers just goes away, others will blunder into this as I did, and it will just be on again. Maiers is I think hoping that deleting the disambig (which I originally created as an alternative to the redirect) will be a step towards eventually pointing University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. There have been very strong feelings expressed by both sides, and I've been attacked by both sides, which is IMO a big clue as to what is happening. IMO we haven't reached a good solution yet, and it remains a festering wound, and an excellent example of WP:NGR. I suggest humour Miaers (and me if you feel I've been unhelpful too - I have wondered from time to time). And let's all play with lateral thoughts as to how to solve this (just the Wikipedia navigation issue, not the wider naming war)... as opposed to just repeating the same old arguments. The objective is simply that someone arriving here for the first time easily finds the information they need. IMO that should include an understanding as to why the redirect goes as it does, if it must (and as I've said elsewhere, I think anything else is a lost cause). I think we're making progress. Not there yet. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, users are too stupid to read the notice at the top of the page in order to find the disambiguation page. Of course you suggest humoring Miaers, b/c it validates your position; however, it does absolutely nothing to work toward consensus. Cheers, PaddyM 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)#Logic. Andrewa 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting the disambig page solves nothing. I don't see any good compromise to this problem either. This is my first time commenting on this situation. Whenever I hear people around here talk about the "University of Wisconsin", they are ALWAYS talking about the Madison campus only not the "University of Wisconsin System". They say "University of Wisconsin System" if that is their intention. I would say keep things exactly as they are right now: the article "University of Wisconsin" as a redirect to UW-Madison and a disambiguous page. I feel in touch with the situation: I am a lifelong resident of Wisconsin, a graduate of University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and a member of WikiProject Wisconsin. Royalbroil 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCS Sports Trivia[edit]

Non-notable instant messaging game. The article consists entirely of directions on how to play the game. "BCS Sports Trivia" gets 0 Google hits. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. -- RHaworth 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Appear to be something somebody made up in school one day. Life, Liberty, Property 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep isn't Wikipedia someting made up in school one day? Black Harry 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. Resolute 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:A, breaches WP:UNENC clause 4 and WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:27, 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 delete. WjBscribe 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Saiga[edit]

Self-published manga article created by serial vanity spammer Kira99er (talk · contribs). Manga was created by ATB Productions, which has already been speedy deleted. The character articles were tagged for speedy deletion by myself for not putting themselves in context. This is not a speedy, but it's obviously not notable and needs to go. JuJube 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I disagree. There is no attempt at establishing notability here. It is also, basically, spam. Resolute 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as above. --Haemo 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - maybe someday it'll be well known, today it's vanity spam. Anynobody 06:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does not meet the speedy criterion, so I've untagged, but the fact that I can't even bring up a Google hit doesn't help things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Ejaculatory Guilt Syndrome[edit]

Nomination for deletion, as this syndrome does not have an reliable or secondary sources to confirm it's establishment and existence (see WP:NOTE).

Delete A Google Scholar search turns up nothing, as does a Microsoft Live Academic search as does a Google News search, a Google News Archive search and a HighBeam search. The hits that return from a normal Google search are either a result of or mirror of this article, or unreliable. -- Craigtalbert 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of sources sugests a neologism or a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like it might be true, but that's not nearly good enough for WP. YechielMan 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to post-ejacultatory depression, a much better known term, and expand the article properly. I'm quite surprised we didn't have an article at that one.DGG 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe rename to something else. Would seem to be related to post-coital tristesse. BTLizard 09:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 100% original research here. There may or may not be some truth to the claim but that is irrelevant without any attribution. Google search turns up nothing on this topic that is not a Wikipedia mirror. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - DGG has a point in that post-ejaculatory depression seems to be a more real, attributable phenomenon - but Post Ejaculatory Guilt Syndrome is a fallacious and made-up "syndrome". Merging this content and redirecting implies an endorsement of the term as being accurate (or even extant) and should not be done. Certainly no prejudice against creating an article on the real subject from scratch. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I userfied the content in case some of it can be reused. DGG 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I am betting that there is something like this that exists in a medical journal or some other study, probably called something else. The writer seemed to be going on original research or it was conceived as a hoax. hombre de haha 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one result for post-ejaculatory depression but it didn't seem from the snippet like it was being described as a syndrome. -- Craigtalbert 00:43, 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 Redirected to Donegal South West (Dáil Éireann constituency); the candidate already has his own article. NawlinWiki 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gael Donegal South West[edit]

Speedy nom was disputed. Questions of notability seemed most appropriate to be discussed here. Feeeshboy 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any idea why the speedy nom was disputed? It took me a minute to figure out what this article was about. I'm hesitant to !vote Delete without more context. Are there similar (presumably better) articles for other constituencies in...wherever this is? If this is kept, it needs a lot of work! --ElKevbo 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A constituency usually is notable. An article about one party's candidate in that constituency is not. If the candidate is notable, he belongs in his own article. In this case, the candidate does not appear to be notable. Resolute 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information about the the constituency should be in that article, about the candidate in his article. Should not have articles on a particular party in a constituency. Davewild 07:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Details of the constituency should be in an article on their TD (if they have one).--Vintagekits 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains no information about its subject. It contains information about Dinny McGinley TD, who has his own article. BTLizard 09:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donegal South West (Dáil Éireann constituency) following the precedent set for UK parliamentary constituencies, for which these are the direct equivalent — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats probably a good shout. I will also go to Merge and Redirect to Donegal South West (Dáil Éireann constituency). --Vintagekits 08:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of importance to Fine Gael, and delete the rest. This isn't about a constituency as such, it's a local branch of a politicial party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:26, 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. NawlinWiki 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston holder[edit]

No notability stated, no sources Fcsuper 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Preston Holder is notable for his archeological studies. I have searched and added references. Mosura 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's well-referenced. I'm still not sure about his importance to archaeology, but I'll cite the adage, "when in doubt, don't delete." YechielMan 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I have added two additional references; 2 of the total are references describing this work generally. I have not yet been able to find any additional biographical details. WebofScience shows that he continued writing book reviews into the 1960s, but these are relatively unimportant publications, so I did not add them. DGG

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Goodman[edit]

This song is not notable. Also this article will never be more than a stub. And it doesn't source any of it's claims. And if google is anyy indication (it may not be) its claims are unverifiable as no reliable secondary works seem to be about it. So it fails our core policies: verifiability, no original research, and notability. Theredhouse7 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I would like to withdraw the nomination. The article has been edited enough to deserve a place on Wikipedia, and notability has been asserted. Thank you Nick mallory - Theredhouse7 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seven Drunken Nights. Not notable in and of itself, but a plausible search term and connected closely enough with that article. GassyGuy 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is one of the Child ballads, the classic collection of British folk songs, assembled in canonical form by Francis James Child at the end of the 19th century, and dating themselves from the 14th through the 18th centuries. They have analogies elsewhere in Europe, and are the foundation of modern folk music (and, via their American derivatives, of country music as well.) They are all individually known by the standard title (and the number), and individually known to everyone who deals with this genre, and known in general to all who study English literature or anthropology. Almost all of them have individual WP articles, and we should fill in the few remaining ones. There is extensive literature on them, each one has been the subject of study and of recordings. It's too late tonight to add references, but there certainly are references to be added. There is information to be added too, based on the extensive notes in Child's collection. The lyrics in the form Child collected them are of course PD, most are in wikibooks, although not this one yet--I shall add it tomorrow.

In an artistic sense, this is a relatively trivial one, but it is not trivial in a folkloric or historical sense, for it is one with many variations and with similar ballads in many countries.

V, RS, N, -- and not OR for all the material is there, just waiting to be collected here. The article was a stub, for it is a long project adding all of this fully to such an extensive body of texts. This is one of the reason for not rushing to delete stubs that one comes across, especially when even just within WP is enough documentation to explain their importance.

Seven Drunken Nights is one of the derivatives, of course, and the relationship should be explained. As it is a version recently recorded by a popular group, it's the best known to many of us. But this is the stem, and the redirect suggested would be like redirecting Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story.DGG 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the Child ballads are individually notable. Reliable information can be drawn from collections and sources on the ballads, whether it has been done yet or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been pointed out, the Child ballads are the bedrock of English folk music and have great music, social and historical importance to this day. They have been exhaustively studied by a host of musicologists and this article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Nick mallory 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Child Ballads have scholarly sources (starting with Francis James Child). This is one of the most widespread of them all, with many variant names and more than 20 extant recordings, as detailed here. —Cel ithemis 07:44, 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 delete. WjBscribe 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Stop Bush[edit]

A Google search yielded only 51 results, and several do not refer to the subject of the article (and one is to this Wikipedia article). None of the webpages that came up in the result were from reliable sources. I have to conclude that the subject lacks sufficient notability. I suggest that the page be redirected to Ralph Nader. Pablothegreat85 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick mallory 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be an interesting list if sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Grew Flowers[edit]

A book. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - and so tagged. --Haemo 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One, does not meet speedy deletion criteria, so I removed the tag. Two, has been reviewed by School Library Journal and Booklist upon its release in the states, and that's simply on a quick look - it meets the relevant standards for books, and I'll be glad to add those once I've found the proper dates for the citations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as badlydrawnjeff :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as badlydrawnjeff Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shirahadasha

Frederick Noronha[edit]

So far, I've counted problems with: Conflict of Interest (COI), Small business/organization (ORG), Use of self-published sources (SPS), and a general verifiability challenge (V). It might or might not be SNOW, I'll leave that to others to decide. Ronabop 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Gillyweed 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment during my "past editor notify", I saw this: [4], and I think Frederick may not be aware of how our notability, verifiability, etc., work, as it looks chock full of prod notices. Ronabop 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly it should be noted that any COI issues arose after the creation of the article by Nichalp. Although not definitive he gets 78,600 ghits and his work can be found on Google News and Find Articles as well as numerous other sites. He is apparently one of two founders of a notable NGO- BytesForAll. The article requires cleanup and more sources about FN but I think he just meets our criteria for inclusion. Also I note that the article's creator (Nichalp) is away until May and will be unable to comment in this discussion. WjBscribe 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a notable NGO- BytesForAll I'm NOT seeing any sign in that article that it IS a notable NGO, since it doesn't have much in the way of reliable sources. Speaking of which, how about a few, just as evidence? It's not up to us to do your work for you. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't appreciate the tone of that comment. Please keep it civil. I've only just come across these articles- you expect me to magic sources out of a hat? I'll look into it... WjBscribe 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality intrudes: you made the claim, you get to back it up. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone needs to learn manners. If you check the Google News archives there are a fair few sources for BytesForAll. Besides that, it isn't BytesForAll that is being discussed here, it is Frederick Noronha and personally I think this is a case of systemic bias. I don't think it's so terribly hard to click the link WJBscribe gave and see that there are lots of potential sources. Kamryn Matika 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only 262 unique hits on Google. That's more significant than the number of raw hits.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone needs to learn manners. And someone needs to learn to back up claims with actual evidence instead of vague handwaving and bluster. I repeat, it's not up to us to do your work for you. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What work? I understand that the default in a no-consensus AfD is to keep the article. If the default for articles is to keep, surely the burden is upon the delete-voters to prove to the community why this article should not be kept here? I don't agree with your arguments to delete and therefore I want the article to be kept. Not something that is hard to understand. The burden of proof lies with you here and I find your ridiculous aggressive attitude to be really out of place. Kamryn Matika 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless actually reliably sourced, both this article and the BytesForAll article propping it up. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:WJBscribe's points are valid. The reasons given for the nomonation are somewhat murky. If the subject is not the creator of the article, it cannot be considered a vanity article and there is no conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not "forbid" individuals from editing articles written about themselves. Seems to me that the subject meets notability standards. Clean it up and source it. Cleo123 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state exactly why this person is notable? (Not harassing you for your !vote - a genuine question). --ElKevbo 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a sock-puppet or a personal fan made an article about me, I have free reign to, oh, "fix it" by replacing all the text with things I like? WP:COI Doesn't *forbid* it, but it points out why this is a Bad Idea (tm)Ronabop 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it will need, and will get, sources. WP is a cooperative project, and all eds. have a responsibility to improve it and source articles that need it. It's a pity it wasn't sourced right in the first place. but that's easily corrected. Personally, I would not AfD an article as having unsourced N unless I had tried a little myself. DGG 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and will get, sources. That's not an argument, that's an article of faith.
It's a pity it wasn't sourced right in the first place. but that's easily corrected. ((sofixit)), then. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WJBscribe, not sufficient evidence provided to prove that this article doesn't belong here on Wikipedia and I believe he is notable enough and has enough sources. The conflict of interest argument is invalid. Kamryn Matika 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It seems to me like you've got things backwards. Editors are required to establish the notability of subjects; we are not required to establish the non-notability of subjects (i.e. we don't have to "prove that this article doesn't belong here"). --ElKevbo 14:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the default is to keep an article in no consensus, and the article isn't clearly violating any policies (which it isn't) then we should keep it unless a very good argument why not has been provided (and it hasn't). Kamryn Matika 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FN is a notable journalist, esp. in the cyberspace; his works have been published in many newspapers and journals[5][6] including BBC, Outlook (magazine)[7], Dawn [8] etc. He is also notable in Indian FOSS circles. I've added some refs to the article to sort out WP:SPS and WP:V issues. utcursch | talk 10:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to participate in this very debate (a clear COI), but I guess that coming with a delete vote makes that okay. Just to share what I wrote earlier to the Wikipedia-L list, to put the issues in context: OPENQUOTE Needless to say, I would not bother to make a case for the retention of a page focussing on me. It would be a relief, in fact, if the page went off! Take a look at its history: The page was started on 19:07, 4 August 2005 by Nichalp. It was subsequently edited by others. When I came across it, I realised that my name had initially been spelt wrong. Besides, there were inaccuracies in my description (there is a difference, surely, in being " actively involved in the Indian Free Software Foundation" and writing about it...) I am definitely not "a known (sic) for his articles on Christianity" (admittedly am fairly curious about happenings there, though I don't subscribe to the religion I was born in) ... by that time, I had virtually stopped writing (but subsequently resumed, on another theme) for the Indo-Asian News Service in New Delhi... In addition, I'm not "founder" of BytesForAll, as mentioned, but a co-founder. A number of the websites and blogs mentioned were either outdated or non-functional, and there were new ones not noticed. After waiting awhile, I realised nobody would probably make these corrections, and did so under my own name.... which is actually not supposed to be in which the Wikipedia is meant to work. That was in late Jan-early Feb 2006 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&action=history ) CLOSEQUOTE I believe this issue came up as I have been raising the wider issue of systemic bias against non-digitised, largely oral societies (which still make for the vast majority of our planet), or even those who are not visible in cyberspace. To me, the wider and more relevant issue isn't about a page that describes me. While I retain my faith in the Wikipedia and its logic, it seems that there is an urgent call for changes that allow it to recognised lesser-digitised societies and cultures that don't have the written word going back centuries (as, say, Europe does). You will find these discussions archived on the Wikipedia-L and related lists. Please see the attempt to retain pages on a range of crucial issues here Rules are fine and needed; but a one-size-fits-all apporach simply doesn't work (and I'm not making these comments about the page in question here, but attempting to address a wider issue... even if somewhat off-topic here!) --fredericknoronha 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that the person above claims to be, well, that person, and that there is inaccurate information, this article should be reviewed for any inaccuracy and if they can't be fixed, removed. I take no stand as to whether this article should be deleted or retained. FrozenPurpleCube 17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think there's any doubt about my identity at least. Thanks goodness for small mercies! I have been editing the Wikipedia from July 2004. What I said above is that there were inaccuracies in my page and that's the reason why I was compelled to edit it. I'm not trying to justify any action, but just explain the context. I'm not interested in retaining the page. As someone who has quite some belief in the Wikipedia model and logic, this is an opportunity to dump a page that describes me and at the same time focus on wider issues -- systemic bias (since this whole debate stems from my attempt to salvage pages that were, in my opinion, being deleted in a strange manner -- such as this page and this no longer existing page). I think it's really sad! A great model is being dented by lack of debate over how it gets implemented. --fredericknoronha 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't support the position that you can decide whether or not Wikipedia has an article on you, but given that it does, you do have the right to accurate information. Since I don't know you, or your work, I can't say whether or not that's a current problem, but if it is, it should be fixed. And yes, there are a lot of problems with Wikipedia, and not just in regards to living people. A pity. FrozenPurpleCube 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, i am not inclined to agree with the author's wish for deletion, because it seems his accomplishments are sufficient, and his motive seems to be temporary disappointment. (I think we've always accepted that subjects can correct biographical data.) The problem with people without Google-accessible sources is real, and I hope those in Indias can find some print ones to aadd. I've just cut back the article a little and tried to make the tone more objective. As for the other article just mentioned, we will deal with it separately. DGG 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources for this are all either "biographical statements" of the type normally provided by the subject thereof or are articles that the Fredrick has written, not of which he is the subject. Thus, this fails the primary notability criterion, requiring that the subject of an article be the subject of multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (As a side note, his point about the systemic bias against "non-digitised, largely oral societies" is well taken. I just don't think it applies to him, a published journalist who speaks before NGOs, and neither does he claim that it should.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge as there is no established notability beyond involvement in BytesForAll. Attribution merely shows that he's been a guest speaker/judge at various events and written some articles online, none of which have any apparent notability unto themselves. It's also really easy to be cited in publications (and get the resulting ghits) if you write for the publications, but to call that notability would lend undue bias toward the media over other professions. Feeeshboy 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As far as I can tell, the subject meets guidelines, even if just barely. Better sources would help. Coren 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the guidelines of WP:BIO. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 00:11, 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. WjBscribe 09:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Springs: Paranoia Unmasked[edit]

This page is an extremely long summary of an online story related to this deletion discussion. It appears no more worthy for inclusion than those deleted pages. Nyttend 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The computer is your friend. --ElKevbo 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useless plot summary from a non-notable website. Hut 8.5 14:50, 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 speedy delete per author request. --Core desat 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Century High School of Santa Monica[edit]

I suspect this article is a WP:HOAX, or more correctly, a scam. A google search for "Century High School of Santa Monica" returns nothing [9], yet a search for "Century High School" "Santa Monica" [10] returns the top link [11], a site promising diplomas in one week or less. My feeling is that the reputation of schools such as Century High School (Santa Ana, California) is being exploited to make money, and that this article was created as part of this. Indeed, a link to the Santa Ana school website was placed on the page [12]. nadav 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm sorry i don't know how to use the wikipedia program well. Im not a scammer im a student there Heres my myspace www.myspace.com/masterlevon . My schools a small Christian school not alot of people know about it it dosent even have a thing to myspace. Neither did my other school Mekhitarist fathers armenian school of tujunga ca. Alot of people say where the hell is that when i tell them where i go. I cant find a link to the site in not sure if it has one. Ow and that one week diploma thing is a scam thats the thing that i wrote on my page. Gevo227 2-25-07

Gevo, it's hard enough judging articles when they don't include jokes. There possibly is a website--the name may possibly be slightly different. I suggest you ask at your school--however small it may be , there should be someone who deals with the computers. I rather doubt that your school will be notable enough for a Wikipedia article quite yet, but it should certainly get itself a page on the web. DGG 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only made the article so people would know what school i go to instead of saying Where the hell is that. This is my first article i tryed to make and im sorry if anyone was offended. Id just like people to know more about my school. If it does become an article on wikipedia i am going to hand it over to the school so they can add the classes and all that stuff. As far as a web site goes Father Argustis always tells me a computers the devils way of corrupting innocent people looking for answers. Yeah i know extremely crazy but hes a nice guy. Gevo2267 4/25/07 11:21

Gevo, I want to apologize if I have wronged your school. It may indeed be a very small school, in which case that explains why I couldn't find anything about it. I hope you understand that the only reason I nominated the article for deletion was because I was afraid Wikipedia was being exploited for some evil scheme. In hindsight I may have been too quick with my words. Are there any reliable sources you know of that mention your school? If so we can use them to establish your school's notability and thus save your article from deletion. nadav 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Even if it's a fake school offering diplomas that fail state standards it isn't notable as a fake because it hasn't been noticed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be relevant: User talk:Nadav1#Century High, as well as the reaction of page blanking: [13]

Delete - completely unsourced + teh google gives nothing? Oh the humanity! Unverifiable. WilyD 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely unsourced and appears to be a hoax. Black Harry 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Also, this is absolutely a hoax. American private schools are not incorporated into public school districts. Even in California . . . Here's the district's website if you still have any doubt: http://www.smmusd.org/ --Butseriouslyfolks 03:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Author has requested deletion: [14] nadav 04:32, 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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawdex[edit]

Not quite a blatent ad IMO, so not a speedy. But no particular notability evident, and all listed sources are either PR releases from the firm itself, or simple directory listings that varify nothing more than its existance, and are probably based on content provided by the firm. Even based on thso sources, the firm started actual oiperations less than a year ago. Not notable. Fails WP:CORP DES ^(talk) 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my nom abovce, delete. DES ^(talk) 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep because a/the claimed 7,000 users in 21 countries is a large number for this type of service, b/ the California application is only one of the applications of their software c/ they have a partnership arrangement with IBM, I added the link. d/ refs 1 & 3 are businesswire, published by Gale. it ultimately rests on the PR, but it's an edited and reliable news service, backed by a major publisher. I would expect additional refs, and, as usual with commercial organizations, would like to see a 3rd party report on market share. DGG 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but im concerned the sources seem to mention the subject in passing, but not in depth. the_undertow ^talk 07:07, 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 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedia value if more or less notable. Edit to make not like an ad. --R e m i 09:16, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Brandão Lopes[edit]

Sergio Pinheiro Lopes's follow-up (AfD here). Fails WP:BIO. Hús ö nd 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 00:45Z

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 Copyvio from Answers.com --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the bottom of the Answers.com entry, where it says: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia". Answers.com copies us, not the other way around. Punkmorten 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Full professors who have written several books are generally notable. Weak because this has not yet been sourced--including the books.DGG 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it might be better suited in the Spanish Wiki? When I google this person, it seems as though most if not all articles on this person are in spanish. Just a thought. I searched spanish wiki and no article exists as of yet on this person. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The language is Portuguese, not Spanish.--Hús ö nd 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no notability claim in the article, and I don't think there is one to be made. Pete.Hurd 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find sources to support the claims in the article. Sancho (Review me) 07:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raccomandata Ricevuta Ritorno[edit]

The band in Question only released one LP. Outside the debate over a speedy delete, this article has not been edited. The only two articles that link to it are lists of Bands, therefore not one article on Wikipedia feels a link to this article would be necessary Black Harry 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian progressive rock produced a large number of highly regarded one-shot bands (a Google search should confirm that), and this is one of them. Leaving out one of the more important Italian bands would be strange. One wouldn't do that with a British band. Articles on Italian culture are still generally crude, which would suggest that links will be added with time. For example, see the article Culture of Italy. Narssarssuaq 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could add more info about the band to its page, and get some more articles to link to it, then I'd agree that it should be kept. Also, maybe someone could translate the Italian Article (I'm assuming that one exists) on the band to English Black Harry 17:19, 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 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Italian Article, but the band and their only album are mentioned respectfully in several languages([15], [16],[17]). I'd Keep this potentially fruitful seed. Stammer 19:28, 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. Krimpet (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noarch[edit]

Jargon definition. WP:NOT#DICT —Ketil Trout (^<><!) 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. MER-C 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwikiing is now complete. This can be deleted, or whatever. --Xyzzyplugh 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be nothing but a dicdef. --Xyzzyplugh 11:53, 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 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The dicdef alone wouldn't sway me, but there are no incoming links from articles, so WP doesn't need this article to exist. It's already been copied to Wiktionary. YechielMan 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems likely to be permanently stubby. Wiktionary is the proper place for this. —David Eppstein 16:24, 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 Merge into Web Design. --Shirahadasha 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid website[edit]

Article does not establish the notability of this term. And there is already an article which discusses liquid layouts. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Fluid Website is a real phenomenon, however on its own doesn't deserve a seperate article. Merge with Web Design. Ogimmefiction 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it doesn't seem to have any content that isn't already covered in the liquid layout section. -- Whpq 20:15, 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 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Web Design. Seems different enough that redirect would not be appropriate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. Too short for a truly notable article - reads almost like a simple definition from a slang or jargon dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also seems to violate WP:SELF in the last sentence. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kachetta Thompson[edit]

fails to assert notability Nekohakase 09:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply not notable. 4 Ghits including her myspace page. The article fails to mention which TV programs she is "a personality" on. Ohconfucius 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with ohconfucious. not encyclopedic content and not notable.

Athangjain ^talk 12:50, 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 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Hicks (band)[edit]

Insufficient notability - lacks mutliple independant sources to allow information to be verified. The first google hit is another UK band using the same name who play pubs and I couldn't find anything else about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having sufficient sources to verify notability per WP:BAND. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added before the close of this AfD. As it stands, it's actaully a good candidate for speedy under CSD A7 since there is no notability asserted. Given that the article was literally created only a half an hour ago, though, I guess I'll allow some time for the author to make an assertion and add some sources, rather than slapping the speedy tag on it right now. Mwelch 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - got national airplay on Triple J (national Australian radio station)

[18]. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....actually not the band listed above...and neither's this [19]!cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Allmusic bio and discography: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/braxton-hicks-mn0000261198 and Amazon CD in stock: https://www.amazon.com/Modesty-Explicit-Braxton-Hicks/dp/B000CA9UKE Rod (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Rod Whisner[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]

Comment: I think the mere fact there are two bands with the same name is kinda interesting...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:45, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band has reformed, is recording and playing live gigs. Pulling bios for members and notable articles from past. Thx!Rod (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Rod Whisner[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability at all. NBeale 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Mall[edit]

Contested prods, without improvement. Unsourced articles about a group of malls, which appear to fail WP:N. Most are pathetic stubs, and some articles refer to dead or nearly dead malls. Wikipedia is not a directory of defunct or near-defunct shopping malls. Ohconfucius 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn Ohconfucius 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: (Per Lexington Mall): This has been debated before. Your previous reasoning included that it was "being demolished" which is far from reality. I live within minutes and drive by this almost daily and can assure you it is still standing. So are you changing your reasoning in just one day? Per prior comments, similar arguments were discussed in the failed AfD for Kyova Mall which has a long and interesting history. Malls listed are also notable for their localities and do not necessarily need to be representative of a more worldwide or national view. If that was the case, we'd be best erasing many localised entries because they fail to present a more nationalistic view. A blanket nomination should be thrown out, IMO. Notability is not a blanket -- each mall should be delt with individually, addressing specific issues with each. I'll also repeat what was said in a previous blanket-AFD-case. "Just because the malls aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't important to everybody." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000 for a failed AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has been improved with citations based upon my research at Abandoned. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a classic laundry list nomination that includes articles with widely-varying levels of content. A look at the current version of the Manalapan Mall shows multiple, reliable sources. Other articles can also demonstrate notability. This should be split up and addressed on the merits of each individual article. Alansohn 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Malls are a distinct 20th century product of technology and real estate investment. Since wikipedia is not paper we can track some of the charactaristics and development of these sites. Although some of these articles are lacking details or references I think wikipedia can serve as a neutral (non corporate) source for the history of the mall. --Helm.ers 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately and Keep in the meanwhile. It is sometimes convenient to list more than one at a time, but then the articles should be similar enough in notability for a common judgment. We might well agree on the deletion of some, such as Tri City. DGG 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all ~~and don't relist~~ - Haven't we gone through this before? Someone lists a crapload of malls in one clump; they all get kept because nobody likes en masse nominations. In fact, this list right here shares some common mall pages with the older nom linked to above! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:54, 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 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical landscape[edit]

Original research. The term mathematical landscape is used in a news item of the American Institute of Mathematics in an attempt to explain the story. This use of the term is not common. I think that the article's use of the term extrapolates from the uncommon meaning in the AIM news item. The article goes on to list several interesting mathematical objects with little common ground. It ends with something called the "mathematical landscape conjecture", which very roughly reflects the beliefs of theoretical physicists like Edward Witten but its description is very vague, no references are given, and again, the name is a neologism as far as I can see.

This page was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Strange article. The conclusion was that the page as it stands contains too much original research. I waited more than two weeks to give the author the opportunity to work on it, but not much has happened. So I now propose the article be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Indiscriminate" seems to me an accurate description of this collection of physical theories, group representations, triangular numbers, algebras... —David Eppstein 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research; an effort to formulate a vague conjecture, to be found at the end of the article. The common use of the "mathematical landscape" metaphor is that found in Queen of Mathematics, and has nothing to do with dimension. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual mathematical factoids are sound enough, but the topic of the article, the so-called "Mathematical Landscape Conjecture", is unsourced speculation and appears to be a neologism. Gandalf61 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Theoretical physicists do try to explain constants, but this article reads like silly numerology with no substance. --KSmrq^T 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. (As a professional mathematician, I'd like to believe my opinion may have additional weight.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say delete. The cited news item used a metaphor once. That doesn't mean there's some convention according to which it is used generally. Even if no conventions is generally precisely defined, an idea could warrant a concept if it is in widespread use; mathematical beauty is an example. But this doesn't look like such a case. Of course it is possible that unbeknownst to me, mathematicians working in that area of research generally use the term. If so and someone points that out to me, I may alter this present opinion. Michael Hardy 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possibly merge with something in physics. The bulk of the article seems concerned with the different models of the universe and the number of dimensions they require. I'm sure this is mentioned somewhere else in the physics articles. There may be some mathematical interest the pattern of objects which occur in different dimensions, for instance Poincaré conjecture getting simpler in higher dimensions and the pattern which occur in the homotopy groups of spheres. I don't have a strong objection to this article, I can see it being a hook which could get school kids interested in mathematics and physics, as its the sort of thing which becomes school yard currency. But it does not in its current state meet the wp grade. --Salix alba (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The premise of the article seems too ill-defined, and there is little to no criteria for what should or should not be included. Hell, all of mathematics is connected in some way or another and almost all of it can be applied in theoretical physics somewhere. That would make for a very long article. The conjecture in particular needs to be sourced if it is to be included. -- Fropuff 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that it is convenient to have a list of the various dimensionalities associated with physical theories. JRSpriggs 10:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment could the article be cut down to focus on the physics and renamed? --Salix alba (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this content could be moved to an article on string theory landscapes. It's connection to pure mathematics is dubious at best --ScienceApologist 12:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with string theory landscape which is something else entirely. -- Fropuff 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - A google search turns up planty of hits, but none in which this term is used in the way described in this article. From this I must conclude that this usage is a neologism and therefore a violation of WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination expressed the deletion argument quite clearly. Proposed solutions (such as those discussed at WT:WPM) to "fix" the article are too problematic. There may be a kernel of some useful heuristic or motivation for physicists, but it is all much too vague here to be useful. --C S (Talk) 03:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AIM news item uses the word "mathematical landscape" to describe the appearance of exceptional Lie groups among the simple ones. The term is not in general use in this sense (as far as I know), but more significantly, the mathematical landscape article is not about this! Instead it is about the special features of different dimensions from the point of view of geometry (symmetry) and physics. There is scope for an article on this topic, but it would probably look very different from mathematical landscape. Nevertheless, I have copied some of the material (minus the numerology, neologisms and some of the unsourced speculation) to User:Geometry guy/Geometry by dimension, so that in the (likely) event of deletion, the material will remain available for a while (just in case anyone finds any of it useful). Geometry guy 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly refed Although this is quite interesting it is quite un-refed and seems to be WP:OR NBeale 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WATMM[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)).

Notability not asserted. Could not find reliable sources to establish notability on a google search. Article written like a promotional piece. soum (0_o) 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article is more well established than the majority of website articles on wikipedia. the website apparently is a haven for well known artists, a music community for known producers and a record company. how is it not notable? --AlexOv Shaolin 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPAll of the articles that cover the listed artists link to the site WATMM. Notability surely established by wikipedia itself. It has a user base in the thousands. For a music genre that has a very small fan base, this establishes credibility.KoreanIan 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) — KoreanIan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep as per KoreanIan. additionally, Pitchfork media [20], themilkfactory [21], others have referenced the site, and the compilation album was available from Warp Records online record store for some time. --Kaini 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others, also, posters on WATMM have included Wisp (musician), Datach'i and The Flashbulb. WATMM was also mentioned in a Sublight Records press release for Venetian Snares release Pink + Green which stated "Watmm fags will hate this shit cuz they're too sour from licking Joyrex's balls all night and listening to each other's poor attempts at trying to make their cracked vst plugs sound like BOC" but it was edited after a few hours. I saw it with my own eyes on Sublight's site. T-1 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as this article explains details about the page that aren't self explaining, i.e. where that abbrevation is from. keep in mind that some of their resources have been gone with a server crash in 11/2005, which makes this wiki article additionally attracting with user generated infos (perhaps not added yet) about the history before. Minitechnik ) 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Minitechnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP highly notable, forum is a long-standing bastion of the electronic music scene, and has helped bring several notable musicians into the spotlight. might as well delete the aphex twin article. 74.101.213.92 18:57, 24 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the site and group seem interesting. Noone outside of wikipedia, the site itself and blogs appear to have written specifically about it. No news articles or other reliable sources have show interest in the site. Although everything in the article may be true we cannot write an encyclopediac article without independant sources. The site fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) - Peripitus (Talk)
Delete per nom and comments by Peripitus. Adambro 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I originally fleshed out the initial stub to most of what is there today, this is an important site in terms of supporting a large community of musicians. Probably the most outstanding aspect would have to be its ability to provide peer review by both signed and unsigned artists. I well understand that longevity cannot support the acceptance of the article and save it from deletion, however the site has a history which reaches past the current cache of references in Google. It should be noted more for its involvement in actually releasing musical material in the same way as a traditional music label. This aligns the operations of the site with labels such as Planet_Mu. Reviews of releases from WATMM records can be shown [here] and [here]. News source references can be found [here] and [here]. I have involvement with a number of sites in the same sphere, WATMM has notoriety within the industry, is well known and involved in supporting major labels such as WARP and Rephlex Records. Cen 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of the claims of notability in "news source references" asserted above, these resources are either blogs or incidental mentions in articles about a different topic. Zero reliable sources to establish WP:N for this website. Claims of notable persons accessing/using their website or incoming links from other notable resources still do not satisfy the lack of reliable sources. The bar for inclusion based on WP:WEB has 3 different qualifying circmstances - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", or "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Three chances, three failures. Three strikes, yer out. Sorry, but this is just not notable enough for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Hut 8.5 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan; no references? No article. --Haemo 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP once again, this organization has been involved with many important record companies and well known musicians, it easily deserves its own article. CITATIONS ADDED. --AlexOv Shaolin 19:29, 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 speedily deleted. Sam Blacketer 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jong Hyeon Kim[edit]

16-year old schoolkid who wants to be a drummer. Contested speedy. cab 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as non-notable bio. --ElKevbo 07:45, 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 Redirect to Ragnarok Online. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:08Z

Thief (Ragnarok Online)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This content would be better if were moved to the StrategyWiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:28, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but take info out of article and put into Ragnarok Online. This article is NOT a game guide, just because it deals with a game, does not mean it's a guide. I read the article (takes like 1-2 minutes) and it was in NO WAY coming across as a guide. However, it's just too short and unneccesary. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed in the Ragnarok Online page there is no other class that is broken down, so IMHO, this should either just be DELETED without putting the info in the RO page, unless all classes can be defined in the RO page. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:01, 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 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rimzu[edit]

Another social networking website with no claim to notability, no sources, and a member count self-admittedly in the low hundreds.

By the way, if you disable Javascript when loading their front page you can see the full extent of their "features" or lack thereof which is highly amusing. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:38, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "over 167 members" I'm sorry that's not enough. Come back when you have more. --Revolución hablar ver 10:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. Adambro 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. (In what language does the pronunciation of Rimzu rhyme with yazoo?) --Infrangible 02:18, 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 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Abersheid[edit]

Non-notable independent filmmaker. His sole claim to fame is that one of his films (also nominated) appeared in a film festival held by the IDA (which itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia page yet). While perhaps winning an IDA award might be a valid indicator of notability, simply being shown (like hundreds of other films shown by other organizations) is no more than a proof of existence. There are 0 reviews or other critical reaction to report on, seemingly.

He's also a self-published poet. That's nice, but not even close to notable in the field. Lastly, there are major conflict of interest problems everywhere here, along with a style of writing reminiscent of advertising - the article was originally created by a User:Writermo1, and the IP address which removed the prod claimed to be Mr. Abersheid on the talk page. SnowFire 22:50, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom; nonnotable and COI. YechielMan 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete - nom pretty much says it all. Irretrievably OR. Feeeshboy 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing asserted remotely notable. NBeale 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rexhep Goçi[edit]

Non notable artist. No sources, few Ghits. Tikiwont 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just 10 ghits. It's impossible to write a decent article about him. YechielMan 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesn't demonstrate notability. NawlinWiki 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Meek[edit]

Autobiographical article. Nekohakase 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Autobiography is discouraged here but not forbidden, and the article does seem to lay claim to notability. A rather old reference can be found here. Can anybody verify the status of the "Gold Award" mentioned, and also comment on the assertion that "his work has been noted in the NY Times on numerous occasions". The latter, if true, would seem to confirm his eligibility for an article. BTLizard 09:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. G-search for ("Kevin Meek" + lighting) does not give much in the way of notability. (balletmet.org is a biography by a former employer -- I don't interpret this as meeting standards for notability.) If the NY Times articles are non-trivial, I'd say keep, but they could also just be passing mentions.--Kathy A. 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly insufficient refs for notability, and a user should not create their own article. NBeale 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/nomination withdrawn. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bench[edit]

Not notable. So-called references are links to general sites. The three links within the article don't mention any so-called "the bench" organization. nadav 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a legitimate article with sources cited. It has precidents set by the list of Big-12 student rooting sections for basketball games. I do not understand why it would be put up for deletion. Furthermore, please refer to outside link number one. That is the official University Athletics site acknowleding the existence of The Bench. Also, since the citations are from rival school's newspapers, it is not surprising that they do not acknowledge the offical name for The Bench. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions just because you are not familiar with a situation. Thanks.

I also just added yet another external link quoting students who were members of The Bench as well as the University physically moving the seats that The Bench use at games. More irrefutable evidence that it exists. Maybe you should check on Big 12 basketball student sections that cite no sources and are simply single sentences instead of this legitimate article.

Delete as failing to be notable or backed up with reliable sources. A university group that I cannot find has attracted any notice by the outside world. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seeing as it has reliable sources (univesity and athletic website, as well as three different alternative press newspapers). As far as notability goes, please refer to this article and a list of 9 similar articles for the Big 10 rooting section: [22], that, my friends, is precedent especially since The Bench articles sites far more sources. (gomfbears)

Comment To be fair, I will nominate the rest of the student cheering section articles after this debate concludes. As for precedent, see WP:WAX. nadav 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or, I am sure, not nominate them if the article is kept.DGG 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, will we take it as a "precedant" that any college student organization deserves its own article? The only source that mentions "The Bench" by name is the team's website. Does that meet notability standards? nadav 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification- Not only does the school website refer to the bench by name, but also a newsapaper (The Daily Californian) which is independent of the school also speaks of The Bench by name. Furthermore, the article references the architectural plans for the remodeling of the gym, which set aside a specific location for "The Bench.' Here is another article specifically on The Bench [23] and I assume you will not need a list of the numerous other articles mentioning it. Here are some articles mentioning The Bench (just search Bench in your browser and it will take you there, as I am sure you know) [24]. Also, the Prank the article mentions under Heckling tactics gave the student section fame as one of the greatest baskeball pranks ever [25] (gomfbears)
Sports Illustrated Article- Here is an Article on Cal Student Section, clearly highlighting The Bench. Clearly, this is a highly reliable source and to be profiled on SI is definitely notable. [26] (gomfbears)
Withdrawn Ok guys, you proved your point well. When I nominated the article for deletion, I did not get the sense that it had been covered in publications. But the SI column and Daily Cal article proved otherwise. May I ask that you incorporate the sources into a References section? Best, nadav 23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I understand your concern and will fix the references section right now.

Keep. I agree with with nadav's decision to withdraw the nomination based on the references that have been added. Gomfbears -you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment or clicking the signature button located above the edit window. This makes it much easier to follow who is saying what.--Kubigula (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Grind Iron Man Challenge[edit]

No reliable sources, notability not asserted. bogdan 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a competion including 56 webcomic artists, 9 of which have Wikipedia articles. It was widly reported on at the time by people who watch the webcomic scene. It's not very exciting anymore with the main players gone and with dropouts occuring every second month, but that doesn't retroactively make the initial interest insignificant.

It could use some attribution. Sadly, most of these claims seem to stem from artist discussion on the Daily Grind forums, which appear to be gone now. –Gunslinger47 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It's mildly interesting, but it seems like a glorified office pool. I'd be surprised if this article is still on Wikipedia ten years from now. (By then, nobody should care.) YechielMan 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, I doubt everyone would care in a few years. bogdan 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third party sources. Sancho (Review me) 07:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jefferson Square[edit]

Contested merge/redirect candidate. I do not believe that this mall, which serves a town with a population of 52,000, to be notable (15 Ghits, most of which directory listings or property ads), and merged it to Pine Bluff, but was reverted without explanation or improvement. Furthermore, the article has been a stub since November 2006, and is unsourced. Ohconfucius 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:N. Possibly not notable depending on anchor stores. Sounds more like a plaza than a shopping mall. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Size is not the only factor, nor in my opinion is the presence of major anchors, but there are no particular factors of notability here otherwise. DGG 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I may be an inclusionist, but yeah, this article's hopeless unless someone can dig into the Pine Bluff archives (library? city hall?) and come up with something that makes this at least semi-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:26, 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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production discography[edit]

Ill-defined and superfluous list: The mentioned Hip-Hop albums already list their producers and the producers articles list the album credits. Tikiwont 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what is the purpose of this list. Delete. YechielMan 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I still cannot figure out what it is. Just a big list of line items with no indication of what exactly it is a list of, or why we need to have such a list. The creator(s) of the list, who seem to be ignoring the AfD, can in the future create a new article, properly titled, and made in structural compliance with the guidelines on lists, if they wish. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I see, each section of the list details one hip-hop artist's production credits in the form Year / Produced artist / album. So the first entry mena that 9th Wonder has been in 2003 a producer for Little Brother's album The Listening. However, The Listening lists 9th Wonder as producer and he already has a section 9th_Wonder#Selected_Production_Credits, so in any case there is no point. --Tikiwont 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was remove. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove[edit]

Previously prodded. [27] I was the creator of the article who, in some sense, do not want the article to be deleted. However, being in such conflict of interest, I think it's best to bring the article here for greater scrutiny. --Der yck C. 12:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable as its own article, it really should have been deleted through the prod RogueNinja 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 09:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was never logged. I'm about to log it in today's logs. --ais523 10:30, 26 April 2007 (U T C)
Delete - I do not see how we can have articles on every command in every programming language. I do not know C, but presume that it comes with help pages. If so, they are the place to look for infromation, not WP. Peterkingiron 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into C file input/output, where the other file-related stdio.h commands have been merged. Clearly, individual programming language commands are not usually notable, but C's entire file I/O system may be. --ais523 10:10, 30 April 2007 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Opening of Misty Beethoven. —dgies^t_c 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Beaudant[edit]

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be written specifically to point up the non-notability of its subject. BTLizard 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree; The Opening of Misty Beethoven was one of the more noted adult films of its time. It didn't get nearly the mainstream press coverage of the bans on Deep Throat, but it was far more notable than a typical porn quickie of that era. I can't search for attributable sources from work, but mainstream media probably carried the speculation listed in the article, so neutral at this time. Barno 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read attributable articles in the past which cited this movie and this actress in the way described by Dekkappai, which shows more notability than most of the actresses than have appeared in a hundred shot-on-video quickies. Changing to merge to the movie title's article, unless we find citations which give enough info to support a standalone article for Ms. Beaudant. Barno 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Opening of Misty Beethoven. Short article doesn't stand alone, but could be useful as a paragraph there. If someone finds sources writing about JB specifically, not just about the film, we can break it out later. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has only been up for one month, not enough time for sufficient research into reviews of the time, which, I suspect, will provide more information on the subject. I've already found a mention in contemporary issues of Variety and Playboy. The fact that she appeared in only one film is irrelevant, since number of films has been excluded as a means of establishing notability. The one film in which she appeared is one of the best-known of the "Porno chic" era of US theatrical pornography. She had a leading role in this film and apparently garnered some media attention. For these reasons, I'd first considered a Strong Keep, but the article on this actress will probably never be long enough to be obtrusive at the film article. So Merge it there. If more substantial information is eventually found, recreate the article later. Dekkappai 17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnonEMouse & Dekkappai. Tabercil 21:31, 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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet[edit]

Contested prod with no comment as to notability from an editor who is the subject of the article. This article is a biography where the only claim to notability is an inherited title, Baronet. The title, should not be confused with the title of Baron and it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords' unlike a Baron. Therefore title has no claim to notability and has no input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems.

The first/original holder of the title may have a claim to notability, a 1st Baronet may be notable based on the reasons that he was given the title for some deed or notability but subsequent family members that who simple inherit a title that is essential not notable and has no real power is not. As we know 'notability cannot gained from relationship' and 'Wikipedia is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails WP:N and WP:BIO and even the defunct proposal of WP:NOBLE. There will be editors who will vote on a WP:ILIKEIT bases and simple stating that Baronets are notable but when these editor are questioned as to why they are notable they are (especially in the light that it is a ceremonial title carrying no Parlimentary or legal powers) there will be limited response.

Additionally the sources provided have dubious reliability per WP:RS as the information provided within Who's Who and Debretts give no "depth of coverage" like a telephone directory are merely a genealogy listings and also they are to some large degree self published works WP:SPS as they are compiled from questionnaires that are sent out to the entrants and rely on this information for their own entries.

Furthermore I have checked the internet and written press for any other claims to notability other than being the son of someone that was given a Baronetcy and could find nothing. Therefore this page should deleted or merged to Arbuthnot Baronets as this is not a genealogical database. Therefore my !vote is -

Delete or Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets-- Vintagekits 11:58, 26 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)).

Comment. As for WP:AUTO I think it should apply except where the subject is not notable. That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been WP:COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter. That does not imply that I think his "nn" tags" and AfD are good faith. Nor do I Have to where the evidence shows otherwise. I have felt he has been stalking me for some time and only this morning was arguing "murder vs killing" with me at the Village Pump. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it isn't clear from the statement above, User:Kittybrewster is the subject, Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. He started and substantially wrote the article. -Will Beback · † · 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not voting because WP:COI. But once the closer has determined the vote I would like to make a general comment or two. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been a bit OTT so far in this AfD with regards my challenging of editors to explain their "keep" !votes - yes this is a discussion and I am gully entitled to do this however I feel I may have gone to far but this was only in the interests of having a proper debate and not allowing some editors to rely on on WP:ILIKEIT and rather to base their !votes on wikipolcy. Over the past number of months a number of editors have been abusing the AfD process, canvassing and vote stacking - they have all appeared here again. This is a prime example of what I am talking about and I have added fuller details on the talk page of this AfD. Again sorry for going OTT here but if you had you put up with months of systematic abuse you might know how I feel. I am going to take a break from this page now an lie down - aaaaaah! regards--Vintagekits 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not only something which is gained by a person's own actions, it can be thrust upon people without any voluntary action of their own. The fact that a significant number of people hold Baronets, regardless of what they have done, to be interesting and worthy of record means that a holder of a Baronetcy is notable. The article is acceptably sourced for a biography of a living person; while Who's Who and Debretts do rely on the subjects of entries for updates, they will check and refuse inaccuracies. (People claiming bogus honours do not get in). Sam Blacketer 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats not true Sam, Baronets automatically get an entry in Debrett and Who's Who listings - remember that these books carry no depeth of covering and are purely listings akin to a telephone listing and ARE compiled by sending out questionaires that are filled in by the entrants themselves and are inaccurate in many cases. A Baronet is not a member of the peerage and is not a notable title unlike Baron, Earl and Duke. Additionally it goes against what you said when there was a discussion as you the notability of 2nd and subsequent Baronets. front the Baronet page - A baronetcy is unique in two ways:

it is a hereditary honour but is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
a baronet is styled 'Sir' but a baronetcy is not considered an order of knighthood. --Vintagekits 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are wrong. This is not a debateable subject. it is a simple fact of the British establishment that baronets are notable and part of the nobility. You may not like it but its true. The Peerage is never printed without the Baronetage. Comparing established Peerages with a telephone directory shows your contempt on this subject and your very obvious lack of WP:Good faith. By the way, being a peer or a baronet does NOT entitle you to go in Who's Who and entries in that books are never "automatic". 81.151.246.175 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Excuse me I am acting in good faith my explanation regarding why this article should be deleted is clearly thought out and explained so I am avoiding WP:IDONTLIKEIT - which you will soon see is the main motivation that other editors will you in order to keep the article. I have also stated that I would be happy to see the article merged to Arbuthnot Baronets where he is already listed and there is a lot of repetition and cross over in both articles anyway. Infact he has created numerous articles in order to get every family member (such as Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) an article. Shameless self promotion imo.--Vintagekits 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I see no notability in any of the facts stated in the article. DES ^(talk) 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO as well. This article has conflict of interest problems as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any conflicts of interest. Kittybrewster may have edited it but his changes were all minor formatting, presentational and technical. This isn't prohibited. Sam Blacketer 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Links to own sites? Removing ((nn)) tags? Creating the article in the first place? To the best of my knowledge a conflict of interest has never actually been declared by Kittybrewster, and it's a clear conflict of interest in my opinion and I've raised it on the COI noticeboard accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep: It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the nominator of this AFD, User:Vintagekits has demonstrated a very clear axe to grind against the subject of this article (who also is a Wikipedia User), over a considerable period. In addition he has shown a very clear distate for Britain, and the British Establishment and nobility. People should leave their personal vendettas behind when they come onto Wikipedia. Attempting to twist and turn the umpteen Wikipedia guidelines (and they are only guidelines "not carved in stone") to suit one's personal gripes is wrong. It is more than clear that the subject of this article is notable. 81.151.246.175 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Clear voting twice by the same user; striking out the IP vote. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Thank you for basing your !vote on your dislike for me rather than wikipolicy (dont worry there will be more). It should be noted that this IP just edits one article, I'll say no more.--Vintagekits 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only you would. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now - please remember WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd be more inclined to agree with the points made by Vintagekits, who displays an admirable interest in the WikiProject Baronetcies, if I didn't suspect that this AfD had more to do with the ongoing dispute about describing deaths caused by IRA activities as 'killings' rather than 'murders'; see here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Once again, thank you for basing your vote on my rather than wikipolicy. P.S. Major Bonkers is a member of the "Baronet Project"--Vintagekits 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline in question is WP:POINT. And I am not a member of WikiProject Baronetcies. Please try to AGF. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bit rich after you stated "if I didn't suspect that this AfD had more to do with the ongoing dispute about describing deaths caused by IRA activities as 'killings' rather than 'murders'; see here" - remind me who's not assuming good faith. Try voting on the basing of wikipolicy not POV!--Vintagekits 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw a distinction between your judgment, which I think is wrong in this case on the basis of the wikipolicy WP:POINT and as commented upon above, but I do not impugn you personally. It would be more to the point if you address the concerns that I raise. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title confers notability so the article is legitimate, someone doesn't have to cure cancer to be a notable princess. Nick mallory 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, incorrect, the title of Baron confers automatic notability as it is a higher ranking title and also allows (up until recently) the holder of that title to a seat in the House of Lords, however a the holder of a Baronet holds no such power and is purely ceremonial.--Vintagekits 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, mine is different from yours. I daresay we'd disagree about the I.R.A. too and a host of other things but that's the nature of this place, it seeks consensus from a diversity of opinions. Coming back and having a go at everyone who disagrees with you here isn't doing your case any good. Nick mallory 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is only fair, however if you wish to state them on an AfD allow and expect them to be questioned and challenged. Many edits are !noting "keep" on the basis that they dont like my republicanism which is petty. Anyway back to your vote - what is it about hte title of Baronet that you consider to be so notable as to confer automatic motability?--Vintagekits 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is asserted by the person being the subject of multiple, independent, non trivial sources, which this person clearly is. Your nomination is clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which you not I are constantly bringing up, rather than any breach of Wikipedia inclusion policy. Nick mallory 06:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the person clearly isn't the subject of multiple, independent non trivial sources, given that the entire sum of the non trivial sources runs to a five sentence stub. Perhaps if you spent less time attacking the motives of other editors (despite repeated requests not to) you would have realised that the sources are most definitely not non-trivial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Baronets are of course members of the hereditary nobility. The only difference was that their Letters Patent excluded a right to sit in the Lords. Thats all. It is obvious that the subject of this article is notable. David Lauder 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, welcome, welcome David, we've had you and Major Bonkers arrived now all we need is Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary and maybe Gibnews for the full set of what another admin called the "lock step" voters. Additionally it is precisely the fact that Baron do get a seat in the House of Lords that makes them notable - thank you for contradicting yourself.--Vintagekits 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wasn't proposing to vote because of WP:COI. There is much in the article which I would wish were not there. Heigh ho! Is it a personality trait for some folks to be set upon commenting on everything and having the last word? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really!!

Comment/Question - How are baronets in anyway different than Prescriptive Baronys from the perspective of wikipolicy? New Progressive 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Baronetcy cannot be bought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the distinction in reality - but how does that reflect itself in wikipolicy? I tried checking whether prescriptives were notable, but I couldn't get anywhere on the policy pages I tried, however, given that I've seen so few on the project, I'd guess that the holders aren't. One is bought, the other passes through family lines. How does wikipedia policy conclude that one is notable and the other not? New Progressive 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Default Keep since this seems to be a potentially bad-faith nom. If we don't have a policy on this (i.e. what levels of nobility are notable by default), then we should have. Badgerpatrol 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my reasons for nominating this article for deletion are made clear. I tried to discuss the notability with the owner of the article but this was met with reverts. Maybe you should make your decision based on wiki policy rather than your feelings towards me! Is that the 3rd of 4th keep vote that is based on me rather than the article?--Vintagekits 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you should stop insulting every editor who expresses a view contrary to your own. WP:CIV and WP:NPA most emphatically are policies. I have no negative feelings towards you whatesoever. I do have negative feelings towards this nomination, if it was made in bad faith. Your condascending and intolerent attitude is not helping to dissuade me from that view. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats strange - you based your vote completely on your own opinion of my and totally ignored anything to do with the article. Its is not my job to dissude you - policy should do that. If you read the reasons that I have clearly outlined in the nomination and then read all the delete votes rationale then you will see that it is not a bad faith nomination whatsoever. I suggest that you base your future !votes on policy on not on spurious and absurd "default keep" nonsense.--Vintagekits 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. OK then, I'm very grateful for your kind suggestions! ;-) If it's not your job to dissuade me, then why don't you keep quiet and let the community have its say, rather than badgering and harassing every editor who dares to disagree with your (come on now) blatantly bad-faith nomination (whatever the rights and wrongs of the deletion). No change of vote. Badgerpatrol 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a discussion not a vote. I would rather show your !vote up for the absurd nonsense that it is then change your mind from voting "against me" - way to go, thats very rational!--Vintagekits 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and it's supposed to be rational and sensible discussion based on mutual respect between all parties. As you say, this is a discussion not a strict vote- hence one can discuss any aspect of the aricle or nomination one wants, including process issues. Do I know you? Your extreme rudeness suggests familiarity- I am sorry if I have offended you in some way in the past, as seems to be the case. If I don't know you, then you seem to have a touch of the paranoids- I am not voting against you, I'm voting against your nomination. Try not to take things so personally, it will avoid a great deal of stress. Badgerpatrol 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Paranoia is an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive" - not sure I am being paranoid if you read your opening line - "since this seems to be a potentially bad-faith nom." You make no attempt to address notability just just have a pop at me - on that basis I find it hard not to take it personal. Try and imagine how you would react if the shoe was on the other foot. I have had a number of personal supporters of Kittybrewster (the subject of this article) have a pop at me on this AfD instead of commenting on notability and to be honest I am getting sick of it. Once we get through the initial spurt of personal support/dislike for either myself or Kitty then we will get to the people that really count the neutral observer who can look at this subject objectively and focus on notability because at the moment some of the keep !votes on here are making a mockery of the AfD process!--Vintagekits 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are irrationally conflating criticism of this nomination with attacks on you (= "having a pop at"). My dictionary [28] defines "paranoia" as "1. a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. 2 unjustified suspicion and mistrust of others." I don't know you or anything about you, but the way you've conducted yourself here and the fact that you seem to be in conflict over other issues suggests to me that you are trying to game the system to make a WP:POINT and express your dislike of a fellow editor. If you find it "hard" not to take it personal- try harder. I don't know you and I have absolutely no interest in you. Unless you are going to respond to substantive points in a reasonable, civil, and fair-minded way, then say nothing. If you feel you are being treated with incivility on this AfD, or are being subjected to personal attacks, then take it to an admin. Badgerpatrol 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I nominated the article for deletion and you are criticising the potential motives then it is reasonable to state that its in an attack on my integrity. I'll tell you what why don't we both WP:AGF and take a fresh look at the issue and reconsider your !vote again and base it on the notability of the individual rather than my motives for nominating the article and if you then are at a "keep" position then I will say no more. regards--Vintagekits 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but give a one-line mention in a list of baronets or similar. OK, I know nothing about British nobility, so I'll try to approach this from first principles. This person is apparently only notable for being a baronet, a hereditary title of nobility of which there are apparently circa 1,300 holders. Absent any other individual notability, I fail to see why we should list anything else about him except the one thing that distinguishes him from any other British citizen, i.e., his moderately notable title. A list or table of all baronets would be the appropriate format for this. Sandstein 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets seems like an obvious solution then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed: Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets. Sandstein 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep patently rediculous nom, passes WP:BIO and the like. Ethical judgements about whether someone merits being notable have no place here, but I'll believe this nom is the result of a gross misunderstanding of policy rather than being done in bad faith to prove a point. I stand by the keep, although I'll say I knew something was rotten in the state of Wikipedia, but it seems I was wrong in my guess about what. WilyD 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which part of "WP:BIO and the like" does it pass? I'd love to hear this one!--Vintagekits 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, high profile baronet. Apparently a bad faith nom resulting from class hate. --Counter-revolutionary 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it was only a matter of time I suppose - if he is sooooooo high profile why isnt there ONE non trivia source of information on the net about him? I was hardly a surprise that this edit who has been invloved in a ca

nvassing ring with the subject of this article (Kittybrewster) and other editors that have voted to keep including David Lauder and Major Bonkers would come on here and vote on a WP:ILIKEIT basis - see here for further details--Vintagekits 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot the internet was the be all and end all of notability. Journals are dead. --Counter-revolutionary 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are correct not all info is on the net. Can you name some journals that are accessible to the public which will go to proving his notability?--Vintagekits 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to something like JSTOR do a search on there. --Counter-revolutionary 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A password is needed to use the website - have you got one or can you just tell me what journals he is featured in.--Vintagekits 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article gets 19 hits on JSTOR - of course, there being another, far more famous Sir William Arbuthnot who was also a Baronet makes the situation tiresome to research. WilyD 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at them; the search results are here, for those who can use them. All of them appear to be hits on that phrase as separate words; none of them are about the 20th or 21st centuries; and all but three of them are from before 1971, when the subject cam of age. "William Arbuthnot" Baronet gets me no hits at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, ridiculous nomination. Of course baronets are notable! Will we next be deleting article on peers on the grounds that most no longer sit in the Lords? Monarchs do not create heritable titles for fun.80.44.211.24 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — 80.44.211.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address.--Vintagekits 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course he qualifies as notable — no question. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A mere directory listing in the telephone book-like peerage directory does not satisfy WP:N. It is as poor an excuse for "inherent notability" as a listing of someone in Daughters of the American Revolution would be. Merely having an ancestor who was given a an honorary title does not satisfy WP:BIO. And there have been way too many violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF in this discussion. Edison 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability other than a title.--Domer48 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...another Irish wikipedian...--Counter-revolutionary 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish peoples votes dont count eh!--Vintagekits 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont think that someone who inherits a title is notable or should be notable for that matter - 91.105.253.55 — 91.105.253.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Are you sure you don't just mean the latter? WilyD 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as well? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point Ben, your right but additionally QE2 have legal and state powers that come from the title she recieved. With many titles the holder also gains a degree of parlimentary or legal power with them, such of Barons historically getting a seat on the House of Lords however a Baronet conveys no power and is purely ceremonial - however it is a good point that you raise.--Vintagekits 08:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.84.64.139.42 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — 84.64.139.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT - this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by user:84.64.139.42 --Counter-revolutionary 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Keep as notabality clearly achieved, SqueakBox 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pretty pathetic really - another user who votes on the basis that I call the Falklands the Malvinas!--Vintagekits 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unsourced personal attacks. I have voted for one reason, because IMO he is notable. Can you please explain what Sir William has to do with the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has nothing to do with the Falklands but your motivation behind voting has. What section of wiki policy conveys notablity on this person then eh!?--Vintagekits 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. Now please stop thinking you know what I think or why I act and start behaving reasonably. As he has nothing to do with the Falklands I assume your comment and your accusation that I abuse the afd system is nothing more than an entirely uncalled for personal attack. Please desist, SqueakBox 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, what part of policy are you basing your !vote on then?--Vintagekits 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Worthy of being notable" at WP:Notability. I tend to think we should take a liberal approach to BLP notability and I would argue all British Barons or Knights pass notability per se, and the Debrett's and Who's Who refs also impress me re his notability, SqueakBox 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are !voting on what you think the policy should be and not on current policy! bonkers! As for "I would argue all British Barons or Knights pass notability" this guy aint either of those! "Debrett's and Who's Who refs also impress me re his notability" - these are reference books, just listings with no depth of coverage - have you ever actually looked at a copy? I went and looked at this guys entry its miniscule - would a name in a telephone directory impress you? here is some information that you should know about the telephone directories that are Who's Who and Debretts--Vintagekits 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards for people are actually really low. Everybody with an entry at [www.baseball-reference.com] passes WP:BIO very explicitly, even if they only spend a half-inning standing in the outfield and never even saw a baseball. WilyD 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are not happy with that then you and try and change it! That has nothing to do with this person - he never played baseball as a pro!--Vintagekits 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been familiar with Debrett's and particularly Who's Who (which we always had in the house when I was a child) for most of my life, and I agree with Wily that there are plenty of less notable people who still pass our current threshold. There are those who would like to tighten policy on BLP notability but not me, SqueakBox 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD one of the arguments it states you shouldnt use is that "others are less notable" and secondly vote on current wiki policy NOT what you want it to be.--Vintagekits 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote on my interpretation of policy, SqueakBox 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats strange because on my talk page here you admit that you havent got a clue what you are talking about with regards this subject and that you know the difference between and Baron, Baronet or a Knight!!--Vintagekits 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I do know my way around wikipedia policy, and my lack of knowledge of British peerage isnt relevant. I read the article and based on my interpretation of policy voted, SqueakBox 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What!?!?! You have now conceed that you did not know what a Baronet was and thought it was a Baron, so I fail to see what exactly it is about the article that makes you want to keep it now that you know this!--Vintagekits 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is simple, I think a baronetcy is also notable, especially after reading some of the other threads here, I think Guy may have a point but otherwise its a clear keep, SqueakBox 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<remove indent>Even though you now know that a Baronet doesnt carry the "powers" or "importance" that you thought it did until I explained to you on my talk page what a Baronet was!!! OK, lets assume that you do - why do you think that title of Baronet conveys notablity per wiki policy?--Vintagekits 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that comes as no surpirse to me that he holds no real political power and a good thing to, but a baronetcy from what i can see is both unusual and a part of our British culture and so for me that makes him notable, SqueakBox 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is possibly the most pathetic reason I have ever heard - so you couldnt come up with any reason so you said its part of "British Culutre" - so are Pearlymen, Smackheads, Gas meter readers etc but does every individual one of those deserve an article. There is no point in discussing this further with you if your are going to come out with totally irrational arguments like that.--Vintagekits 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to address the underlying complaint you seem to be making, that nobility don't deserve to be notable, rather than they aren't notable (which is clearly false). This (seems) to come from a misinterpretation of what notable means, which is why I offered an example of the kind of thing that's very explicitly codified as always notable. This guy is certainly not less notable than Clayton Andrews, nor is there less verifiable information available on him. WilyD 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the guideline on arguments to avoid in AfD - this is exactly one case! If you have a problem with the criteria for notability of baseball players then take that up in the relevant place - this person was not a baseball player.--Vintagekits 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with baseball players. I just want to clear up your misunderstanding of what's going on. WilyD 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baronets are not nobility; nor are they notable, unless they do something to become so. I see nothing here. We are not going, I hope, to transcribe the Complete Baronetage; the Complete Peerage is arguable, but most peers at least do something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a baronet is not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither Debrett's nor Who's Who are actually independent, in that their biographies are sourced primarily from the subject. No non-trivial independent sources. Iron ically there may well be some when this worthy finally croaks, since newspaper obituaries tend to be independent, but right now I see no evidence of the sources required for inclusion. And WP:ARBUTHNOT is not a reason for inclusion either. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree Who's who do not provide a depth of coverage and are more like listing and not non trivial sources. I also think there needs to be a discussion about there use as references.--Vintagekits 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per norm, fails WP:BIO. This person is not an important member of the nobility, there is no reason for this inclusion.Maplecelt 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — Maplecelt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete As per Maplecelt. You can buy these 'titles' out of tabloid newspapers. Cloveoil 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you most certainly can't. Not Baronetcies. Sam Blacketer 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong again - this is from the lead of the Baronet page "The practice of awarding baronetcies was introduced by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds." - and with the new cash for questions scandal I have even less respect for these meaningless titles especially in the mordern era.--Vintagekits 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can buy them on Ebay too! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought you were joking until I read the link!!--Vintagekits 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, the information in that news story is incorrect. It refers not to a Baronetcy but to a Scottish feudal Barony. You cannot now buy a Baronetcy. The fact you may have been able to do so in 1611 is neither here nor there. Sam Blacketer 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They were, as is well known, available for cash as recently as 1921; are you prepared to vow that there is no chance of scandal with the present Honours List? More to the point, a baronetcy testifies to the notability of his father; in the modern world, notability is not hereditary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm in no position to speak for any government but as the number of new Baronets made in the past 40 years is precisely 1, and he was also unique as the husband of a Prime Minister, I think it's fairly clear no Baronetcies are being sold nowadays. Sam Blacketer 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you sure about that!?--Vintagekits 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid I am getting very tired of all this. The story you link to does not mention Baronetcies at all. The Baronetcy had practically died out in 1964, was briefly revived in 1990 for one last fling, and is now moribund: no more are going to be created. It is not therefore possible to become the holder of a Baronet save by inheriting a title; you cannot buy the title in any way. I frankly see this as a distraction from the issue of notability of Baronets and I dislike the way this discussion is being sidetracked into a personal and political struggle. Sam Blacketer 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sidetracked? If it was always thus because they were struggling at the village pump, maybe their problem has been dressing up a bad faith nom as objective. Especially after the afd for the even more private Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet failed so spectacularly. They should now avoid interjections (some hope) and let process and the closer decide. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable individual because of the titles he holds. Also potentially a bad faith nomination, especially based on the personal attacks made on editors who do not agree. J Milburn 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, another editor that is more focused on my and not policy. You say that he is notable! Why is he notable and what is notable about the title? Please explain yourself - remember this is a discussion not a vote per se.--Vintagekits 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether or not the nomination was forced, the way you are handling this is rather aggressive. We know that you want reasoning, yet we also know that no reasoning we provide will be satisfactory, because you seem to have already decided that this article needs to go. This person is a knight, and a baronet. These are not titles that are given to people who dive in a lake to save a dog- they are the modern equivilent of the nobility, and people holding both of these titles deserve a place on Wikipedia, I am amazed that there is any doubt about that. Please feel free to tell me if I have missed something, but calm down, stop attacking editors that disagree with you, and stop demanding reasoning from everyone who does not type an essay. In fact, worse than that, anyone who just says 'Delete, non notable.' you leave alone. Take a break- let the AfD run its course. J Milburn 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Milburn contrary to what you might think I have no problem whatsoever with people voting "keep" I just dont think havent heard one decent argument to back it up that doesnt boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. Secondly he is not a knight he is a Baronet - as for "These are not titles that are given to people who dive in a lake to save a dog- they are the modern equivilent of the nobility, and people holding both of these titles deserve a place on Wikipedia" - yes that may be the case for 1st baronets but this isnt a 1st Baronet he is a 2nd Baronet so he did even less than "save a dogs life" - he simply inherited the title.--Vintagekits 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, just inherited it? Goodbye Lizzie. In all seriousness though, have I missed something? If he is no knight, where has the 'Sir' come from? In response to your initial point- many people (including 86.13.133.245, an IP who just voted and has no other edits) are saying 'Delete, non notable.' This is FAR worse than me saying 'Keep, notable for reason X', whether or not I write an essay on it. You seem to believe that because they are agreeing with you, it doesn't matter that they are offering no arguments. J Milburn 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ould Lizzie inherited a title that gives parlimentary and legal power, a baronet does not carry this. If you read the Baronet article or the first copy of posts in this AfD and that states it also - although baronets carry the title "Sir" it is not considered a knighthood. Many people mix up Baron's and Baronet's they are completely different, a Baron traditionally got a seat in the House of Lords (therefore automatically notable) a Baronet is purely a cerimonal title.--Vintagekits 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: I understand the difference, and I was obviously joking about QE2, but I did not realise that baronets were automatically counted as sirs. Regardless, I think nobility, and I see baronets as perfect examples of nobility, deserve a place on Wikipedia. The fact that there are sources readily available backs this up. J Milburn 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: Thats fair enough but you must recognise that that boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. As for the references, I have pointed out the problem with those already - they are self written, trivial and carry no depth of coverage, go and look at a copy for yourself and you will see what I mean. He is already listed in Arbuthnot Baronets I see no reason for keeping the article for the individual when it could be merged to that. I just think it is absurd to convey automatic notability (especially in this era) to every single person that hold and meaningless and powerless inherited title, I cant get my head around it at all to be honest.--Vintagekits 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, as much as I generally dispise saying something like this- I have said my part, and you have said yours. The community can read my points, and the points of others who believe this should be kept, and they can read your points. The community will decide, and I am sure that the community will make the right decision. J Milburn 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are trivial and no proper assertion of notability is shown.King of Leon 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — King of Leon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: there are sufficient sources to enable a short biography to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the sources are not independent because the entries are filled out by the entrants themselves and also have no depth of coverage and are just listings.--Vintagekits 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually little different to the way basic biographical information gets in e.g. a newspaper biography or interview. The information is obtained from the subject and is then fact-checked (to varying degrees of accuracy, depending on the publication). I must say, also, that I am personally very dubious about the way you INSTANTLY had to go leave a message on my talk page about my opinion here. This only lends credence to the opinion that you care about this deletion to a degree much greater than it deserves, and for personal reasons. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could stick to wikipolicy rather than supposing my motives. Who's who and Debrett are 1. of dubious reliability and 2. lack any depth of coverage. That pretty much says it all.--Vintagekits 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets, which should probably be done with the many many other articles about Arbuthnot family members User:Kittybrewster has created due to lacking notability. Wikipedia is certainly not a family tree. As for being notable for being a Baronet, the Arbuthnot Baronets article satisfies that, an seperate article is not warrented. Russeasby 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of them have nothing to do with Arbuthnot Baronets. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one does, and this is the AFD for him, so I still suggest merge. Russeasby 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are you saying the the Arbuthnot Baronets have nothing to do with the baronets in the Arbuthnot Baronets article??--Vintagekits 00:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I think the simple rule that they are all notable is the obvious way of avoid discussions like the above. DGG 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is frankly absurd - why dont we say all dog owners are notable so we can avoid have to discuss that also. Please base your !vote of policy!--Vintagekits 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously: every baronet who ever lived is notable, every one of the thousands of them? Will we have this discussion over knights next? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was pretty surprised by the comment also especially as DGG is an experienced editor.--Vintagekits 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, experienced editors would never have an opinion that differed from yours. J Milburn 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the person is not notable.--padraig3uk 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see what makes the person notable apart from the fact that he inherited his father's baronetcy --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep: A debate about whether baronets are inherently notable belongs elsewhere. The nom's stated opinion that baronets are not notable does not make them not so; nor does his opinion that publications like Who's Who and Debrett's fail to meet the guidelines for sources make them fail. He claims to be avoiding WP:Idon'tlikeit but I have yet to see a single fact asserted, only opinions as to notability based on his personal opinions of the British establishment, which have no place here. My personal opinion is that this AfD is a personal attack on Kittybrewster, and should be dismissed. Laura1822 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the same token, the opinion of those who have said baronets are notable does not make them so as well then? It's hardly fair to blame Vintagekits for this situation, it's not his fault Kittybrewster chose to write an autobiography is it? So perhaps instead of pointless discussions about why we're here, we can discuss the actual article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who's Who isn't reliable; it does not check the "facts" supplied by its paying subjects. The other sources have strictly limited facts, most of them subsets of Darryl Lundy's entry.
Question In any case, why is this baronet notable? I see two possible ways to claim that: either
1. Baronets are always notable, which is being argued above, or
2. Something else on this resumé is notable; another person who worked for these lawfirms and had these charitable activities would be notable. If so, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a long litany of AFDs like this relating to titled Britons of one sort or another involving editors deeply interested in the British nobility and those bent on erasing articles of that ilk, now culminating in this AfD on an article about a man who's a dedicated contributer. It is hard, therefore, to form any sort of coherent or disinterested opinion about this AfD. The best thing that can be done for this kind of situation, I think, is to reject the AfD on account of ~~a bad-faith nomination rooted in~~ a nasty and mutual dispute. Right now, we are dealing with a well-written, thoroughly sourced article, although it is arcane and short. Atop that, we have a custom of defaulting towards keeping an article when there is suspicion around its deletion, because deletion is regarded as damning and permanent. There, in short, is my reason for keeping the article: Now the editors involved in this dispute should take a deep breath and work together on solving the underlying policy dispute. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment. If, for some confounded legalistic reason, it is thought necessary to have a provisional reason in policy, I'd cite this section of WP:BIO, just as I did with the discussion on Keith Arbuthnot: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." At the very least, this article has that, with references from Burke's and Debrett's Peerage and the 2005 Who's Who. Really, though, present policy on this point is vague and needs to be worked out along clear, rational, and predictable lines. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once again another member of the Baronet Project feels it necessary to divert from the notability issue and rather focus on me! If another editor had nominated it for deletion then would you have considered otherwise? The sources provided are not 1. independent, because the subject of the entry writes his/her their own entry, 2. reliable, because of 1. and finally 3. carry about as much "depth of coverage" as a telephone directory - to prove this ALL of the entries in each of the sources given provide the exact same four line entry almost word for word.--Vintagekits 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are no serious notability guidelines for this situation and that we shouldn't pretend that there are and argue over thin air in this case. Instead, we should leave the article here for now, as their well-written and well-sourced enough, and work on actually establishing clear guidelines in good faith. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has to be a line drawn in regards to these titles if the title does not bring rights to enter the house of lords then it has no right to this section.Coeur-sang 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Coeur-sang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT - this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by user:coeur-sang --Counter-revolutionary 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given in deletion nomination. This person has done nothing notable other than have a parent who has a title. GiollaUidir 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from some rather pointless tittle-tattle, it appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future. User:Alastair Noble 11:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Alastair Noble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - potential sock/meatpuppet this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by User:Alastair Noble this year and the only previous edit was in November 2006.--Vintagekits 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not quite true, you forgot the keep vote on a previous Arbuthnot AfD! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes, well spotted.--Vintagekits 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you are quite correct - this editor has just voted to keep both Arbuthnot family articles - interesting! --Vintagekits 10:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No the other one was the one for the 8th back at the start of March. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just spotted that also myself - how embarrasing to have to use socks in this manner!--Vintagekits 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per norm, does not come up to scratch on notability and the title that is held is not important, as a few have said already.Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...another Irish Republican Wikipedian. --Counter-revolutionary 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was being an Irish Republican a personal attack? Yet again, your probably right; if you called me one I'd be very offended! --Counter-revolutionary 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since always? Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we have to accept baronetcy (even inherited) as evidence of notability. Deb 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why would we do that (especially for a 2nd or subsequent Baronet i.e. those who have inherited the title rather than earned or being bestowed with it) as there is no policy in place to give them automatic notability and secondly it is a purely ceremonial title which carries no Parliamentary or legal powers.--Vintagekits 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for now. We had a lengthy discussion about the notability of baronets at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Notability_Guidelines, in which I was one of those arguing that the current notability guidelines do not confer automatic notability on baronets. We did not reach consensus (and sadly we were nowhere near it); to mind the key point of difference hinges on assessments of the relatively narrow technical point of whether we count entries in guides such as Debretts as "non-trivial" per Wikipedia:Notability#The_notability_criterion. I am inclined to think that they probably don't, but, this is not the forum to decide that: it's an issue which belongs elsewhere, in a less time-pressured (and hopefully less contentious) forum.

In the meantime, it is clear from the nomination and from the history of this dispute that deleting this article would set a precedent which would likely lead to the wholesale deletion of articles about baronets, and it seems to me that it would be a seriously retrograde step to delete so much material from the encyclopaedia on the basis of such an unfocused discussion as this AfD, which I feel has overall shed more heat than light. In a case such as this, where there are wider issues of policy at stake, it's much better to sort those out first before making far-reaching decisions on the particular example.

A few further points:

I am a member of Wikiproject Baronetcies, but per my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Project_under_attack, I do not adhere to the presumption of automatic notability: as will be evident from the discussion about the notability of baronets, I tend to lean towards the "no" side of that argument.
This AfD is partly the product of a long-running personal dispute between Kittybrewster (who is also the subject of this article) and Vintagekits. Both are prolific editors who have made lots of valuable contributions to wikipedia, but their personal and political animosity has led to some unseemly disputes across different areas of wikipedia. I have at times been asked by both of them to mediate in their disputes, and the last such episode closed with me advising both of them to "get off each others cases". I that that advice is relevant to this AfD too.
This AfD, with its splurges of personal acrimony, allegations and counter-allegations, is a real discredit to wikipedia. I don't envy the closing admin who has to wade through it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. I for one agree with every word of that. Badgerpatrol 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of is the opposite of what you said here in the discussion on 2nd Baronets.--Vintagekits 13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an early contribution to a long and useful discussion in which I found that some of the issues clarified for me. As I said above, I do still lean towards the view that 2nd and subsequent baronets are not notable per current guidelines, but after reflecting on all the discussions about notability, I now think that we can boil most of it down to the relatively simple question of whether whether we count entries in guides such as Debretts as "non-trivial".
I try not to approach these discussions with the idea that I have an answer which I must persuade others to accept, and this is one of the occasions where my thinking has evolved after reading all the other contributions. It's disappointing to see that some other editors appear to have more rigidly fixed stances, and in particular that some contributors seem to be basing their !votes on their views about about the merits or demerits of the system of baronetage. I think that this issue can be resolved in a much more neutral way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just finding it a little hard to take you serious when you !vote "strong keep" and then say "I do still lean towards the view that 2nd and subsequent baronets are not notable per current guidelines" - we are voting on current wiki policy and guidlines not what it might/may/should/could be. --Vintagekits 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, you appear to have missed my point, so let me try again to clarify it:

As far as I can see, the crucial question is whether we should count Debrett's etc as non-trivial sources when assessing biographies. The fate of this article could be decided very clearly if we had a policy or guideline to answer to that narrow question.
This AfD does not seem like a suitable place to answer that question: it's a decision which affects a whole swathe of articles (which go way beyond baronets) and should be taken in another forum, probably as an amendment to the guidelines. We could then consider that crucial point in more detail.
I do lean towards the view that the guidelines should not regard Debretts etc as non-trivial sources, but there also seems to me to be some good arguments for the opposing case. I want to hear all those cases in more detail before finally making up my mind.
You are right: we are voting on current wiki policy and guidlines … but they don't seem to me to be anywhere near clear enough on this point. Where there is a lack of clarity on a point which affects so many articles (probably thousands), I think that it would be deeply destructive to start a deleting content from the encyclopedia.

I hope that clarifies things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll tell ya what, I'm going to do some statistically analysis on his entry in debretts and who's and photograph them also. It will show you how embrassing and trivial it is to rely on SELF WRITTEN miniscule entries in a directory for some sort of notability! Additonally after the last AfD editors also said subject to the issue being further clarified etc etc - it never was.--Vintagekits 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Arbitrary break[edit]

Keep- as a notable businessman, a Baronet, and in the Order of precedence of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Notability" is not about whether Wikipedians feel that someone deserves an article, it's about whether there are sufficient sources to write an article. All baronets wind up in at least three sources I can think of off the top of my head, and others as well. - Nunh-huh 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my reading, thanks. I think you need to let people express their opinions rather than try to rebut everyone you disagree with. - Nunh-huh 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.SlideAndSlip 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the logic of the nominator, this is a completely invalid vote, as no reasoning is applied. J Milburn 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable.86.13.133.245 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IP has made no other edits. J Milburn 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:BrownHairedGirl and, on top of that, really, people, go have some tea and calm down.A Musing 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. Reluctant because Vintagekits has behaved in an appalling fashion in this discussion (is it really necessary to aggressively challenge every Keep vote?), but Delete because the primary assertion to notability here appears to be of the "baronetcy confers notability" variety, and I can't find justification for that in existing policies and guidelines (and I admit that the autobiography and conflict of interest issues here are a bit troubling). I'm willing to reconsider pending further evidence on the nature of the references used, however - based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not certain that they qualify as independent, but I'll be monitoring this discussion and taking note of further evidence to the contrary. JavaTenor 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — enough non-Wikipedia derived Google hits to satisfy notability, IMO. Andrwsc 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JavaTenor but come down to weak keep, as I think there are enough sources to just about satisfy notability. The behaviour of Vintagekits is worrying and quite unacceptable. He can nominate something for deletion but should then sit back and respect the views of the community. There is almost a case for closing this as no conseensus and bringing it back for further discussion but with a ban on Vintagekits from participating in the discussion more than a single entry expressing his view, as he may well be intimidating editors here from voting to keep the article. --Bduke 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I have been OTT - hence the reason for my explanation here and my further explanation on the talk page.--Vintagekits 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, he doesn't seem to be doing a very effective job, does he? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think he is probably encouraging more keeps then deletes. Such aggresive campaining tends to turn many editors off, suspecting bias and bad faith(which does seem to play a part here, though personally that aside I still stick by my delete vote). The AFD at this point will play out and probably close as no consensus(thus keep) via normal procedure, no need to close early. If someone feels warrented it can be nominated again later. Russeasby 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair enough as long as a wider debate is initiated on neutral territory regarding the notability of Baronets, 1st, 2nd and subsequent.--Vintagekits 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per norm, does not come up to scratch on notability and the title that is held is not important.82.41.64.157 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: evidently a very dubious anon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.41.64.157 David Lauder 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to that list of Arbuthnot baronets. After all this discussion, nobody has added anything to the article that demonstrates notability.
Comment With all this discussion and with about 1,299 other baronets out there, wouldn't it be worthwhile for Wikipedia to have a special rule for baronets in WP:Notability? Even if it's just a line saying "these provisions also apply to baronets" (alternately, "The following rules apply to baronets..." or "The rules don't apply to baronets because ..."). Might save time in the future. Just a thought. Oh, I see this point's been covered. Never mind. (another Emily Litella moment...) Noroton 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, no does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N .Logan2 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Logan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment: This is the only edit this user has made. J Milburn 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep for now. The article is sourced, and this AfD has clearly been poisoned. If we can get clearer notability guidelines about baronets, and clear up whether Debretts and the like are notable sources, we can always revisit the issue later. --kingboyk 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG et al. No junk mail please. Johnbod 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Wikipedia would decree that Burke's Peerage and Debrett's are anything other than the standard reference works that they are is bizarre and unreasonable. I'd like to think that more reasonable heads would prevail. - Nunh-huh 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable sources exist for the article, and its clear from this AFD and other comments at the Village Pump and on article talk pages, some involving Irish republicanism, that much bad faith exists between the nominator, the subject of the article and other editors with them. RHB - Talk 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia talk:Notability#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc, where I have opened a discussion on whether volumes such as "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who" meets the notability tests set out at Wikipedia:Notability#The_notability_criterion. Please folks, if you want to contribute there, could it be a bit more focused and orderly than this AfD? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think the whole thing is misleading - there needs to be two independent discussion 1. a discussion on whether volumes such as "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who" meets WP:RS and 2. a discussion on whether or not the various forms of the title Baronet confers automatic notability.--Vintagekits 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have tried doing half of that: assessing "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who". We have had a detailed discussion on the automatic notability of Baronets, and that happened was that people dug themselves in. I'm hoping that a discussion focusing on the guidebooks will keep focused ... and if you feel that WP:RS is the way to assess these article, why not contribute to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Baronet issue itself shouldnt even be mentioned in the "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who" issue, that is purely a discussion regarding its use as a WP:RS due to WP:SPS and depth of coverage issues. The Baronet issue is a WP:N issue so I dont see why the "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who" issue is being discussed at WP:N talk page. I would remove it from there and transplant it to WP:RS and have the Baronet discussion (along with a discussion about Baron who dont get a seat in the house of Lords at the WP:N talk page.--Vintagekits 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason I raised the Debretts and other issues at WP:N is because the fundamental issue here is notability. Sure, it could have been raised at WP:RS, but then there could have been equally valid objections that it should have been at WP:N.
        As you'll see at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc, the discussion I have sought is not about Baronets, it is about Debretts etc. However, there is no point trying to pretend that Baronets are not lurking in the background to a discussion of Debretts, so rather than have someone accusing me of acting in bad faith, I thought it best to set out the background. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep per RHB and Nunh-huh. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think that merely inheriting a title as such makes a person notable, and the subject (with all due respect; he is a fine Wikipedian) doesn't seem particularly notable otherwise. But on the other hand we always list noblemen (barons and above) whose only claim to fame is their title. (And I don't buy the argument that nobility is somehow more special because it once came with an entitlement to a seat in the Lords. It doesn't now, and if we're to list all baronets, where will it end? Are we to list all armigers?) So I think generally this needs to go, but only if we're prepared to go through a lot of not-terribly-notable barons and delete them too. Otherwise it may as well stay. The Wednesday Island 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issue turns so much on the acceptance of the sources mentioned by BrownHairedGirl that this can't usefully be settled until that matter has been fully debated elsewhere. Alci12 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A baronetcy is a sort of hereditary knighthood. The second and subsequent holders should only have articles if they meet the notability criteria in theri own right. The Second baronet has had a career with significant companies in the City of London, and that probably makes him notable. The behaviour of the nominator and discussions of the nature of baronetcy ought to have no influence on the subject of this discussion. The great interst which this AFD has generated probably indicates that the subject is in fact notable. The typical vanity bio-article gets a mere dozen or so comments. This leads me to upgrade to Keep. Peterkingiron 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have actually stop questioning editors "keep" !votes and I am not going to question yours - you are perfectly entitled to it - however if you look at the talk page you will see why I have been a "little overactive" on this AfD. regards--Vintagekits 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Extremely bad-faith nomination (Vintagekits has been stalking the Baronetcies WikiProject, of which Kittybrewster is the main contributor, for months now), and clearly a notable subject, even without the title (which I believe makes him automatically notable in any event, for reasons which have been suitably set out above by many contributors). People should really consider what things we have articles on here (just try clicking the "random article" link half a dozen times) and then they might realise how utterly ridiculous this nomination is. The idea that we should delete a properly cited, totally verifiable article (with no less than ten supporting links) purely because someone doesn't like Baronets (and I'm absolutely certain that this wouldn't have been nominated if it had been identical save for the absence of the title) is absurd. Proteus (Talk) 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This member of the Baronet project is completly entitle to his !vote however please see here where Kitty himself states that he forced the AfD and that it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.--Vintagekits 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entitled to my opinion, but you think it's wrong so I should strike it out? I think not, somehow. As far as I can see your entire involvement with the Baronetcies WikiProject has been bad faith, and you've only ever been concerned with attacking an institution you dislike rather than trying to improve this encyclopaedia. If you kept to working in areas you actually liked rather than finding ones you don't and doing your best to disrupt them we'd all be a lot better off. Proteus (Talk) 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as to the notability of the article in question and I have stopped questioning editors in that respect, however, when you state that this is a bad faith nomination then that is a different matter. The subject of this article has even stated himself that he purposefully forced the nomination and that it is not a bad faith nomination. As for my work on the "Baronetcies WikiProject" - I have not acted in bad faith, I have tried to bring some balance to it. I see it as a project that is out of control and without restraint. It churns out 100's stubs for individuals that have no notability except that they have inherited a title without an power, legal, parlimentary or otherwise. If you havent the grace to retract that part of your statement like others have then fine let it stand it just goes to show who it is around here that is really acting in bad faith.--Vintagekits 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that's nonsense, but I'm not going to argue with you, as you've demonstrated on many occasions how pointless that is. Your contribution history speaks for itself, however, and I would invite anyone who wants to know how Vintagekits has behaved on Wikipedia to take a look through it and decide for themselves what has motivated this campaign. Proteus (Talk) 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said enough already (probably too much infact) and will let the facts speak for themselves - Kitty stated here and here where he states "That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter", that he purposefully forced the AfD. Therefore your allegations that it was a bad faith nomination are incorrect. You are perfectly entitled to your keep !vote but to say it was a bad faith nomination is incorrect and that is the point I was making. I rest my case.--Vintagekits 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he is truly notable then why is no source listed other than peerage directories and who's who (which include all peers and baronets regardless whether they have done anything of note) and a small charity? Delete unless more substantial sources are added. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, Who's Who does not include all peers and baronets, only those the editors regard as notable. In addition, and this possibly answers some of the other sneers above, if baronets are not notable why are they considered essential for any of the publications you refer to? The thing is, how many books - of any description - do we appear in, you and I? Regards, David Lauder 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stop harassing editors that !vote delete! ;) --Vintagekits 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And stop removing the ((spa)) templates I added, especially considering I added them to everyone regardless of which way they !voted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:I have not "harassed" anyone. This is supposed to be a discussion page on the Afd and I felt it only right that I should make entirely pertinent points to a comment made which included an incorrect presumption. I really have no idea which templates you speak of. To the best of my knowledge I have not removed any. David Lauder 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This edit shows you did. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:You have my word that I did not remove those. I have no idea how that happened. Certainly the entry at the bottom of the page is mine. Possibly some sort of glitch? But I did not remove those. I cannot explain what has happened there. David Lauder 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will take you at your word and assume good faith. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems to be established (knighthood, baronetcy, who's who). I wonder why this is generating so much heat? Drmaik 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as long as I remember, the prevailing thought (and mine also) is that baronets (like hereditary peers and members of the royal family, even those that died in infancy!) are inherently notable. ugen64 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not questioning your !vote but I would like to point out that nowhere on wiki is there any policy to give automatic notability to minor members of the peerage or the nobility. Additionally to compare a Baronet to the Royal family is like comparing the President of the United States to a local town councillor in Bridlington. Even under the failed proposal of WP:NOBLE (which was backed by the Baronet and Peerage Projects) a Baronet would not get automatic notability and would have to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO - from now on I will let make others make up their own minds on that instead of vociferously voicing my opinion on that. Again I am not questioning your !vote I am just pointing out to the closing admin that there is not policy or guideline to state that Baronets get automatic notability. ugen64 if you or anyone else would like to instigate or join in a discussion to build a policy on this then I am sure there would be many parties interested in joining in that discussion but as it stands under current wiki policy there is nothing which states that Baronets get automatic notability. --Vintagekits 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you would endorse deleting James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge? Surely someone who lived for only 4 years is not notable simply because of who his father is...? Just a thought. ugen64 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between a Duke and a Baronet. Its like a footballer for Man Utd and one for Leigh RMI.--Vintagekits 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of approximately 215 comments on this page, 65 are by User:Vintagekits - 65:150 is quite a ratio - especially for someone who has several times said they'd stop commenting! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for counting, many of those were tweaks to my posts, fixing spelling mistakes and formatting. Additionally I said I would stop questioning other editors votes which I have. But if an issue needs clarification or if I am asked a direct question for another editor then I should and will comment. Thanks for your interest.--Vintagekits 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - comments, not edits. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the subject of the article. It seems to me everybody has now contributed their pennyworth so it is legitimately “my turn” before the thing is closed. First, I am convinced this was a rancorous nomination in bad faith although I believe VK thought it might be insufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO. Second I always believed it would inevitably end up as no concensus because it is (marginally) more interesting than the equally passionately debated afd on Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet. The thing that made this even more likely to be a keep was VK who cannot help himself challenging, debating and having the final word. He is a wikipedian who comes straight from his heart. What surprised me was that 6 SPAs voted delete on it – which suggests somebody doesn’t know that is pointless vote stacking. Somebody suggested to me that the thing is on a newsboard or blog or something – but I haven’t found it. VK's problem with me is his belief set out on talk of this afd. But he should WP:AGF or even demand a review of some kind (and abide by the outcome and then let it drop). He does not do that; he consistently revisits dead issues. He does not recognise that birds of a feather flock together (as do many Irish republicans, apparently) and that some of us monitor each others’ contributions. He should not react by stalking editors or articles I have contributed to, adding ludicrous nn and fact tags (one of which questioned a date of death in 1862). My problem is some of the outrageous remarks VK makes [29]

[30] [31] [32]

On the positive side, User:BrownHairedGirl has initiated a very helpful discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc And User:Choess has sketched out a constructive way forward for Baronets in general at Dashwood Baronets of West Wycombe. Also we seem constructively, de facto, to be forming policy on the hoof regarding the notability of Baronets in general. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Baron[edit]

Non notable person. Whilst Hillsborough was tragic the only notable person is Tony Bland due to the change of laws in the UK. Either delete or merge into Hillsborough Disaster or Kevin Baron. Quentin X 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial and no other claim to notability has been provided. Qwghlm 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnfortunately, regardless of the tragic circumstances, he is non-notable. And he is already mentioned in the Kevin Baron article with virtually the same information so does not need merging. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Daemonic Kangaroo 06:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kevin Baron. Oldelpaso 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad, but that shouldn't influence our decision. To avoid confusion, perhaps it could redirect to the specific section of Kevin Baron, rather than the article per se? --Dweller 15:59, 30 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 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Jacksonville Jaguars season[edit]

Big Tex prodded this ten days ago with the following comment:

Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball, this article consists entirely of assumptions that may not come to pass (some are more likely than others). Precedent was set with the AfD deletion of the Green Bay sister article. ~ Bigr Tex 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also fails WP:CRYSTAL:

Pablothegreat85 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's right. YechielMan 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) YechielMan 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. The 2007 schedule was only released a month ago. There is no useful information here. DarkAudit 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2009 sports teams' seasons? That's a paddlin' - I mean, a violation of not a crystal ball. WilyD 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball; recreate in 2009 as our 3 millionth article. NawlinWiki 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and 2008 Jacksonville Jaguars season as meaningless articles. Punkmorten 21:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on Punkmorten's suggestion, I bundled 2008 Jacksonville Jaguars season in with this Afd. Pablothegreat85 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Pablothegreat85 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of ruining everyone's day, what about the rest of the articles in the 2008 NFL season category? Maxa megalon 2000 05:29, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carlson[edit]

Notability of the subject of the article does not meet WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a person, he was not notable. The incident that killed him might be notable if it can be sourced. YechielMan 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Regretfully, I do not think enough is known about him individually to justify a separate article. The event of course is one of the most striking incidents of modern US history and the article on it discusses the implications.DGG 00:51, 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 speedy deleted by Alphachimp (Per CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hujjatal Islam wal Muslimeen Shaykh Allama Sayyad Muhammad Zahed Hossein Baqir Naqvi Hanafi Razvi[edit]

There is no evidence that this man even exists. The article carries a distinctive air of silly vandalism. Aurochs (Talk | Block) 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN I haven't laughed so hard in a while. With apologies to the Muslims among us, his over-the-top nomenclature strains the boundaries of sanity. YechielMan 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt A7 (bio) and/or G1 (nonsense). Google search for the term comes right back to a WP redirect that is simply the article title prefixed with "His Eminence, " as well as a wiki mirror and answers.com - neither of which have anything on the phrase. If this guy is all this and a bag of chips, there'd be more than wiki mirrors on him. I'll tag the redirect as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy possible--even probable-- hoaxes should be visible for a few days before deletion, just as they are in prod. A speedy is not acceptable for a hoax, as is explained on the relevant WP pages. DGG 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true, DGG, but... well, would an A7 work based on my own (lack of) findings? This is, after all, what I have it listed as. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted already. I suppose the AfD should be closed now. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, uses the magic words "up and coming". NawlinWiki 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Chan[edit]

Non-notable, crystal-ball-ism "He is expected to have an EP out Summer '07." Nekohakase 08:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the EP were out already, that wouldn't be good enough for WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 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 Higham Lane School. WjBscribe 04:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VI Communication with Higham Lane[edit]

Merged relevant article information into main article King Edward VI College, Nuneaton, rest of the article is not notable enough for its own article WP:CORP and doesn't meet the WP:NPOV standards Rob89 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above Rob89 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author has some sort of unidentified chip on his shoulder and is clearly hoping to push a POV. At times the article steers very close to out and out gibberish. BTLizard 13:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no merit in having an artifcle on the links between two schools. This is at best a poor articlem but so is that on Higham Lane School, which is tagged as lacking notability. I thought it was agreed that all high schools were notable, even if the article on them was a poor stub. I would accordingly recommend that any worthwhile material should be merged into Higham Lane School. After wrting this I will edit the article under discussion to provide a link to that (currently missing). Peterkingiron 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But first, Merge any useful and encyclopedic information (IF there is any) into the King Edward VI College, Nuneaton and Higham Lane School articles. I thought this article was going to be about some interesting royal communications between the King Edward VI and some government official or perhaps a peasant named Higham Lane. Boy was I disappointed. Once merged, no redirect is needed: the title is entirely misleading and otherwise useless. --T-dot (Talk | $contribs) 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged useful information into Higham Lane School (information was already in the King Edward VI College, Nuneaton article), feel free to add any other useful information you feel I've missed out but I think the rest of the article is junk. Rob89 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Cornhuskers Women's Soccer[edit]

Not notable as a collegiate athletic group. The article talks about spring training for a season that has not yet occurred, and does not cite external sources to bolster notability. YechielMan 16:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:49, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I love college women's soccer, but it's not notable enough for any team to have its own article with the possible exception of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. NawlinWiki 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NawlinWiki. – Elisson • T • C • 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence for notability shown. Qwghlm 15:53, 30 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 Somaliland. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Somalia (Somaliland)[edit]

Definition of new term and therefore unverifiable and against NOR policy. Delete. Béka 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork of Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland articles. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Somaliland. WilyD 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no evidence term 'North Somalia' is used. Davewild 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somaliland. The name was the historic name when it was a British colony (along with "British Somaliland"), but Somaliland is the accepted term now — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somaliland per above. Someguy1221 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Somaliland. We hear very little about it, but I understand that Somaliland is (as stated) a stable but internationally unrecognised state, in contrast with the anarchy further south. I suggest merge becasue there may be some useful content. Peterkingiron 00:33, 30 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 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panama (drinking game)[edit]

It doesn't seem that it is notable at all or that it is different from beer pong to an extent that it needs it's own article. The author is the only one who is defending the page, and he keeps removing tags. - hmwith talk 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is a reason why this variation of beer pong needs a independent article, I can't see it. Additionally, the article is completely unsourced. janejellyroll 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources whatsoever, can't find anything on this on google. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NFT. Weregerbil 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a game made up at college. Possibly have it listed as a varient under Beer Pong, and have the Panama disamiguation page direct to the specific section. Turlo Lomon 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge and redirect to Beer pong. Drinking games are questionable at best (and historically seem to have an uphill battle), but this one is clearly just made up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and not a notable game- appears to be origional thought.--Sefringle 04:46, 30 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 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathic internet[edit]

This article has no relevant references and appears to represent original research. WWGB 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not cited to any reliable sources, and seems unlikely to have such sources added. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and as per above. Qiock internet search finds no relevant sources, not that I expected any. DES ^(talk) 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's author claims here: "My intention in writing this article is (metaphorically speaking) to plant a seed. I would appreciate it if a place could be found for the article other than the deletion file (articles for deletion). I reccognise that it may not get a lot of use immediately, but if left to germinate and be discovered by web-browsing spiritualists, it could grow into something wonderful in a few years time." - in other words, this is OR that the author hopes will become mainstream as a consequence of being 'germinated' here. Non-encyclopeadic. Non-notable. OR and POV. No sources. Delete this sucker ASAP. SteveBaker 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's a telepathic internet, let the author post the article there. Clarityfiend 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as unsourced, OR, and borderline nonsense. Reads like an advertisement. Author admits to crystal-ballism. Speedy delete if at all possible. DarkAudit 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, original research, and highly improbable. - Eron ^Talk 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete original research, not notable, unsourced. I'm tempted to say speedy delete as nonsense. Hut 8.5 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this entire article consists of a very forced analogy (most people's of experience their ISP is anything but Heaven/Nirvana!). It's also borderline spam (it plugs a plant perception website and a "telepathic internet café") (CSD G11) and parts of it are irredeemably flawed (sadly "dolfins and other animals" are not reliable sources). Laïka 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced nonsense. --ElKevbo 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unproven so not encyclopedic - Adrian Pingstone 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The telepathic internet is down, so I had to put in my vote by keyboard. NawlinWiki 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Entirely consists of original research that is, in general, impossible to prove, and seems to be more of a joke than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Huh? --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 02:54, 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, obvious spam: also no context and no claims for notability made. They were a business "focusing on creating client value in their local markets." The first part of this sentence said that they were in real estate. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwestern Commercial Services[edit]

Delete : No sources used to demonstrate notability, or sources period. Aboutmovies 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 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. NawlinWiki 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The outbreak (novel)[edit]

Contains noting but a plot intro and an infobox, and so violates WP:FICT. The "intro" reads like a publisher's blurb. Moreover, multiple online searches have found no evidence that this book, or any book with the stated ISBN, or any book by the stated author, has actually been published. This is totally unsourced, and the original creation said "My book". This article had only one substantive editor, the creator, and that editor appears to be in violation of WP:COI. This is not quite technically a speedy, but ther is no reason for this article. DES ^(talk) 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likely hoax. The UK Amazon ascribes the ISBN to Outbreak by Robin Cook, and the infoboxes for both Cook's novel and this one give 366 as the number of pages; this could be bad copying, but it's suspicious. Even if real, the book isn't notable. EALacey 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - almost certain hoax. If not it could be done better and need to be referenced. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:18, 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 speedy delete for copyright infringement. howcheng {chat} 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Ban Chuil Aodha[edit]

Non-notable school choir. Couldn't find any evidence of their performance as claimed in the article. Contested prod. MER-C 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a school choir. We did perform at the Cork Choral festival which you can see evidence of at: http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=1176323761365788&sku=060429163630
or you can check out one of the shops selling our cd at: http://www.claddaghrecords.com/www/categories.asp?cID=6&p=2&c=26947

If you want more proof that our choir has performed just let me know

Ciara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coduinnin (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not notable Gillyweed 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of notability. Many choirs are at least as old and perform regularly. Article appears to be a repost of the choir's own webpage. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's not suitable then OK remove it but I see plenty of other amateur choirs have articles e.g.Norwegian Student Choral Society 14:41, 26 April 2007 User:84.203.147.36
Speedy delete as copyvio from the band's website. So tagged. EALacey 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or the same user put the same text on Wikipedia and the band's website. Anthony Appleyard 21:27, 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 Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deora II[edit]

Non-notable toy car (by itself). At least there isn't a whole walled garden of these, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeana (Bratz character) still applies. Fails WP:CORP/WP:FICT. Contested prod. MER-C 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think this article has much potential. The toy car was later re-created into a full life-size working vehicle, in 2003/2004. For Hot Wheels collectors, this article has big importance. If I can improve the article with detailed pictures and accurate data, I think this article will come out nicely. I vote to keep the article. -- Mr. Sinistar Mr. Sinistar 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Not of interest to anyone who doesn't own the car. YechielMan 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for asking, but what exactly do you mean, "No sources"? Do you happen to mean, like online news articles about the car? -- Mr. Sinistar 03:42, 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 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showplace Cinemas South[edit]

What do you guys think about this one? I think it fails notability and no original research. Theredhouse7 12:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Gillyweed 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like another Graumann's Chinese to me. BTLizard 14:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is one of the relatively few ones here that seem obvious enough to me for a speedy.DGG 00:58, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The David Lawrence Show[edit]

Completing a nom. Original reasoning for deletion follows. Tizio 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, I nominate this article for deletion on the following grounds:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
- Subject matter just points to the website of the show itself
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
- There is no suitable content for referencing other than the link itself. This makes this article a plug for the show itself.
Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
- I see no reliable sources cited.
All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed
- There are no reliable sources, other than the show has been pulled off the air from many markets.
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- While David Lawrence is notable for being the voice of AOL, this show is not.

--DavidTheLion 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than that, it's fine. :) YechielMan 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what can one add to the nom? No reliable sources, pretty non-notable. WjBscribe 04:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. - Caknuck 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Blackman[edit]

Near-orphan article on an author of one book. Has been tagged as orphan since Nov 06 and unreferenced since Jan 07. I took the editorial decision to redirect to the currently-in-the-news Lucie Blackman; this was reverted. I am now presenting the article here for community consideration. --kingboyk 12:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the reverter. I think the article should be given a fair chance rather than summarily zapped just because its title happens to resemble the name of a better-known (though differently-spelled) person. It may be a bit neglected certainly but it looks like a perfectly valid article to me. So the grounds would be, what, "non-notable"? That doesn't seem at all obvious to me. I don't know much about autism but think it possible this author is fairly influential in the field of Facilitated communication. Many important books are written by someone who has not written anything else, that shouldn't be a problem. Would it be so terrible for people to find their way to Lucie Blackman via the disambig link? Flapdragon 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it wouldn't, but that's not the issue. The issue is, is this lady notable and are there independent reliable sources to verify this? --kingboyk 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see one of the links to this article has quietly disappeared with your zapping of the article on Sue Rubin -- before this AFD has even been decided. Again with the death-by-redirection? What's wrong with a merge tag or at least AFD? Flapdragon 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BTW, I just restored the Sue Rubin article with a reference to establish notability beyond Autism Is A World.[33]. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what I have just added: review of her book, her authorship of chapter in scholarly book, with 2 reviews, her presentation at a scientific conference, some more info for the bio, and a good quote. I could have added as external references: about 20 items from less formal newsletters and high-quality blogs, and places on reading lists. from essentially every autism and disability-rghts organizations. Take a look now. (Source for all this--just Google). N, V, RSs DGG 06:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Q0 13:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Not even a close call now that refs have been added. --Jim Butler^(talk) 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a ref section and a quote from Douglas Biklen. --Jim Butler^(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She sounds like a notable person, assuming that the content is accurate. A disambiguation link to the murdered Lucie Blackman might be useful. Peterkingiron 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one. Flapdragon 01:38, 30 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. Daniel Bryant 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Tiger (comic)[edit]

Comic without an assertion of notability or reliable sources; the latter appear unlikely to be found. Google search shows nothing but forums or pages related to the comic's author. Huon 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. No reliable sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. It is just disguised spam. Rjgodoy 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an established comic strip not disguised spam. Easy Tiger is published weekly in THE BRAG Music magazine/streetpress in Sydney and published monthly in THE STIX music magazine/streetpress in Penrith, Blue Mountains, Lithgow, Bathurst and Orange in New South Wales, Australia. Exile01 28 April 2007.
Comment The BRAG and STIX weblinks added to the article point to MySpace pages, neither of which mentions the comic (though one mentions MySpace user "Easy Tiger" as a friend). That's not reliable sources to me, and if that's the best that can be found, the comic is obviously non-notable. --Huon 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A comic in streetpress magazines is unlikely to meet notability requirements. -- Mattinbgn/^talk

Comment There are plenty of other pages out there without reliable sources and just have links to their own websites, why pick on this one? some others include *here*and hereand here Shall I go on? Also the BRAG and THE STIX are respected music publications in Australia. -- Exile01/

Comment User's second vote. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: I agree that the comics you list are unsourced and don't look notable enough for inclusion either, and have proposed one of them for deletion. The other two will take a little more work. But that's no reason to keep this one. --Huon 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being published in two local street press mags is not enough to make it notable. And sources to a MySpace page don't help its cause. Rimmeraj 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, MySpace is not a reliable source. Also, what User:Mattinbgn said. Lankiveil 09:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If you delete it, fine, however make sure you delete the images used from this site as well. As of now, they are not authorised to be used for any purpose. -- Exile01/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (author requested deletion). kingboyk 13:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Jungsand[edit]

There are no reliable sources cited, and google does not seem to support the claim to notability in Sweden. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:54, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMSSA[edit]

Fails to assert notability, appears to be a fairly unremarkable website. No evidence of passing WP:WEB. Survived a previous afd, because nobody voted, hence not a speedy. MER-C 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB, can't find any references except directory listings and ads. No sources cited. Hut 8.5 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons:
- eMSSA is South Africa's first martial arts discussion group - coming up for 10 years old - which has significance
- It has hundreds of members, and is an important resource to them. If you are not interested in martial arts in the southern African region, that's fine - but it is of interest to people who do live and train there. Not everything is as big as it is in America.
- Reference to the site not being notable is irrelevant - it's a discussion group, not a site. Problem is that Wikipedia has a policy of now allowing links to discussion forum sites (see Betacommand's link removal in History), but that takes away the entry's raison d'etre - and this should therefore not be used to judge the article. ThirteenthGreg 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and as "hundreds" of members is neither sourced nor remotely noteworthy. My gym has hundreds of members. Feeeshboy 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the arguments for deletion are even weaker than what they are saying about the article. No point in picking one point, contesting it, then ignoring the rest. Article covers an organization which has some age and some community. Can we insist on an improvement to the article instead of deletion? 81.129.102.116 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's easy to say that arguments for deletion are weak, but no "keep" argument has addressed the fact that the primary notability criterion required of all wikipedia articles has not been satisfied, and can not be if there are no independent published sources. Feeeshboy 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The primary notability criterion says "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", not "A topic is notable only if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Thus, it leaves open the possibility that topics failing to meet the primary notability criterion may still be deemed notable... presumably by case-by-case consensus, but it doesn't say. Sancho (Review me) 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not meet the general guideline at WP:N or the notability consensus specific to websites at WP:WEB. I see no compelling reason or particular assertion of notability for inclusion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Bradbury[edit]

Disputed PROD. Fewer than 5-Google hits. No references provided for claims. Whilst apparently a promising soprano, she does not yet seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:BIO Perhaps in a few years time. Gillyweed 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of article does not appear to meet guidelines for inclusion. – Riana _ऋ 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even I am looking forward to achieving success on a global scale. So why dont I have an article? (:P) --soum (0_o) 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Urk. There may never have been an operatic soprano notable at only 19 years of age. A search of Google UK turns up only seven relevant hits [34]. Perhaps we should check back in fifteen years when the subject actually pays some dues. RGTraynor 18:33, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numa (opera)[edit]

Allegedly an opera by Bizet, no one can find any evidence that this isn't terminally obscure or just doesn't exist. Checking standard reference works, such as the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and the Viking Opera Guide, returns nothing, when these books are meant to cover pretty much everything, and certainly everything by such a major composer. Google returns only Wikipedia, mirrors, and other-language wikis. Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Numa (opera), it has been suggested that someone became confused somewhere along the line: Bizet once set a text with a similar name. Either non-notable or a mistake. Moreschi ^Talk 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as unsourced. --Kleinzach 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists of one sentence and the balance of evidence suggests that it is an incorrect one. Even if this piece exists it's probably too obscure to have an entire article devoted to it. --Folantin 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep. It seems to turn up a reasonable of ghits, although many of them are either mirrors of the Wikipedia article Georges Bizet or are in languages that I don't understand. However, this would appear to be an independent corroboration in English. If this is so, then the question is one of whether Bizet is of sufficient stature to confer notability on his more obscure works. If he is then the article should survive as a stub until somebody is moved to expand it. BTLizard 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand with what? There just seems to be no data available. Bizet is notable, sure, but we have to think about what we can actually write here. Moreschi ^Talk 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opera is listed on this this official French State department website, in this list of works for a French Classical music TV station This site includes a première date "His other works besides those mentioned are the operas, Numa and Djamileh, produced at the Opéra Comique in 1875; ". The work and its premiere is discussed in "Lettres à un ami [Texte imprimé] : 1865-1872 / Georges Bizet ; introd. de Edmond Galabert Publication : Paris : Calmann-Lévy, [19??] Bizet, Georges (1838-1875 ) -- Correspondance ISBN : FRBNF39235259" I believe that the work does indeed exist. Whether this opera is notable or not is another question. However, I believe that Bizet is probably notable. Gretab 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even this is problematic: in the links provided I've seen two different dates for first performance, 1871 and 1875. Which is right? I'm tempted to think that everyone's taken their date from a single incorrect source: maybe this opera was attributed to Bizet for a while but isn't by him after all. And even then we have the problem of actually writing a viable article on this, which just seems as though it can't be done with the data available. Moreschi ^Talk 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would seem that Alphonse Daudet, for whom Bizet wrote music for his play L’Arlésiennein 1867, published a novel entitled "Numa Roumestan, mœurs parisiennes" in 1881. Is the novel a reworking of the libretto of a failed opera? It certainly seems possible to me. If the libretto is indeed by Daudet, then this would make the work more notable. The correspondance of Bizet himself certainly seems to prove the existence of the work. However, one might want to contact the Friends of Georges Bizet in Paris and ask for more information. Their contact information is on the Bizet Article in French.

Another possibility is locating the programs at the Opera Library in Paris, where the Opera Comique archives are kept. They must have a copy of the program there.Gretab 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Numa = Namouna? Djamileh was premiered at the Opéra-Comique on May 22, 1872 - not 1875. So the reliability of that site may be a little questionable. Actually, I've just found that the original libretto of Djamileh was called Namouna when Bizet began work on it in 1871. It was changed to Djamileh at the director's suggestion before its premiere in 1872 (source: Viking Opera Guide p.117). Maybe that's the source of the confusion. It's definitely not a version of Daudet's Numa Roumestan, which appeared in 1881, six years after Bizet's death. I've read the book and I can't really imagine Bizet making an opera out of it anyway. --Folantin 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's possible that this is a mispelling. The address of the Friends of Bizet Association is here : [35]. Certainly, they must know. Before the article is deleted, someone should at least ask. Gretab 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can certainly contact them if you like though it might take a while to get a reply if all they give is a snail mail address in France. I strongly suspect, however, that the Numa of 1871 in the French article is in fact the Namouna libretto Bizet definitely set in the same year which was subsequently retitled Djamileh. --Folantin 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, it would seem to me that making such assumptions without sources would violate WP:NOR, since we're supposed to be reporting what is in sources without trying to interprete whether they are actually true or not. If you could come up with a source which said that your position was valid, I would certainly conceed this. It would seem however that many sources speak of this opera as existing. The fact that the opera does not exist in some sources does not invalidate the fact that it exists in others.Gretab 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is such a thing as using common sense. Bizet is a major composer and Grove would and does list his complete stage works - and all his other works, for that matter. If this isn't in Grove, in all likelihood it's not by him, he never wrote it, or it got renamed to something else somewhere along the line. Even if Grove has slipped us and this somehow does exist, the lack of information around means that at best this should be a redirect to Bizet's article. Moreschi ^Talk 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I ask Gretab where the following reference comes from? It doesn't seem to be in any of the sources that (s)he cites above. Does this really refer to Numa?

The work and its premiere is discussed in "Lettres à un ami [Texte imprimé] : 1865-1872 / Georges Bizet ; introd. de Edmond Galabert Publication : Paris : Calmann-Lévy, [19??] Bizet, Georges (1838-1875 ) -- Correspondance ISBN : FRBNF39235259"

More generally, I agree with those above who surmise that all references to Numa (1871) that anyone has been able to find seem to be based on a single source. The complete absence of any other information about it whatsoever in any online or printed source that any of us has seen seems pretty telling. Does anyone have access to a copy of Winton Dean's book on Bizet? If it ever existed, it ought to be in there somewhere. --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that this alleged opera appeared in the very first edit (in March 2004) to the Bizet article in French WP here. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book in question is a book of correspondance between Bizet and a friend in which he writes, in several letters, about writing this opera. It may be that there was a misunderstanding about the spelling, but the name of opera is indeed in the book. It may be that this opera became the second opera when it was produced, but there is no evidence to prove that this is the case. There is an ISBN number. You probably should be able to get a copy from a university library or from inter-library loan.

The friends of Georges Bizet have a website and an email address. I'm going to write to them and I will let you know what they say. Could we perhaps wait until they give me a response before this article is deleted?Gretab 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Moreschi ^Talk 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet. I'm told that it's some sort of bank holiday in France right now, though Gretab 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The opera doesn't exist in any serious catalogue. --Al Pereira (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georges Bizet as this seems to be a real named opera attributed to him, but there doesn't seem to be anything to say about it. Is it lost? Was it never completed or performed? Was it reworked into something else? We don't seem to know. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing's for sure: we can discount two of the online links given for the existence of Numa. We know for certain from reliable authorities that Djamileh appeared in 1872, yet the French diplomatic site [36] claims it appeared 1878 and this one [37] that it was 1875. The only site claiming that Numa exists, which also gets the date for Djamileh right is this one [38]. --Folantin 09:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also lost and unfinished operas are listed in the New Grove Dictionary. --Al Pereira (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no mention of it in Winton Dean's substantial "Georges Bizet: His Life and Work" (1965). --GuillaumeTell 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research, GT. I think Winton Dean, one of the most famous musicologists around, decides the issue pretty conclusively. --Folantin 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers 12:57, 30 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. NawlinWiki 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Katz[edit]

Vanity page for a non notable person. The_stuart 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio JuJube 21:31, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin[edit]

A collection of quotations. I propose that this be transwikied to Wikiquote (if they want it) and deleted as not encyclopedic. kingboyk 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or delete as above. We could all put our oar in, couldn't we? How about "the man who sold the Russian economy off cheap to a bunch of gangsters"? BTLizard 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boris Yeltsin article and Delete Gsingh 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think there is much here worth merging into parent page. What sort of interesting comments are supposed to appear when governments condole the death of a statesman? I think this whole news obsession is one of the biggest obstacles to WP as a credible and coherent encyclopedia. Medico80 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but all the statements are not the kind of "nice" official condolances - read e.g. the Polish, which points out his weaknesses. Bondkaka 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They were originally in the main article Boris_Yeltsin#International_reaction but were moved to this "sub-page" due to the increasing amount of comments by heads of states. We have many "international reactions" in different articles. Every quote is referenced and quite well say as what kind of man Yeltsin was regarded as. But we need to add more content to the article, instead of only list of quotes, we'd need some more info on the reaction itself. After all, this many presidents and prime ministers commented it immediatly after his death. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason in your argument as to why the article should be on Wikipedia and not Wikiquote? --kingboyk 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm impressed that someone put this together, but it smacks of recentism. Transwiki if possible, and delete without merging. YechielMan 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recentism; not really needed. -- Ekjon Lok 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Strong Transwiki - Perhaps, it could find a place at Wikinews or Wikiversity, as a story or quasi-historical-like document. It seems to me that talking with the Wikinews people to find an appropriate place to put in on the site would be the best option, but oughtright deleting these editors' work does not seem wise. --R e m i 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I never supported making a seperate article of the comments (taken from the Yeltsin article). But the comments, some of which are very interesting, should not be deleted. Camptown 09:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very useful and interesting material at least who has interest in politics. M.K. 10:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where else would you find a comprehensive list of official statements? Bondkaka 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Previously the list was at the bottom of the Boris Yeltsin article, where it did "[smack] of recentism," as YechielMan put it. The fork "international reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin" was created in order to keep the information, which is interesting, in the encyclopedia while avoiding "recentism"-- loading the Yeltsin biography with extraneous content on current events. Forking discussions of current events from important biographies has been a well-established practice on this site for months. A recent example is execution of Saddam Hussein. This thead can be closed early, as this is clearly a 'speedy keep.' 172 | Talk 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comparison of this to the execution of Saddam Hussein really makes no sense. The execution of Saddam Hussein was an extremely important and noteworthy event. The death of Boris Yeltsin was not. The article execution of Saddam Hussein is a well-written encyclopedic article. The article on international reactions to Yeltsin's death is just a collection of vague, insipid quotes. -- Ekjon Lok 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Insipid quotes?" Yeltsin's death not noteworthy? I think a lot of Eastern Europe- and Russia-watchers disagree to say the least. 172 | Talk 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I dare to assert that his death is not really noteworthy. He did a lot of noteworthy things in his life that deserve "international reactions" articles. Think of his domestic policy, his economic policy, his foreign policy, his conduct of war in Chechnya, his increasingly erratic behaviour in later years, his drink problems, etc. ... there's no reason why his death should get a preferential treatment, just because it occured now, when Wikipedia is very active, and all those other thing occured before Wikipedia was founded... -- Ekjon Lok 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 172. Wikipedia is not a paper and if it would help to clear the main Yeltsin article from this crap then it is a good thing Alex Bakharev 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is crap, then why do you think it should be kept anywhere at all, either on its own page or on the main Yeltsin page? If it's crap, then just delete it. -- Ekjon Lok 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In all fairness Alex Bakharev was describing the content as "crap" in the main Yeltsin biography. By itself the quotations are factual eulogies of prominent current and former world leaders. I did not complile the list of quotations. But had I deleted them rather than moving them, I would have been accused of attempting to purge well-sourced factual content from the encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly -- they're eulogies. Why should a Wikipedia page be just a collection of eulogies? (And yes, it is just a collection -- no more. There is no real encyclopedic content here!) - Ekjon Lok 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments. (I have already expressed my "delete" opinion above.)

1. Yeltsin did many noteworthy and important things in his day that perhaps deserve special and detailed mention in Wikipedia, but his death was not one of them. It is not specially noteworthy or controversial. There is no reason why there should be an "international reactions" article on his death, but not on many countless more important things from his career (such as e.g. his election, his reelection, his campaining, his policies, etc. etc.) The very fact that this occured now, in 2007, and all those other things occured before Wikipedia, is the only reason why this gets such extensive coverage. This is the worst example of recentism.
2. The comments themselves of all those world leaders are not particularly interesting nor particularly illuminating. They are just all those commonplaces that are always produced when someone important dies -- yes, he was a leader of a nation, we met the news with deep sorrow, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam.
3. This is really not an encyclopedic article. It's just a collection of rather insipid quotes. If it belongs somewhere, then it's either Wikinews or Wikiquote (so "transwiki" is an option), but not on Wikipedia.

Summarizing, this is recentism, and in general just pointless. -- Ekjon Lok 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir on "recentism" here. To be honest I wouldn't care if the list were gone and moved somewhere to Wikinews or Wikiquote. But I have little doubt the editors who consider the quotations notable enough to insert them in the Yeltsin article will put them back in the article if we do not find some place for them in the encyclopedia. This sort of move is the kind of compromise sometimes necessary to get stuff done on this site. 172 | Talk 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "recentism", although that is a concern. The main concern is that this article is not in any sense an encyclopedic article, it's just a collection, a list of quotes. We have Wikiquote for that. Come on, currently there are 21 quotes, without any intervening encyclopedic text or any discussion, or any justification why all these 21 quotes are relevant. I strongly suggest move to an appropriate project. It's true Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not an obituary; it cannot just accumulate all those pious commonplaces that people produce when someone important dies. -- Ekjon Lok 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge, rewrite - Merge back into Yeltsin, then rewrite this large list to be more encyclopedic. —msikma (user, talk) 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki and delete. Merging makes no sense because it will result in a huge, non-encyclopedic trivia-like section which adds nothing or almost nothing to the article. Keeping is also undesired, because "this article contains garbage removed from another article" is a bad reason for existance. MaxSem 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just send it to Wikiquote. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an old man died peacefully some years after leaving the world stage, and some important people said some (generally) nice things about him. This is not encyclopedia-calibre material. We don't even have "international reaction" articles for deaths that actually changed the course of world history (Hitler, Stalin, JFK) - why have one for Yeltsin, other than naked recentism? Biruitorul 03:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an un-wiki topic and a contrived focus. Whatever is relevant can easily be merged into existing articles or, per Zscout, moved to wikiquote. Dahn 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Or, take some of the stuff, edit it, and merge it with Boris Yeltsin article, and then delete—whatever works best, while minimizing effort and avoiding extended controversy. No need for a separate article. Turgidson 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boris Yeltsin article.Biophys 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote, looks like a textbook case. It can still be linked from the Boris Yeltsin article with the neat ((wikiquote)) template, so those who think it's useful will be happy, while those who think it's not an encyclopedia article should also be contented. - Bobet 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy talkify. -- RHaworth 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Debunking Allen Dulles"[edit]

Strong Delete - My major concern for nominating this article is how POV it is. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual place of knowledge... manifestos for other Wikipedia articles should not be allowed. Jazznutuva 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to talk: space. Talk pages are supposed to be discussions about the content of the article in question not forums for discussion of the subject of the article. Where to draw the line between these too is clearly blurry but I think this debunking essay can count as permissible talk: material. -- RHaworth 14:13, 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 All already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. NawlinWiki 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoke City Sheriff's Office[edit]

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Bristol Tennessee Police Department
Cut Bank Police Department
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office
Gatlinburg Fire Department
Gatlinburg Public Services
Kingsport Police Department
Pigeon Forge Public Services
Roanoke County Sheriff's Office
Sevier County Sheriff's Office
Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office

Nom - fails notability - the article doesn't even attempt to claim notability. Rklawton 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into parent articles, per my comments on the first listing of the group, and per views expressed at (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL. Edison 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all This seems to be a reasonable group nomination--they are all equally directory information--except that the mass transit info will have to be rescued in the merge. DGG 01:11, 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. NawlinWiki 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Sellin[edit]

Questionable notability. Google doesn't help much. kingboyk 14:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep and improve. Sellin's book ([39]) has been widely translated (e.g. ([40], [41],[42]) and there are several online recensions in various languages. 27.800 Ghits are not bad for someone who writes about autism. Check also [43]. Stammer 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been widely discussued including an article in Die Zeit and a WDR documentary. --Tikiwont 20:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of graffiti artists[edit]

Oh my. Charitable view: An unreferenced list of artists, many of whom aren't notable. Uncharitable view: A collection of red-linked real life vandals. Previous nom. kingboyk 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, and unmanagable. DarkAudit 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete massive redlink farm, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BEANS and Not feeding the.... okay sorry, I had to do that. In all honesty, no references, no assertions of any notability, and no reliable sources for the assertions made. Wintermut3 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Unverified and in all likelihood unverifiable. Moreschi ^Talk 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Oh, my, where to begin. It's a massive list, very few are notable, and for those that are on here, notability is notariety. Those that aren't notable lack reliable sources, and no, the graffiti on the freeway overpass is not verifiable or reliable - closer to a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. So many red links on here I almost broke out my first aid kit for my computer monitor. This absolutely, positively has to be deleted overnight. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the reasons above. --Folantin 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but radically prune to those whose notability we can verify. We have lists for other kinds of artists and genres. We also have lists for various kinds of Criminals. I tried an attempt at such pruning.--T. Anthony 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete The person below makes a valid point. On consideration this is a case where Category:Graffiti artists is likely enough and a list unuseful. Non-notable graffiti artists are likely to be added to any kind of list and it also attracts vandalism.--T. Anthony 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category - this kind of list is much better as a category. There appear to be some genuine articles listed, which should remain linked, but certainly the long list of aersol artists who appear as red links is undesirable, and is probably the result of those who vandalise our public spaces adding their names (or tags) to this list out of vanity. Peterkingiron 22:12, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blade TC5[edit]

Claims notability but is unreferenced. kingboyk 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as notability is asserted but not quite firmly established by quality references. Appears to be more of a problem with lack of reference details than lack of notability. --ElKevbo 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable and/or unverifiable. The one reliable source provided, the 2006 New York magazine article, tells us virtually nothing about the subject (it contains interviews with 25+ artists and others, and the subject has three small quotes). Thus, there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son's reason. --TV-VCR watch 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. (No credible claims of notability, = CSD A7. Failing that, WP:SNOW. Failing that, WP:ROUGE). kingboyk 17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick murray[edit]

Obvious hoax, no sources. Unfortunately hoaxes don't qualify as patent nonsense for CSD G1, and it asserts notability (though obviously wrongfully). Contested prod, so here we are. Huon 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's a hoax. WilyD 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ghastly hoax. Thinks he's clever. If suppose if enough people come in fast enough we could see it off under WP:SNOW. BTLizard 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN vanity, per CSD A7 --rogerd 16:38, 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 09:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Edge[edit]

blatant advertising, unsourced WilyD 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced The article has had many revisions; pretty much all of them appear to be biased in some way (either in favour of or against the product). I've looked through its entire history and it appears to be either advertising about or complaints about the product, rather than anything in an encyclopedic style, all the way through the history. Sources for the statements from the history (both negative and positive statements) would help a lot in trying to figure out what to put in the article; failing that, deletion is probably the best option. --ais523 15:43, 26 April 2007 (U T C)
Delete unless sourced; if saved then protect. It does seem very volatile; it would be a shame if it were cleaned up only to be repeatedly vandalised. BTLizard 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I'd be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were offered establishing the notability of the subject. The article also seems to be more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article and without having the notability of the product fixed in my mind I don't know if that can be changed. --ElKevbo 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and cleaned up The software may be notable, but the article requires major de-advertising and cleanup to meet quality standards. — Wenli 01:38, 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 Speedy delete g1, nonsense/hoax, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese conflict of 1957[edit]

Probably hoax. The "sources" given don't mention the conflict. Google search turns up nothing concerning a 1957 conflict between Japan and the USSR. Prod contested by original author. Huon 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, no evidence that this actually happened. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nor can Google help with "Koshlevek" or "Japanese Island of Juan IV", helpless or otherwise. BTLizard 16:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. No sources that anything happened. Davewild 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this happened it was not notable, the sort of thing that might merit a partial sentence in Japanese-Russian relations if attributable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ Speedy delete as hoax, sources don't support the article. NawlinWiki 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). So tagged. Only external link has anything to do with Japan, and it turns up absolutely, positively nothing - making them added arbitrarily. Not even a good hoax, just complete balls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- ...mental note, sign my own danged stuff. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:57, 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 Speedy delete, the category it fits is g1, patent nonsense. Darn, I forgot to eat bats on April 2 to celebrate. NawlinWiki 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irok[edit]

Patent hoax; maybe it should fit a CSD criteria, but I'm not really sure which. Delete Neigel von Teighen 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced nonsense. --ElKevbo 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as silly vandalism/nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks. BTLizard 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, we really heard about this, it just needs a little help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. DarkAudit 20:11, 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 Speedy delete g7, admitted hoax (see below), author blanked article. NawlinWiki 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Smith[edit]

I have removed the speedy delete tag because there is, albeit totally unsourced, an assertion of notability. This is a procedural AfD on which I therefore abstain. TerriersFan 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless sources found. Article/talk page alludes to them vaguely, but we need evidence they really do exist. I couldn't find any on 2 news searches. --W.marsh 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google finds nothing. This article has the same grip on reality as the Angus Smith who "doesn't believe money is the key to winning the election". BTLizard 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible, as I created a joke. Jessy Sir

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)[edit]

User:Kittybrewster is a fine fellow and a Knight of the Realm, but not every member of his family needs a Wikipedia article, and we can't in any case use the family archives as sources Guy (Help!) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, closing editor please see talk page foe details of block voting from a number of the Keep !voters on this AfD.--Vintagekits 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Due to continuing improvements and work, this article now has a good chance of being worthy. Thanks! :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Edison 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If sources satisfying WP:A can be added showing he was Treasurer of Scotland, I could certainly vote to keep on the basis of that. The family history is not the most reliable and independent source, and the terminology of 'auditor' is vague. Edison 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another independant source. I am unaware how he may be related but would like to know. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, great news - however the person isnt notable per WP:BIO.--Vintagekits 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he's not related can you explain why he's listed in your family's article - Arbuthnot family? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience. Same surname. Like noted photographer Malcolm Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's rather confusing also including him in Category:Arbuthnot family as well then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've remove the category and the entry in the family list, per Kittybrewster's comment above. -Will Beback · † · 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so he's not related to you but just has the same second name as you, he is listed on your families page and you created and are the own person to edit the article until the AfD - how embrassing!--Vintagekits 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this Arbuthnot doesn't seem notable. NawlinWiki 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.--Vintagekits 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person of good breeding is still non-notable. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of historical importance. I think the term (auditor), though correct, was unfortunate. Unless I misunderstand the administration of the time, this was essentially the Treasurer for Scotland, and thus a major Cabinet officer. I am looking for additional sources to demonstrate his likely involvement in public affairs. DGG 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable article that fails WP:BIO. — Wenli 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article is terribly stubby, but suggests a position of some importance to those familiar with the era. The "auditor of the exchequer", by this time, was a fairly lucrative sinecure in England, and presumably so also in Scotland. That, combined with his connection with Lord Stair, suggests political influence. He seems also to have been a friend of Adam Smith, the economist: [44]. That said, a search in Google Books will reveal the compiler of the original source (Memories of the Arbuthnots) asking, in Notes & Queries of 1918, for more information about him; if, indeed, this is the only information that came to light, probably no more will be forthcoming and the article is insufficient to be self-standing. Choess 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: some of his correspondence and papers are preserved in the Carnegie of Crego papers, but the summary given throws little additional light on his life. Choess 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Caution is needed here. For example a Google search for "Robert Arbuthnot" returns this, with a letter from Arbuthnot dated 1732. As this Robert Arbuthnot died in 1727 it's clearly not him. In fact it's actually the brother of the Dr John Arbuthnot mentioned in this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm aware of that curious phenomenon of different people having the same forename and surname. Click my link to the letter to Adam Smith, and then the "Biographical Notes" link, and you will find that the writer is described as "One of the auditors of the Scottish Exchequer". I have enough Google-fu, I hope, to keep my contributions germane. Choess 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: whilst the stub could do with expanding there can be no doubt that this was an important and notable position in Scotland, retained for some time after the 1707 Union. David Lauder 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have done some research and the position was that notable at all to be honest.--Vintagekits 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown thinks otherwise. David Lauder 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well Wikipedia notability guidelines couldn't care less what the Crown thinks! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- notable as the holder of a chief office in the government of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable person, of no historical importance.--padraig3uk 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alas, that is untrue. This was an important position in Scotland and in the history of its institutions. Indeed you may be interested to know that an identical position existed in Ireland. The article simple needs more meat on it, like many other stubs on Wikipedia. David Lauder 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst the position may have been of some importance, and if so then the position itself may merit a article on its own, into which this persons role could be listed along with others that held the position. But as a individual he is non-notable.--padraig3uk 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally argee with you - the position MAY deserve an article of its own but the indiviuals who held it wouldnt. Maybe merge this article to the article about hte position?--Vintagekits 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh good. Thats really clear logic. The position is notable but the people who hold it are not. David Lauder 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what are you not able to grasp about the concept? Is it too complicated for you? Let me provide you with a simple example that even you should be able to grasp. The occupation of a Dustman is notable enough to have an article - however, each and every Dustman would not be notable enough to have an article. Simple enough or do you need more help?--Vintagekits 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone can be a dustman. David Lauder 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well since you have no respect for our Waste disposal technician's - the same principle applies to Civil engineer, Architect or even a Rocket scientist, the point is that even if a job or role may be notable ever single person that does that job is not.--Vintagekits 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'll take your 48hr silence as an acceptance of the point I made.--Vintagekits 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holder of a position which was clearly notable. Lack of historical understanding obviously relevant to the AfD. --Counter-revolutionary 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and march, left, right, left!--Vintagekits 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd know all about marching. --Counter-revolutionary 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:BIO, in that regardless of what job he did, there is not "a good deal of verifiable information available" about him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not fail WP:BIO. That page is only a guideline and in addition is currently so disputed that it is locked. You may not think he/his position notable but it was an important office of State and that makes the postholder, who received his commission from the King, equally important. This is just another back-door attack on User:Kittybrewster's work on Wikipedia. David Lauder 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that guidelines cannot be ignored simply because you don't agree with them. Also are you aware of the nature of the dispute? I can assure you that it does not affect why he fails WP:BIO. If you had taken the time to read what I said you would have noticed that my decision had nothing to do with his position, but to do with the lack of verifiable information available about him. WP:BIO states Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability and a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them - this article fails miserably on both counts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why you and Vintagekits lecture other Users as though we were (as Vintagekits has already put it) morons. Many if not most articles commence life as stubs. as such they would all fail your specific tests which virtually demand that any article is written up in several pages with masses of information and sources at the outset. Your behaviour on this and elsewhere, I hope, is being noted. David Lauder 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You failed to understand the specific reason why I stated this article failed WP:BIO, and claimed it did not fail the guideline at all and even if it did the guideline didn't matter. This article has existed for six months, so it's had ample time to grow and as Choess stated it's unlikely more information will be forthcoming. If you can provide more information please do so. Also your comments here show your motivation quite clearly, please see no personal attacks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do not fail to understand anything at all. I am unable to say why another User thinks no more information would be forthcoming. How on earth could anyone know that? I see you are falling back on the personal attacks rules after you have fallen over yourselves provoking everyone else. I have made perfectly factual comments. If you are saying you are beyond reproach, then say it. David Lauder 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPA clearly states - This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you do not retract your statement immediately I will take further action, and also include the vast number of similar comments you have made elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Naturally I retract anything which is entirely untrue. Please do not speak to other Users in a threatening manner. You might also like to tell us what you think of Vintagekits comment on morons (in this instance referring to me - see this page's history page, 28 April)). Would you not say that was a personal attack? David Lauder 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, undoubtedly notable, in my opinion. Ab e g92contribs 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Majorly (hot!) 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Tape 1[edit]

Non-notable demos. Deserve mention in band page, not own article. Joltman 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar non-notable demos by the same band:

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wow, I have some old demo tapes in the attic. Do they get articles too? Edison 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why not.

gracz54 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're by The Beatles, probably yes. If they're by User:Edison, probably not - sorry ;) --kingboyk 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All May I suggest a merge all because I think there is some worth of them being on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.8.147.126 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Please delete the 1998 American Recording Sessions, Demo Tape 4 and Sugar EP, Doesn´t exist thats material.

It does exist. Just because you haven't heard of it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

gracz54 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it going to take to keep all the pages as their own separate pages? Or at most, a merged article containing all of their demos? Soad05 00:29, 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 09:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privileged child[edit]

This article is a personal essay, full of original research. It would be very difficult to verify this, and there is not one reference. On the talk page the author said that she wrote this page when new to Wikipedia, and admits that it has its weaknesses. It could potentially be an encyclopedic topic, but as I have said it fails WP:A to the extreme. If this article goes down the plughole, then I'll consider nominating popular girl as another apparent attempt to expand a dictionary definition.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree - it's original research and the tone's all wrong. GracieLizzie, if you're particularly fond of this text why don't you copy it to your userspace and keep it there? BTLizard 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Stock character unless this article can be sourced. Given the articles in Category:Stock characters there's precedent for including articles on a topic like this, but this one is unsourced. --W.marsh 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per what Seiver and BTLizard said. --Millard73 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I honestly think this could potentially be an encyclopedic topic if sources exist, but it really does fail attribution badly and seems like it would be difficult to source. The term "privileged child" yields a considerable number of ghits, though, and even multiple hundred results each from Google Scholar and Google Books. I wouldn't know where to start going about sourcing the claims in the article, though.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:52, 30 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 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kay[edit]

Does not seem notable. The first page of Google does not turn up him, and appearing in a few gay porn films doesn't make someone notable. Also, is it me, or is this article really, really emphasing the "gay" and the "porn" to seem real...? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's the obligatory link to WP:PORNBIO. I have a RL friend named Stephen Kaye, and he's not any less notable than the subject of this article. YechielMan 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established, and the article is full of peacocking terms (no punning intended), which seems to be a weak attempt at establishing notability, by calling him a "significant figure", "highly successful", "somewhat groundbreaking". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, I consider this kind of repeat hoaxery to be vandalism. NawlinWiki 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Collett[edit]

No sources. Probable hoax. Search for "Josh Collett" football doesn't bring up any promising leads. The official website of Gillingham F.C. (free registration required), where he supposedly plays, doesn't list him on the roster. --OnoremDil 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to suggest speedy deletion after the latest edits. It appears that this player's life is surprisingly similar to Wayne Rooney's. --OnoremDil 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has assumed many career details pertaining to Matt Jarvis, a Gillingham player, for himself. His name has repeatedly been pasted over the names of genuine Gillingham players at that clubs article today, by user:Germandictionary. This spoof was related to an earlier deletion today, Ed Croucher. Propose speedy delete and ban Germandictionary. Kevin McE 19:14, 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. Krimpet (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65539 (number)[edit]

Contested prod. Per WP:NUMBER, articles on numbers over 1000 are discouraged unless they have three interesting properties, which are also fairly rare. We do not, for example, have articles on every prime; we have a list of primes.

Delete Four properties are claimed here.

is arbitrary; this is a Fermat prime +2; every number is a Fermat prime + something.
, the twin prime, really adds little to (1). Between them they amount to one, (maybe 1.5) interesting property.
is trivial; given Goldbach's conjecture, it amounts to 65539 has digits which sum to an even number less a hundred trillion; half of all the numbers which are not too long to be page titles.
is numerology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Interesting properties for 5-digit numbers can be listed on 10000 (number). But these all look rather trivial. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every large number is special in several trivial ways. Edison 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER - not nearly special enough Blueboar 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because none of the items is particularly special. YechielMan 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NUMBER, not special enough to deserve an article Hut 8.5 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it is over 9000. =^_^= Fascinating notes, but too arbitrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garners a great big "So what". JuJube 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's worth pointing out that we don't have a separate article on 65536 (it redirects to 10000 (number)), even though that figure is far more important, especially in the computing field. *** Crotalus *** 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, an article on 65535 (number). — RJH (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 65535 has multiple notable properties (polygon constructible with compass and straightedge, number-theoretic connection to both Mersenne numbers and Fermat numbers, largest unsigned 16-bit number, related limits in many programs). Most computer programmers will instantly recognize it. Per Septentrionalis, 65539's listed properties are much more arbitrary and trivial. —David Eppstein 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better to redirect 65536 to power of two? PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Interesting number paradox isn't a policy =). cab 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being next to the largest known Fermat prime (not Fermat number as the article claims) is not interesting. There is no article on Robert Wadlows neighbour (at least I don't think so!), and twin primes of that size are common. PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER. —dima /talk/ 04:40, 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Aleksander[edit]

Autobiography of a pianist. Has been twice deleted as spam. Is he notable. -- RHaworth 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant POV violation, probably not notable. YechielMan 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but replace with existing cleaned-up version - see the talk page. I haven't seen this but it apparently is retreivable by a sysop; was done mid a previous AfD which was then lost. It would be helpful if an admin could do this now - there is a clean-up tag. The prizes and reviews meet WP:BIO, although he's not exactly a star. Obviously current version is not acceptable. Johnbod 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its got no sources and was deleted twice before. --C56C 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but replace with cleaned-up version, assuming that version can be rescued from deleted history; if not, delete under WP:CSD#G11. Bolivian Unicyclist 19:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piano playing is non notable. --71.235.43.75 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer last edit is 3rd edit by vandal - see no 1. Johnbod 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Starts off with "...is considered one of the most outstanding pianists of his country.", which constitutes weasel wording (considered by who?) and peacock phrasing. Then the whole article just goes downhill from there. No sourcing, no external references, practically no cross-referencing to other articles, no attribution, no verifiability, not even a hint of neutrality. Reads like a junior high biography essay - was someone assigned to write a "positive" 500-word theme on their local piano teacher as punishment for not practicing? Or maybe it is a cut-and-paste job from his personal web site, or local music store was holding a competitive recital and featured him as a "judge" and needed some background information? In any case this is not encyclopedic and virtually unfixable even with enormous effort by a dedicated editor. If there is already an "improved" and "cleaned up" version already prepared, then let the authors defend that version in a future AfD if it comes to that. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dryden Annual Church Hockey Tournament[edit]

Annual amateur ice hockey tournament played between churches in a small remote town? I don't think this passes WP:N. BoojiBoy 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It seems like a pretty major tournament for its type. And small remote towns are where the majority of hockey players do come from so that fact isn't really relavent. --Djsasso 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per copyvio --Djsasso 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; whether it passes WP:N or not, it certainly fails WP:V. Only eleven Google hits [45] once you exclude this article and the tournament's own website, and for a tourney with an international draw, it's surprising that there's only a single hit from the press, a RSS feed from the International Falls Daily Journal. If some genuine reliable sources appear, I might change my mind, but it just doesn't seem like the outside world has noticed this tourney, and I see no evidence to suggest this is a "major" tournament, of its type or of any other type. Ravenswing 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and copyvio to boot. ccwaters 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12. Even if it was notable, it is a blatant copyvio. Resolute 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Kaiser matias 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing comments above--Pparazorback 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just isn't significant enough, to warrant its own article. GoodDay 17:43, 30 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 following the addition of sources. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent Adolescent[edit]

unsourced/referenced, the link provided is irrelevant - the existence of this page is entirely based on speculation Oo7565 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commont i am doing this afd for another else Djr xi proded this oreginaly i second it thats all to agree with orgianl prod i have no feelings either way i hope thats ok sorry to bother you guys againOo7565 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Every other single by the Arctic Monkeys has its own article. Technically I guess it maybe violates WP:CRYSTAL at this stage but only in letter rather in spirit, since the song has already been released in other formats and the label has announced the release will definitely go ahead. These are the current holders of the Mercury Prize and the record holders for fastest selling debut album we're talking about here, not some kids recording in their garage, so it's pretty safe to say the article will expand beyond a stub pretty quickly — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has not been verified...If someone can give a link stating it then we can keep it BUT its all speculation at this point. Anyone have a scan or something from a website?Halo475 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evening Standard review mentioning that this will be the next single (second para from bottom) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reviews are not an adequate reference for an imminent release. Several reviews said "Mardy Bum" was to be the next single after "When the Sun Goes Down", and we all know how that turned out. Until it is confirmed by the band/record label, the page should not exist. DJR (T) 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now adequately sourced. DJR (T) 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, closest thing we have to a confirmation is one of the band members (I think Cookie) saying it might be the next single Halo475 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Alex Turner in an interview with MTV said the single was likely to be released next. He went on to say the promo will be filmed this week - promos are rarley filmed for a non-released single. 1 Jonwood1 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they filmed a video for Fake Tales of San Francisco and that wasn't a single.... 70.16.92.77 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The link i provided when i created the article was For Channel 4's Teletext Music Pages, which often gives details of upcoming singles. It was said by the band that they'd release the song as their next single on Phantom FM radio in Ireland too, when they had a news piece about how Alex Turner's ex-girlfriend stood to make money for co-writing the next Arctic Monkeys single, Fluorescent Adolescent.Furthermore, this Sunday ,29th April, it will chart in the top 50 of the Uk singles chart, being the second highest AM song in the top 200, after Brianstorm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cm619 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 April 2007.

Comment - none of the things mentioned by User:Cm619 (or for that matter Jonwood1) are adequate reasons to keep the article. It doesn't matter who said what, when or where - if it cannot be verified by a reliable source then it should not be included in Wikipedia - that is Wikipedia Policy. The Teletext link does not have any validity as a source if it no longer says what it is referenced as saying. Saying "the band says this" also has no value per WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. The position of the song in the charts is completely irrelevant to the issue. DJR (T) 23:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant delete as I am in love with the song but unless it get verfied it should be deleted --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources, great song!--Play Brian Moore 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above Bencey 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Good sources, great song!" - the second part of this is completely irrelevant, and the first part is simply untrue. DJR (T) 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Q Magazine & MTV aren't "good sources"? For a music article, they're probably the best you can get — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agreed, but they weren't there at the time. DJR (T) 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create again when it has been confirmed if and when it will be released as a single James P Twomey 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found some multiple independent non trivial etc etc for the "next single" claim: Yahoo news (sourced from World Entertainment News and XFM and MTV (the latter says "not set in stone"). Adding them to the article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Venables[edit]

Second nomination: first result was 'no consensus'. The main editor of this page, User: Dewarw, has told me here that he is a pupil of this man (whose main job is teaching economics at a secondary school), who I propose is a non-notable composer. Investigating him, I have found that there has been one CD recording of his music, and one collection of his music published, both by 'Enigma Publications', which I can find no details of on the internet and which is clearly not a major label. All the references are reviews of this one CD. He does not meet any of the criteria for notable composers and most of the people in the previous discussion seemed to agree that this man was not notable, excepting vociferous support from User: Dewarw, the originator of the page. Clavecin 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gramophone review attests his "substantial reputation and output". That User:Dewarw has an interest in the subject should not deter us from an article. Are we overloaded with English chamber-music composers? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also a Classic FM review. Classic FM is a major radio station, and therefore for the subject to have a review by them means that he is definitely notable. In the last discussion, it was also revealed that he has been signed up by the same publisher as Edward Elgar. He is notable- as proved by the decision after the first discussion! That decision was only made a short time ago!81.158.2.82 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the two reviews would normally e considered sufficient. DGG 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. I would be more convinced if the two reviews mentioned above didn't appear only on www.ianvenables.com. —An gr 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two reliable, independent web-sites which review Ian Venables' work: [46] And [47].
Please see, he is a notable composer, with reviews! If you look at the list of compositions on his web-site, it is clear that he is established. Dewarw 16:21, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wyke (electronic sports player)[edit]

17 year old "professional gamer" whose best finish at any event seems to have been 15th place. NawlinWiki 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Speedy Delete This article has to be some sort of joke. I placed a speedy delete tag on it. Pablothegreat85 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the joke? He's appeared regularly on a major TV network, or anyway it says he has. He's a pro and a member of a top-tier league. That ought to be enough to prevent a speedy.Herostratus 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VAIN and no reliable sources. One of the references is an instruction manual for the game. DarkAudit 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article appears to also be its subject. Pablothegreat85 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Google News Archive search yields 344 results, none of whom appear to be this subject. Also could not locate any reference to subject on LexisNexis or Yahoo! News. -- Satori Son 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources are completely invalid. One is the game manual. Another is some obscure graphic, and the last returns "We don't have stats for this player, as we found no games played by that user." Recommend a Speedy. DarkAudit 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Progressive Anarchism[edit]

As with Peaceful Anarchism, this seems to be another hoax article based on a totally non-existent book. Similar in spirit to the page created by User:I AM BORED, also nominated by me for deletion, above. Shawn in Montreal 19:21, 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 keep. I'm closing a half day earlier to save someone else the trouble. Non-admin closure per deletion policy: unambiguous keep. YechielMan 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Marion[edit]

Original Research, Unsourced, Unverifiable Sources again doing this for someone else who does know how to afd Oo7565 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete perStude62 resonsOo7565 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (originally closed as Speedy Keep, but I reverted myself) - notable historical figure, sourced to Washington Post article, which references research that persuaded the White House and the Curator of the US Senate. NawlinWiki 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra strong keep - this is possibly the most ridiculous AfD that Oo7565 has proposed yet on their recent spree of dubious deletions. I've restructured the article (no content change) to make the references clearer (they were buried at the bottom in a "links" section). This is someone who served in the American War of Independence, has his picture hanging in the US Capitol, was a (named) major character in a Disney TV show for three years, and about whom George W Bush issued a specific proclamation (ie, not as part of a laundry list of other names). Yes there are only three sources, but two of those sources are the US Senate and the Washington Post (a front-page article, btw). Perhaps it would be quicker if Oo7565 were to give us a list of the articles xe proposes to keep? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment iridescent pleas elook at my talk page at the last post the title help oki did this for Stude62 I DID NOT PROD THIS ARTICLE i did add prod as a checklest to say someone had look at proded article ok sorry fore being upset but i hope you see where i am comming from —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - No you didn't prod it - you did however AfD it (with this comment) when it was deprodded as "unsourced original research" despite the sources from the Washington Post and US Senate being in the article at the time (the only source I've added since then was a citation to a TV listing for the airplay dates of "Swamp Fox"). The original prod was made by Stude62 on clearly spurious grounds that the Washington Post was "not a reliable source" (see the article's talk page).

I don't believe you're doing this maliciously and if I've given that impression in AfD discussions or on your talk page I apologise; however, as per the numerous warnings on your talk page, I do believe you're prodding/AfDing a huge number of articles, most of them totally inappropriate for deletion (see my previous comments regarding your actions here and Arkyan's comments on your talk page), and strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:DP, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF before you continue to do so — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per NawlinWiki and Iridescenti. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a copy of the painting to the article & a mention of the fact that he appeared on Confederate currency (I don't know for sure, but I suspect not many black people managed that) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course; I have notified the 2 prior participants in the discussion of the AfD in case they wish to comment. This does not mean that I agree with them in the slightest--far from agreeing, I can not even understand. DGG 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre nomination this one, he's clearly notable. Nick mallory 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iridescenti. Maxa megalon 2000 05:26, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gatsby gets the green light[edit]

WP:BAND. Claims notability, but cites no sources to show it. No substantial media coverage evident on official site. Bumped from speedy. Sandstein 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Gatsby is not so great. :) YechielMan 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Despite this band having apparently recorded "the greatest song to ever grace human ears," there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human hunting[edit]

unreferenced, OR, nothing more than a dicdef and a link to movies that involve human hunting ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This list fits into the "original research" mold because not all items can be traced to its common thread, and that common thread is itself ill-defined. Some items, such as The Most Dangerous Game, clearly do belong. YechielMan 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep, because there are enough films in this list to make it notable not to mention the famous "Most Dangerous Game" story we had to read in school. It's topic is widespread and well-known enough if film and literature to merit encyclopedic inclusion if mainstream movies and reputable schools use the topic in their courses. --164.107.223.217 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep, it's a minor genre, like "Lost World (genre)".--sin-man 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, seems to me, the nominators problem is that it hasn't been expanded more thoroughly. I'd like to see more on the history and legality of the issue but the lack of these does not mean it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.117.154 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep. The article needs work, not deletion. Baby out with bathwater. -User:Umdunno 06:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a notable sub-genre that many people know about, not made up by the article creator. I know I've seen articles about this very theme, for one thing. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Nomination withdrawn. - Caknuck 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle Harmon[edit]

~~Article about a non-notable R&D worker which seems to have survived WP:SPEEDY. May be vanity; the article's writer is called User:CarlyleHarmon.~~ Fishal 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom per discussion and rewrite. Fishal 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced and WP:VAIN DarkAudit 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The revised version is nothing like the previous version. Notability well established. Good job. DarkAudit 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article was, as near as I can tell, just a reprint of his obituary from the Stanford University alumni magazine. I've just re-written the article so that it's no longer a copyright violation, and so that it better establishes that he is, in fact, notable. I just did a quick-and-dirty job, though, so the article could certainly use some proofreading if anyone has to the time to do so before I find the time to get back to that task myself. Mwelch 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per withdrawal of nomination and unanimous opinion of editors contributing to the AfD. Mwelch 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 3 RS media references to a really notable invention. I havent checked the details for the invention, but the RS arre quite enough.DGG 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can I revoke my nomination? (I don't participate in AFD very often.) Fishal 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there are now no editors advocating deletion, you actually could perform a non-admin closure, if you're so inclined. Personally, as a non-admin myself, I prefer to leave all closures to the admins, but that's just my preference. You may be bolder than I in that regard. If not, then just ~~strike through~~ your original nomination text at the top and immediately below that write (preferably in bold or CAPS or something so that it stands out) that you are withdrawing the nomination per this discussion/the re-write of the article. That will make the article eligible for speedy keep and an admin will formally close out the AfD when your withdrawal is noticed. Mwelch 16:13, 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 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Knisely[edit]

Non-notable university and community college professor. Apparently has no published works. Majority of article describes classes she currently teaches. Fishal 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom unless sources are found. —Cel ithemis 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF pretty decisively. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article gives not the slightest indication of notability per WP:PROF. Mwelch 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is Not a College Course Catalog. DarkAudit 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:14, 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 Fails Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Scientizzle 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New Hampshire Wildcats football team[edit]

Notability and encylopedic-ness (?). One season of a non-major college athletic team. Further, WP:WWIN -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- this is merely a roster and schedule. Dylan 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Nothing encyclopedic. Punkmorten 21:17, 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 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7-layer burrito[edit]

Unencyclopedic ad for a product, which is not important to mention Svetovid 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an item that can go directly into the Taco Bell article, or maybe even a List of Taco Bell menu items. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article could easily go under the Taco Bell entry and is otherwise absolutely useless. Lemmy12 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to create a separate article every time Taco Bell combines its five ingredients in a totally new way. —Cel ithemis 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taco Bell or merge and redirect to a new Taco Bell menu items article. Pinball22 15:02, 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 speedy delete. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bz media[edit]

Promotional and probable text dump from somewhere; speedy deletion contested by e-mail. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 as pure spam. Marking it as such. The author can contest the speedy on the talk page if he/she likes.. Leuko 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia wins, flawless victory, spamality (lovely spam, wonderful spam). JuJube 21:28, 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia (singer)[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 76.215.147.16 (talk · contribs). Reason: Article is a hoax. Completing now. Procedural nomination only Salahx 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone should give the IP address an "anonymous tipster" barnstar or something. Google has many people named "Cynthia Torres," but the subject of the article is not in the top 15 results. YechielMan 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. No sources whatsoever, much less reliable ones. -- Satori Son 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Furthermore, I have access to Plain Dealer archives and I have found out that all referenced articles do mention this event happening, ~~but I don't think any one article calls it "Beat Up a White Kid Day," though I haven't yet made a thorough search.~~ Those interested in improving this article may contact me for clarifications regarding the statements in this article via e-mail or via my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a further search, I have discovered that two separate articles specifically call it "Beat Up a White Kid Day" :

18 kids are charged with racially motivated beating of teenage girl, The Plain Dealer, Metro, B7, June 14, 2003, Author: Brian E. Albrecht
May Day ritual accepted as fact, The Plain Dealer, Metro, B1, October 8, 2003, Author: Regina Brett

So, there you have it. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Up a White Kid Day[edit]

None of the supposed "references" in this article acually point to any online pages which use this term. And lookups on Google seem to all point to white power and right wing websites. I can find no reliable evidence that there is any such "day", except in the minds of the people writing the forum, blog and columns. Corvus cornix 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like a racist urban legend. Does anyone have access to the archives of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to check this one out? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a very dicey one - there's certainly the issue of all the references being formatted wrong, but if it's a hoax, it's spread around. While FreeRepublic is full of nutcases, it isn't exactly unheard of, nor are some of the other references. Anyone know if findarticles.com is reliable? Ref 23 seems to be a real article, but I'm not sure if it supports the statement. [48]

this ref appears to be a real story. WilyD 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still just a columnist, not a news article. Corvus cornix 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Pitts is a nationally syndicated columnist. So this appears to have some validity, although the article may overstate its spread (it appears to be confined to Cleveland). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I've gathered, the stories are real and more or less support the article. While some skinheads may be exhaggerating the importance, it seems to be locally important to Cleveland at least. This [49] specifically uses beat up a white kid as the name of a ritual on may 1. May Day (Racist Holidy) or something might be a better name for the article, but it seems as legitimate as the Plains Dealer. WilyD 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth an article on the belief that there is such a day, but there's still no evidence that this "day" really exists. Corvus cornix 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even this reference, from the right-wing Washington Times, says "I have been looking into this urban legend about May Day and found nothing", although that may just be a snippet of what the person is really saying, and I'm not going to purchase the article to read the rest of it. Corvus cornix 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The phenomenon appears non-notable and local, possibly isolated incidents. References either no not support the contents of the article, or only do so under an extremely biased POV. This is almost certainly an attempt to give momentum and notoriety to this "holiday". Coren 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. The claims in the article are supported by WP:RS and the article meets Wikipedia article policies. The Cleveland Plain Dealer articles are available online at Plain Dealer search and at numerous local libraries. An Ohio state judge reviewed the matter during the 2003 incident criminal trial and confirmed that the event is true as detailed in this Plain Dealer article. The judge did not censor himself and instead acknowledge the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day, reasoning that "This terrible tradition must be stopped by sending a message." Wikipedia should not be censored. -- Jreferee 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Findarticles is not a reference source of any kind at all. It is merely a site linking to individual journals and newspapers, and the reliability of the material depends upon where it comes from. It can be given as the link, but the name of whatever it was that published the material is the important part of the reference. I might have doubts about the Washington Times if there were no other reference, but it is confirmed by the Plain Dealer, which is certainly reliable. DGG 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but where is it confirmed by the Plain Dealer? Corvus cornix 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this articles confirms the May 1st is a day for the "beat up a white kid ritual" aspect. I agree the title of the article may be a little off, most of the Plain Dealer articles call it "May Day", but you can see how that might not be ideal. WilyD 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The link makes no mention of "Beat Up a White Kid Day". Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content versus title - I've already articulated that the title may be a little off, of course the more appropriate title may be May day which is already a little occupied. Of course, move to May day (description) may be a valid outcome for the AfD, I don't know what the description is, though. WilyD 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I actually meant Is findarticles.com a reliable reporduction of their alledged source? The findarticles link I posted above is from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which seems to be a reliable newspaper. And it specifically refers to this Beat up a white kid day. WilyD 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a newspaper article, it's an opinion column. Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a reliable source that the term Beat up a White Kid Day is actually used and not original research on the part of the writer(s) and editor(s). WilyD 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's a reliable source that this one columnist used the term in reference to this one incident. Corvus cornix 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - apparently some kids in Cleveland have a bizarre tradition that May 1 is Beat Up A White Kid day. No, the WP:RS indicates that this is (a? the?) name for it. This suggests it's confined to cleveland (which I suspect is more or less true) - but this is a minor squibble about phrasing. It's certainly not a big deal, though the lead paragraph should probably be as explicit as possible about the extent of the thing. WilyD 15:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after much soul-searching. The references appear to be legit, and the topic is reasonably fair game, given how widely it's covered (at least 4 large newspapers have carried articles on it, in Cleveland, Miami, Milwaukee and Washington, so it's not "of local interest"). While the article doesn't address how widespread the phenomena is, I haven't seen any references on the issue, and I suspect the answer is unknown. We shouldn't draw any judgement on the issue, therefor. While I believe it's probably a local, isolated incident(s), that isn't for me to decide. I'm not opposed to, and may actually be in favour of, renaming the article, if anyone knows a better name (I'm a little stumped). WilyD 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Four large newspapers have carried articles on the incident which caused certain people to discuss the term. There is no evidence that the term is actually used by any of the perpetrators themselves. Corvus cornix 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true that it's unknown, but it's also true that it's irrelevent. Elephants don't use that term to refer to themselves, yet that's where we place the article. Look, your nomination was a sensible one, and my gut reaction was that you were right. But I wasn't sure, so I investigated the sources by applying teh google, and it turns out they're legit. And so is the article. Sure, the biggest interest in the subject seems to come from far right nujobs, but it has been discussed in major newspapers at length (including the largest newspapers in Cleveland and Miami, it seems). The most appropriate thing for you to do now is admit you were wrong and withdraw the nomination. I understand why you did it, and I may have done the same. But with more in depth investigation, we can all see it was a mistake. WilyD 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no way I'm withdrawing the nomination, it will be up to the closing admin to decide whether your or my arguments are more persuasive. Corvus cornix 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that every point in the nomination has been shown to be false (unless maybe the Miami Herald is an extreme right wing organisation?) As far as I can see, the only argument let for delete is May be at a slightly suboptimal title which doesn't stand up very well against Neutral, Verifiable. Well referenced and shown to be the subject of widespread interest. Passes the notability criteria of WP:N with flying colours. I have to admit, I'm surprised to see such persistance in such an obvious error from an experienced editor. Hey, my first nomination at AfD was a mistake, and I held on because I didn't really know any better. But now that every reason you nominated the article for is shown to be untrue, the proper thing to do is to withdraw the nom. It saves everyone time and effort in an uncontraversial keep, and makes the encyclopaedia a friendlier and more professional place, where we all work together to build something great that belongs to none of us. WilyD 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really funny and revenge on Don Imus. --Loostick 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few legitimate sources does not a valid article make. Seems so isolated to one day/region it seems to fail WP:notability. If there is validity for an article, then why not one on May Day in Cleveland which reports all the other things going on in the area and other (probaly older and better sourced) traditions? Rgds, - Trident13
- Fails WP:N? This:

The primary criterion for notability, shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,1 is that:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

part of WP:N? It passes the primary criterion of WP:N with flying colours - so I'm a little confused what part of WP:N it fails. Would you care to elaborate? WilyD 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename. Notable, well referenced. The complaint that there are no online references is not a valid reason for deletion. However, I'm concerned about the article's title. Has the phrase "Beat Up a White Kid Day" actually been used by the judge in the case, or by journalists covering the incidents? If so, the article needs to point that out; if not, it needs to be renamed. Wikipedia should not create terminology. AxelBoldt 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into May Day. There are many other examples of national and international May Day observances and "celebrations" (as it were) on May 1st; this one seems to fit there, if as an oddity, but nevertheless it is notable, has a history, and held consistently on May Day. The article states that the perps who engaged in the violence did it because "it's May Day" ... and went on to explain that May Day "is the day blacks beat on whites". OK, so be it. As a section within May Day it could be substantially cleaned up and distilled down to "just the facts" to avoid POV and other notability arguments. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChessCafe.com[edit]

Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank 151,667. Leuko 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I raise the following points.
- The article does not meet any of the three criteria listed at WP:WEB.
- However, ChessCafe.com is notable within the field of chess. I suggest that if it were a monthly print journal instead of an online journal, containing exactly the same content, this would not be an issue.
- There are at least five chess experts with Wikipedia articles who currently write for ChessCafe.com. There are others, such as Tim Krabbe and Edward Winter, who have contributed in the past.
- Articles from ChessCafe.com are cited as a reference in articles such as endgame tablebase and Henry Thomas Buckle.
- In order to satisfy WP:WEB, there would need to be an organization that bestows awards on excellent chess websites or recognizes them outside the field. I'm not aware of one. By a strict interpretation, the website of ChessBase would also fail WP:WEB; it's only because ChessBase has a software business that the website tags along in the article.
- See also: list of chess periodicals.
- Please forgive me for piling on. As you can understand, I am protective of articles I have worked on. YechielMan 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can establish that "Heroic Tales: The Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001" is reasonably well published and reviewed, since it seems to be a compilation of the content of the site. It is also possible that press releases such as this may qualify the site for inclusion [50]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article updated and sources added. Author mentions Alexa rank, but it's the 5th most browsed chess site in the world [51]EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. 5th most visited chess-related site on the internet is pretty convincing counter to a n-n argument. However, I'd like to see non-trivial independent sources reporting on it. Goodnight mush^Talk 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yechielman. I removed the original prod on this article because a website with a fairly high Alexa rank, regular articles from top grandmasters, famous instructors like Dvoretsky, and a world championship arbiter (Gijssen) is notable whatever WP:WEB might say. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not straightjackets. Also the chesscafe book has independent reviews as I documented on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more stuff to indicate notability. A book collecting the articles from the website, "Heroic Tales: The Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001", has at least two independent reviews, one by the chess instructor and International Master Jeremy Silman [52] and one by Sam Collins [53]. A bit of searching also showed that Chess Journalists of America has awarded two first prizes to chesscafe articles in 2005, one for the Novice Nook column ("Best Chess Column, Any Media"), and one for Living the American Dream ("Best Historical Article"). In addition A Guide to P-R3 got an honorary mention in the category "Best Web-Based Instruction". [54] In 2006 they were awarded first prize for When is a King Safe? ("Best Web-Based Analysis"), The Theory of Chess Improvement ("Best Web-Based Instruction"), and The Mysterious Chess Life of Rudolph L. Sze ("Best Historical Article")[55]. I think that indicates passing point 2 of WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just so everybody knows Alexa rankings have been disfavored as criteria to keep a website. It's really better to look for genuine coverage, not those dubious numbers which rely on folks who have the bar installed. Oh, and I'm not certain that the Chess Journalists of America is a well known society, or that their awards are especially notable. So it might be better to keep looking. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joon nam[edit]

Hoax. Googling "Joon nam" gets hits for unrelated Gi-Joon Nam, and Googling '"Joon namm" movie' gets nothing. Prod removed by author stating "Person is in existence". JuJube 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax. He studied arithmetic (?!) at the University of Texas. His sister is a "professional college student?" He has starred in "Joon Namm: The Movie" and two of its sequels? Give me a break. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- clear hoax. --Haemo 23:53, 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schwartz[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; no reliable references; page reads like a press release bio; all content added by one user (whose user name is Adam Schwartz spelled backwards) who has only edited the Adam Schwartz page. Even if the user is not Schwartz himself (and I would guess it is) it's most likely still WP:COI (like a publicist or family). Closenplay 21:31, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Someone has volunteered to improve this article. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gontier[edit]

This is one of several completely unsourced articles about band members of Three Days Grace. I suggest that it and the other unsourced articles be redirected to the article about the band or deleted, or else properly sourced if possible, according to the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated but the only reference is to a myspace page, which could belong to anybody. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 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 no consensus.Even when I weigh up strength of arguments, there is still no consensus here; I don't discriminate against new editors/IP's, but rather the strength of their argument. Daniel Bryant 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lokomotiv Cove FC[edit]

This is an amateur side, consisting of supporters of Sydney FC, that plays in a local Sydney league. Delete. BlueValour 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: founded only in 2007, no signs of real notability. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The side was created as part of the supporters group from Sydney FC. The Club has played games before Hyundai A-League fixtures and has received national news coverage. Higdawg 11:26, 27 April 2007 (AEST)
Keep: The fact that it was created in 2007 and is irrelevant as this club has recieved nation media coverage on a number of occasions and has close connections with Sydney FC. Snr Verde11:16, 28 April 2007 (AEST)
Keep: the notability comes from the fact that it's a club created by and for and from the fans of Sydney FC - it's directly related to the club and it's a very unusual thing to have a supporters group form an entire club like this. Dibo ^{T | C} 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, basically, what you're saying, is that this team's existance is WP:INTERESTING? Lankiveil 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - surely it's completely normal for fans group to form teams among themselves? Completely non-notable, minor, amateur team. - fchd 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: What makes this page different from AFC Wimbledon or FC United is only the amount of money that was put into the English clubs. Football in Australia is smaller thus the teams will start from smaller and more humble begginings. Higdawg 16:09 27 April 2007 (AEST)

- - - Commment - and the fact that those clubs are semi-professional, and play at a level where they can compete in national competitions, at a level of football which has become "notable" by precedent and consensus... - fchd 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: That is where the money comes into it. If supporters of Sydney had the capital to start with then they could have entered a team into the State League system. Why should the page be deleted because they have started smaller and plan to build up slowly? Higdawg 16:18 27 April 2007 (AEST)
        Comment If and when Locomotive Cove FC plays at a level that can be considered notable then the article can be recreated. Wikipedia is not designed to predict the future. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity piece.Not notable at all. Downunda 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable - subject of coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Hack 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A social football team, definitely non-notable. The fact that they are fans of Sydney FC does not make them notable. - Mattinbgn/^talk 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an amateur, social football club on their inaugural season in Division 2 of a suburban league? Sorry, but just not notable. Lankiveil 08:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Teams of this level do not deserve Wikipedia articles Julius Sahara 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable supporters team. The point about AFC Wimbledon is irrelevant as they were created as a new club out of entirely different reasons and they consider they are the true Wimbledon football club. They are also playing semi-professionally in the English League System. FC United of Manchester were also established in totally different circumstances to this Supporters Club and, just as AFC Wimbledon are playing in the English Football League System. As for it being notable because it is a Supporters team, that is no reason for notabliilty as many clubs supporters have their own teams. Maybe if this team plays at a level where it is notable then it would be relevant to have a wikipedia article, but not yet and not now.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club signifies a significant point in football in Australia as it is the first club of its type to be created. The sport in Australia has struggled to be excepted

Vote by unknown user. BlueValour 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have striked out the above keep vote by Higdawg as it was the second vote by the same user.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The club signifies a significant point in football in Australia as it is the first club of its type to be created. The sport in Australia has struggled to be accepted in world footballing circles so the fact that a supporters club team has formed from a fanbase that was once considered non existant by many is significant JHAC11:32, 28 april 2007

New user's only contribution. BlueValour 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all the reasons being given to keep this club, to me, are weak at best reasons, and are also reasons why it should not be kept. As has been said above, if and when this club rises to a significant level then it could then be notable, but the simple fact is that at present it is not. I can appreciate why some are voting to keep the article as a lot of work has been done on it.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ors. It's a minor club, does not play professionally, and all reasonable points supporting deletion are well based. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no difference between the merits of this page and Runcorn Linnets F.C. or Kingsbury London Tigers F.C. which are deemed suitable. Fat_Barstud 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry Tangerines, but perhaps you should realise for a second that football is very different in different parts of the world. You are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football, which maintains such illustrious teams as Kirby Muxloe SC and Mangotsfield United F.C. in such globally recognised competitions as the North West Counties Football League. Wikipedia exists to give people access to knowledge, and I'm sure as many people are interested in finding out about Lokomotiv Cove as are interested in many of those teams. I would even guess that the majority of the tens of thousands of Sydney FC supporters would be interested. In Australia, the development of football and its competitions has been a fragmented and corrupted process and resulted in a league structure which is nowhere near as fluent as that in England. The only reason I can see for most of your non-league teams being kept is that they "play at a level where they can compete in national competitions." Newsflash: Australia has one national competition, with eight teams. Had we an FA cup style competition, then Lokomotiv Cove would be competing, but we don't. This team is a wonderful initiative by football supporters who have banded together, in the space of one year, to an extent where they have formed a football team with the eventual aim of becoming a feeder club to the nation's premier team. However instead of acknowledging the different ways in which non-league football operates in different countries and acknowledging the efforts of this club, which have quite evidently been notable going by the extensive press coverage they have recieved, you seem intent on knocking a club whose creation does not fit into your narrow, inflexible view of the footballing world. This article is very notable, this club is a very important symbol of the advances Australian football has made in the last three years. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edblax (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 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 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Graham[edit]

Non-notable organ player. No assertion of notability, and a "small acting role in a BBC Play For Today" doesn't seem like enough that we need an article about him. Guinnog 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The man was a legend in Morecambe. I have already appealed for further info on Harold Graham on the discussion page. Give me some time to get information together Paul210 23:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1) Being a legend in a 50,000 person town is insufficent for WP:N per WP:BIO. 2) Even that insufficient claim that he is a "legend" in a 50,000-person town is without verification by even a single reliable source. 3) The appeal for further info was posted over two months ago. I think enough time has been given. If the Morecambe article were expanded to where the history of the Central Pier were discussed, complete with the scene of weekend summer nights there/Harbour Bandstand/all of that, then perhaps a quick mention of Harold Graham there would be justified . . . maybe. Certainly no more than that. Mwelch 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, insufficient detail for a biographical article. At most this would be detail in an article on the town, if sourced properly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My opinion has already been said. YechielMan 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of an apparently living person, unsourced since its creation in February. Orphaned--the only article linking to it is unrelated to this person. I would have proposed its deletion but a discussion first is fine too. Now let's delete it please. --Tony Sidaway 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be tagged db-bio. --Travisbent 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; I've found a RS for the actor fact, and wouldnt be surprised if he was mentioned in many local printed newspaper articles, but cant find sufficient evidence of notability on the web. John Vandenberg 15:17, 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 as the article doesn't assert the notability of its subject. A list of names with no supporting verifiable and sourced information is not notable. (aeropagitica) 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss San Francisco[edit]

Non-notable local pageant in the Miss California/Miss America system. General consensus seems to be that only state-level pageants or above are notable. Google News search and the like can be misleading as it also turns up instances when the term "Miss San Francisco" is interpreted as "miss (as a verb) San Francisco". I prodded the article but the prod was deleted with the comment "of course it's a notable pageant". PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 23:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sourcing, no detail, largely just a list of uninteresting winners. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:03, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Larsen[edit]

Non-notable beauty queen who has held only local titles and has no other claim to fame. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sources to make this a real biography, and there are unlikely to be if winning Miss San Francisco is the most notable thing she does in her life. Articles on people without sufficient sources are problems in the making, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 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. (aeropagitica) 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szepessy[edit]

Personal family tree of little known family, I would have added db-bio but I am unsure. Can anybody please explain what this family is known for ? Jackaranga 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the image is on media commons, and was uploaded by a person with the same username, as the one who created the page on wikipedia.--Jackaranga 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedia article, at least in its current form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The submitter created another article that was speedied for lack of context--from his contribution history, both appeared to be about families of Hungarian nobility. If so, then I think notability is less of a problem. If the article isn't improved, I will vote to delete, but I've all but begged him on his talk page to add some context so this doesn't have to happen, as I think this could be a worthy contribution. --Finngall ^talk 17:11, 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 as an unsourced and non-notable novel. (aeropagitica) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laserbeak's Fury[edit]

Non-notable book -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think a short article on a short book is about right. It's better than listing the information in all the seperate character's pages. user:mathewignash
Comment: needs sourcing. If it gets decent sources, I will change this to Keep. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. I don't think this is a notable book. JuJube 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mathewignash that sticking this info in the article of every character when it only features them in bit roles is a bad idea: however, perhaps a separate article for each audio is out. My thinking was we should move it and the other audio articles to something like List of Transformers audio stories: that way, we only need one article for however many audios.SMegatron 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are found providing analysis of the book the article fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Find the sources then we can talk, don't just assume they are there. Jay32183 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sarindar[edit]

Delete. POV fork of a POV fork. This page used to be about "Russia and Saddam WMD" and it narrowly survived AfD. I and other editors added in information questioning the legitimacy of the claims made here, so the user who created the page, Biophys (talk · contribs), renamed it, creating a POV fork that allowed him to delete much of the information that had been added. What is left here is simply not notable. This is mostly one Romanian guy's fantasy, with support from suspected criminal John Shaw. Neither has any evidence to back their statements up, and the ISG, Pentagon, and Russian government have said so. "Operation Sarindar" gets exactly 17 google hits, not one of them a WP:RS. Fourth hit is wikipedia; most of the rest are blogs like "fuckfrance.com." Hardly notable. I did a lexis/nexis search and a search of proquest newspapers and got exactly zero hits. Not one in major newspapers, magazines, or journals owned by either database. This topic is far less notable than the conspiracy theory that narrowly survived AfD a week ago. This page is a POV fork of that page and should be deleted. The one source for most of the claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, defected in 1978 and would have no basis for knowing anything that happened in the 1990s and 2000s between Russia and Saddam. This is all speculation portrayed as if it were fact, mostly from sources like Newsmax that fail the test of WP:RS. csloat 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. First, this article was considered for deletion a few days ago, and the decision was "keep". Second, POV fork of which article? If I understand correctly, he claims this is a POV fork of itself (?) Biophys 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination is violation of official WP policy. The policy say: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.". See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. We had a discussion with User cslot at the artice talk page and he agreed to follow normal dispute resolution process in talk with administaror. Cslot said: "you are quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article." - see [56]. But instead of discussion, he nominated this article for deletion second time. Biophys 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a POV fork of the Russia and Saddam article, which was a POV fork of another article. The problem, Biophys, is you changed the article title in order to avoid the evidence which contradicted your POV. Effectively creating a new article with a more narrow scope than the original. This new article scope is in fact so narrow that it gets only 17 google hits, most from blogs or from wikipedia itself. There is not a single print article in a reliable source on this topic -- not one. csloat 07:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is the same article. Only title was changed - as recommended by on of previous AfD discussion participants, and the overall focus of the article was changed - to make clear that this story is about disappearance of WMD, not about conventional weapons. The article was improved since the last AfD discussion: it cites more refrences and more focused. Obviously, an article can not be "fork" (repetition of content) of itself or another non-existing article.Biophys 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a new article -- as you say, the overall focus and the title as changed; it forked from an article about several issues (which was barely notable) to one about a single issue which is completely non-notable. csloat 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It is definitely POV fork. It's called "Operation Sarindar", but operation Sarindar according to Pacepa referred only to Lybia and Pacepa claimed that simialr plan existed for Iraq. Pacepa never said that this plan for Iraq was called "Sarindar". Moreover, "Operation sarindar" refers only to Pacepa allegations. Biophys has added under this already contraversial title allegations of John A. Shaw and Yossef Bodansky - which do not claim that this was called "Operation Sarindar". So even the title of this article - Original research - because Biophys never supported that Shaw and Bodansky called this plan - "Operation Sarindar" and Biophys never proved that plan for Iraq was called by Pacepa "Operation Sarindar" (this name existed for Lybia only). Additionaly, Biophys inserts original research statements not supported any sources that "similar (to Pacepa) statements were made by Shaw, Bodansky and McInerney" - which is both violation of WP:OR and WP:POINT. Biophys makes a point by publishing this article - that Russia is guilty of WMD proliferation. Although, there are academic sources (!!!) evidencing sale of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq by the US he never added them to the article - that is the reason why Biophys was changing the name of the article - not to let other editors to add these sources against the US - it is also WP:POINT and WP:TEND violations. See all sources about the US proliferation there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Ion_Mihai_Pacepa. Further, Pacepa, as was said, defected in 1978, - his allegations that he knew anything about modern Iraq - are hilarious and attempt to earn extra money for his defection. Vlad fedorov 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable and well referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sancta simplicatis. Piotrus manage to change your votes, do you have a template for this? I wonder if you haven't learned from your ArbCom case? Vlad fedorov 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy: Renomination by the same nominator after 6 days essentially lacking new arguments. Ineligible for deletion, as it was nominated for deletion under its previouos title on April 13 and the consensus has been to keep it (April 21, 2007) . NB that that the result was to keep rather than no consensus.

it narrowly survived AfD

AfD is not a vote, width of a margin doesn't matter here. The result was to keep six days ago. Colchicum 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that was a different article. This article is about a much narrower topic with no notability whatsoever. You think 17 google hits, without a single reliable source, is enough to support a Wikipedia article? Bizarre. csloat 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the procedure must be respected carefully, especially when some content is about to be deleted. Wait for three months and renominate it. But if you have content dispute with other contributors, you probably should change the article rather than nominate it for deletion.Colchicum 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same article. It's a different article. This isn't a content dispute. It's a dispute about whether "Operation Sarindar" - a probably-mythical operation that is not referred to in any book or published article except for a mere 17 mentions on blogs (some of which are references back to this wikipedia page) is encyclopedic content. This is not notable. I have not violated any procedure; this is a new article and it should be deleted, period. csloat 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As Piotrus says, seems notable and well referenced. Sancta simplicatis — I like that. Though, if we are to use Latin, we may as well use it correctly: it's sancta simplicita. Turgidson 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - You call this notable? csloat 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." See WP:Notability. This has nothing to do with Google searches. But all of that does not matter, because you violated official WP rules by nominating this article for deletion (see above). Biophys 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has been asserted that this topic "is not referred to in any book or published article except for a mere 17 mentions on blogs". Well, I beg to disagree. First of all, there is a reference in the article to: Alyssa A. Lappen, "Iraq's Role in Terrorism" (Review of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq, by Ryan Mauro, PublishAmerica, September 12, 2005. ISBN 1413774733), The American Thinker, September 23, 2006. According to WP, The American Thinker is a "daily internet publication"; is that the same as a "blog"? Furthermore, the quoted article is a review of a book; the author and publisher both have WP articles; and the book itself has an ISBN number. Is that not a book? Finally, the article by Ion Mihai Pacepa has appeared in The Washington Times -- I know that the nominator has made it plain here he doesn't like that newspaper, but still, according to the WP article on the Washington Times, this newspaper has an average daily circulation of 103,017, and has more than a dozen contributors or editors with wiki articles. The reason the Pacepa article doesn't appear in those 17 Google hits is because the relevant fragment there simply reads: "in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."" Turgidson 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker is a blog, yes. And the book review is of a self-published book by an 18-year old -- hardly notable. And it's not clear the book actually discusses Operation Sarindar; the author of the blog attributes that mention to Pacepa. And clearly a search of google books finds zero hits for operation sarindar. Ultimately all we have is the Washington Times piece -- regardless of whether I like the paper, this is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. And it is the opinion of someone with no evidence, who has been removed from a position to know anything about this for thirty years. It's just not encyclopedic; the only reason anyone would consider it so is to push a conspiracy theory POV. csloat 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on American Thinker, this daily internet publication belongs to Category:Computer webzines, which is not a subset of Category:Blogs, from what I can tell. As for Ryan Mauro, he will be 21 on July 2, 2007, which is not the same as 18. Moreover, how exactly does the age of the author change the equation here? For Pacepa, the argument seems to be that he's too old to know anything about what's going on, for Mauro, that he's too young. Is this getting into ageism? Turgidson 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webzines and blogs are both self-published, with no editorial oversight; I don't care which category you put it in; it is not a WP:RS. Mauro was 18 when he wrote the book. Yes, his age is a factor. Pacepa is not too old; the problem is he hasn't been associated with the Communist Party in 30 years. Stop distorting my arguments; it is annoying, and you are well aware that this has nothing to do with ageism. Finally, Mauro does not seem to mention Operation Sarindar anyway; that mention comes from the blog/webzine and is not a WP:RS. Again, the only RS we have is Washington Times, and it is a mere opinion piece from somebody who is not in any position to have knowledge about such things. csloat 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's agree to disagree on what constitutes a blog. And, OK, I will not push further my point about Mauro's book--I made my point, you made yours, fine. And I'm happy to see you now agree that the Washington Times can be considered an RS--whether we agree or not with its editorial policy. At the risk of beating to death the point about Pacepa's credibility, though, let me just say one more thing: The issue is not whether he's "been associated with the Communist Party in 30 years". First, it's not 100% clear he ever was -- at least, that's not stated explicitly in the article on him -- though probably he was, given his position. What matters, though, is that he was a two-star General in the Securitate, advisor to President Nicolae Ceauşescu, acting chief of his foreign intelligence service, and state secretary in Romania’s Ministry of Interior — the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. In that capacity, he came to be privvy to a lot of secrets —such as the Sarindar plans — whose shelf life has not expired yet (some of the actors involved in this matter were around in the 70s, after all!) So I still maintain Pacepa's insights are still relevant — otherwise, why would he still be published in National Review Online, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and the online newspaper FrontPage Magazine? Turgidson 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when you intentionally misinterpret my words it is both dishonest and annoying; please stop. I did not say that WT's editorial policy had anything to do with this; I said this was an opinion piece, independent of whether some people agree with it. Second, the point is not what secrets he was privy to -- the point is that he stopped being privy to such secrets in 1978. So anything he wrote in 2005 about this is sheer speculation from someone who is in no better position to have anything to say about it than you or I. csloat 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations of my "intentionally misinterpreting" your words are annoying. Regarding the Washington Times (a matter that I hoped we'd put behind), I refer you to the discussion here, specifically, to the following edit: "Third, this fantasy has simply not been supported by any reliable source. All we have is opinion pieces stating unverified opinions, and those pieces are in extremely partisan sources -- Washington Times (owned by the Unification church)...". That's your opinion, fine. But please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your words—I will not respond anymore to such assertions, which are not conducive to arriving at a consensus on the matter under discussion. Turgidson 05:03, 30 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.