< April 5	April 7 >

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

The result was Delete both. Yannismarou 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showcattle.com and Showdog.com[edit]

Non-notable websites. (Almost) completely unsourced. Reads like an ad and consequently doesn't pass WP:WEB. This is most likely CSD G11 or prod material but I wanted to err on the side of caution as the websites in question look legitimate. Seed 2.0 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume it's in essence the same story for Showdog.com (note: that page was recently WP:PROD'ed). -- Seed 2.0 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and bundled the two AfDs together. -- Seed 2.0 13:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable games. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN games, WP:VSCA. Someone well versed in deletion nominate the three images in the dog one at IfD as well, please. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shovel under the stable. Fails WP:ATT, WP:NN, and with a mighty Alexa rank of #1,207,306 and a handful of Google hits, WP:WEB as well. "ShowCattle.com allows you complete control over the breeding of your cattle with several realistic options like pasture breeding, artificial insemination, and embryo transfer." Oh boy! (They also have a Showcats.com and a TrophyHorse.com, if you're interested.) RGTraynor 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To append to my own !vote, the Alexa and Google info I have up there is for Showcattle.com alone. Showdogs.com's Alexa ranking is 3,429,980, which is a hell of a lot worse, so either Alexa's wrong ~~or we're being conned as to the site's pageviews.~~ Showdog.com (leaving out its own webpage) only returns 685 Google hits [1], and I'm not seeing any reliable, independent published sources cropping up in the list. ~~Right now my !vote remains to Delete Both until we see some genuine sourcing for either site.~~ RGTraynor 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, seeing the unlocked usage log is a show of good faith, and it does report about 20,000 visitors/day, although that doesn't take into account daily usage from unique IP addresses. Even cut by the expected percentage, though, several thousand users a day is good evidence of notability. RGTraynor 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Let me be clear that I'm not arguing with you in hopes of the article remaining, I had nothing to do with it and I’m not sure the site should even be listed myself. However, you are making some claims based on false information that I simply cannot let pass without correcting.
      
      Yes, Alexa is so wrong it’s scary to think that there are people so uniformed that they would use it it as a legitimate source of information. You can find the entire log report for the most recent analysis at http://www.showdog.com/logreport/ (I have removed the password protection for 24-hours). You are not being conned although I wish we didn’t have the server bill for that level of traffic.
      
      As I said, our Alexa ranking was MUCH higher when we were a lot smaller site doing around 2-million page views per month. It routinely ranks our low traffic sites above our high traffic sites. Alexa is a severely flawed tool that gives inaccurate information for anything outside the top 500 sites on the Internet. Using it as a credible source is shaky at best.
      
      Regarding “genuine sourcing”, the EW article is the least credible but the only one posted on the Internet. The print articles from leading industry publications are hanging on my wall in front of me right now but are not online. I’m sure you realize the folly of expecting everything that is “genuine” to be posted on the Internet.
      
      Regarding the listings, I questioned whether to even allow our users to put them up. To be honest, I actually don’t see the point of a Wiki listing in the first place for our site. There’s certainly not a selfish reason to be listed, we already get tons of referrals from search engines and I didn’t notice Wikipedia in the top 100 referrers to our site. Wikipedia also isn’t the kind of directory where information on our site is relevant to any core issue.
      
      However, your rationale for measuring the credibility of websites is flawed and should be reconsidered in the future when analyzing other sites.

Delete Showcattle.com, keep Showdog.com. I completely agree with RGTraynor's assertion that the cattle site is non-notable, but showdog.com seems to have quite a large internet following. I looked it up on a search engine, and as I sifted through the pages of results I found a large amount of unaffiliated personal sites that are "virtual kennel clubs" for it, leading me to believe that it is indeed notable. I'd guess that the other show[animal].com sites are a spinoff to showdog.com, which is the most successful and established site out of the bunch. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the owner of the sites, our users put them together, the only edit I have done was to correct the spelling of my name. I was alerted to them by somebody requesting permission to use our logo on the page and then again today when they sent me this link through our forums. Please feel free to remove them, I just want to stress that they weren't done by myself. BTW, regarding Alexa rank, Showdog does over 16 million page views per month, has 12,000 users who have logged in during the past two-weeks, and we ranked MUCH higher on Alexa when we only got 2 million. Alexa is just flat out bogus. I'm not sure what the criteria for "handful of Google hits" is but we recieved 20,000 referals from Google last month from 2,434 unique search terms. Showcattle does about 1/5 the traffic of Showdog but was the original sit in our line of simulations. It's the only online game that focuses on the agricultural niche but is most certainly a MUCH smaller site than Showdog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.117.79.115 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Correction, spelling of a sister site, not my name. Sorry for the mistake.
- Thank you for the clarification. I am beginning to wonder if these sites should be on two separate AFDs. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, we should just discuss their merits independently. RGTraynor 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for site owner The guidelines we're using for determining whether the article is deleted are at WP:WEB. Basically, we need to find independent sources that have written about this web site in order to find it notable. Are you aware of significant sources that have reviewed the site, or noteworthy awards it has won? Can you help us find the sources we need? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (please forgive my ingorance on Wiki formatting) The only thing I could think of would be magazine articles. Showdog was featured in a full page article in the Sep/Oct 2005 issue of "The AKC Family Dog" (pg. 38-39) and a paragraph in the February 2006 issue of "DOGFANCY". Showcattle.com was the featured front page story in the April 19, 2002 issue of "Southern Livestock Standard". None of those articles are posted online due to the policies of the relevant publications. In terms of web awards, there are a few but I've never placed much crediblity in any of them. I want to stress that I'm not trying to lobby one way or the other, just providing information for those of you who know the policies.
  - I found an article in Entertainment Weekly about it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A paragraph in an online blog on the EW website, anyway. Any indication that EW did a genuine piece on the site? RGTraynor 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - EW didn't write about us in any print publication, it was just a blog post by Michael Slezak.
        Oh, I guess I misunderstood the page. My fault. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails to meet WP:WEB. Retiono Virginian 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To save you guys the effort and wasted time of discussing this further, please just remove the listing. We really have no need to be listed on Wikipedia, it's clear that most here don't see a reason for it to be listed, and to be frank, some of the severely misguided "analysis" of our site is a bit insulting. (I'd also prefer that we don't get outranked by a Wiki listing on our site some day in Google ;)
Delete both. Fails all criteria of WP:WEB. Sr13 (T|C) 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, unfortunately. Although the sites are certainly notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia, the articles themselves at the moment lack sources other than primary ones. So until somebody (i.e. probably the site owner, as he is the one who has them - but he doesn't want to) cites the printed articles in the correct way, the articles should be deleted. I would do it, but I don't have the articles. 78.0.156.40 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that I don't want to, I've provided all the information we have. What's the correct way to cite a print article that is not posted online?

See WP:CITE. Potatoswatter 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of bureaucratic stuff is why I went into business for myself. Here’s the info we have short of taking them out of their frames and scanning them for you…
“Win Best in Show – Online”, Dogfancy, February 2006
”Fantasy Kennels”, AKC Family Dog pg 38, Sep/Oct 2005
”Click and you’re in the cattle business”, Southern Livestock Standard pg 1, April 19th, 2002
As I said, just remove the articles. They do nothing for us, they’re just the work of some of our customers, it’s a pretty clear consensus that you guys don’t feel they are appropriate, and to be frank I really don’t see a reason to continue to validate these facts. I ask that you stop with the questions of my credibility, it’s just disrespectful. I have provided you with information to back up everything I said. All of you have better stuff to do with your time and so do I.

Comment: Hi. Since I originally nominated Showcattle.com (and later added Showdog.com), I just wanted to add some context for you. Before I do, I'd like to thank you for participating in this discussion though. As you can imagine, tracking down reliable sources can be hard work - you providing them is appreciated. I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here. I never questioned your credibility and I don't think any other editor did either. In that context, the only question was whether there were reliable sources to back up the claim that your websites are indeed notable as defined by WP:N. I don't want to bore you so I'll try to keep this brief: citing sources is important for a variety of reasons but, basically, the idea is that statements made on this Wiki should be verifiable, accurate and not original research. Citations allow anyone to check the accuracy of such a statement and help establish it as a fact. For instance, in your case, I could claim that Showdog.com generated $2b in ad revenue last year since, technically, noone (with a few exceptions) is barred from adding information to Wikipedia. If I were to make such a claim, it would most likely be removed and I'd be asked to add a reliable, verifiable source. It's a form of peer-review, if you will that is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

In your case, it's really the same thing except the issue in question is (amongst other things) notability. Any questions about credibility were raised in that context. In other words, nobody is doubting your word or calling you a liar. It's just a process we try to follow to make sure we're all on the same page, objective and fair. Cheers, --Seed 2.0 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. It is a shame to see double standards here on Wikipedia. Just check "Multiplayer online games" category and you'll see a dozen games without any sources cited. But nobody proposes them for deletion. Why? Maybe because there is big business behind those games. Showdog.com lacks flashy animations, vampires and murders, so let's delete it! No matter that tens of thousands of people play it... as nobody wrote about it on the net it's not notorius... erm... "notable" enough. Shame on us! 78.0.135.37 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Multiplayer games get AfDed all the time for reasons of non-notability or failure to demonstrate usage; I've voted in four of them this past week alone. If your research has turned up such games that you don't think pass notability muster, feel free to file on them yourself. RGTraynor 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. A rather unique idea, and if it had some quality references I'd be happy to support keeping, but as it stands now, one entertainment weekly blog doesn't seem to be enough. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler[edit]

Blog deleted via an AFD that was part of "GNAAs war on blogs". At deletion review concerns were raised about whether or not deletion was in line with consensus of Wikipedians, so it is back for further consideration. This is a technical nomination, I offer no opinion. GRBerry 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the primary inclusion criterion for web-sites: the site has not been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing needs work, but I'm convinced sources do exist. According to Glenn Greenwald, Rottweiler is the 42nd most-linked-to blog on the Internet [2]. Dave Neiwert, who is a published author in addition to being a weblogger, has singled out Misha's site as one of the epicenters of right-wing eliminationism (see, e.g., [3]). A Google search for "anti-idiotarian rottweiler" comes up with 910,000 matches. I'm convinced this is notable and that proper sources can be found. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:26, 2 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 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa ranks it in the 200,000s. Unless sources can be produced to show notability, I'm not seeing it. The list provided by Crotalus horridus appears to place Wonkette at number 42... I can't see it by scanning the list, but possibly I'm missing it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no notability demonstrated. WarpstarRider 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATT, WP:WEB. Like CH, I see an Alexa rank of #236,935, and whatever the methodology that proclaimed this in the top fifty of Web blogs, I'm unconvinced. If this is as influential a blog as all of that, I'd like to see some reliable, published, independent sources, please. RGTraynor 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that I can actualy take a look at this one I stand by my opinion that it should likely have just remained deleted. Claims of being one of the "top blogs" might qualify for inclusion, but this claim is unsourced and either way a quick web search doesn't seem to imply that it can pass WP:WEB. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- If it has been deleted before it must have been deleted for one certain reason. Delete per the previous reason it was deleted. Retiono Virginian 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this article was undeleted in a DRV review because enough editors felt that there was substantial new information to consider on the topic. It may have been deleted for a reason before, but it was undeleted for a reason as well and this debate should not simply be a rehash of an old deletion but a discussion on the merits of the article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter the topic or the supposed controversy, this blog doesn't actually appear to meet WP:WEB. I've gone through that list and it's not on it, although another politically similar blog is (and doesn't have an article and perhaps should, since that blog may pass WP:WEB). I don't see that it's won any recognized unrelated third-party awards (as have, for instance, Go Fug Yourself or Regret The Error, two non-political blogs). I'm not seeing where it's being written about by non-trivial sources (as the above have been). --Charlene 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This blog is not like MySpace, which is a actually a notable website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. This is a procedural close, the article was already deleted but this page was not closed completely. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smirking Chimp[edit]

Blog deleted via an AFD that was part of "GNAA's war on blogs". At deletion review concerns were raised about whether or not deletion was in line with consensus of Wikipedians, so it is back for further consideration. This is a technical nomination, I offer no opinion. GRBerry 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any site with over a million Google hits is definitely noteworthy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this article should not be deleted. It is a site that deserves to be remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.210.90.180 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources verifying notability per WP:WEB can be produced. Alexa rank in the 200,000s. I couldn't find useful sources by googling, but I may have missed some. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability through reliable sources. Google hits (which largely seem to be just mentions in other blogs in this case) are not an indicator of notability per WP:WEB. WarpstarRider 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability evidenced Regan123 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, no assertion of notability, no reason for us to think this passes WP:N or WP:WEB. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- It asserts of notability; but I stick with the reason to why it was deleted the first time. Retiono Virginian 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, MySpace is a blog and does meet WP:N and WP:WEB, but this one doesn't. Sr13 (T|C) 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-il in popular culture[edit]

Original research, article has no sources or references. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Although I'm not disputing that it's an interesting subject, I don't really see how this article could be reasonably improved without turning it into a random collection of trivia and pop culture references. -- Seed 2.0 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- Kiersta 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nearly all articles in the category Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack any sources, so rather than afd-ing them (which would seem to indicate that such sources do not exist) let's tag them and see what happens? Carlossuarez46 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nearly all articles in the category lack any sources" - yes, and many of them have been deleted for that reason. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add sources. This is definately noteworthy, as Kim Jong-Il is a common theme.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this trivia list is encyclopedic or useful.--JyriL ^talk 12:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anything that's not a blatant piss-take be merged into Kim Jong-il. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR, and potentially hugely damaging to Wikipedia's special relationship with North Korea. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A load of unsourced trashy trivia. Retiono Virginian 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced laundry list of trivial appearances that do nothing to illuminate the topic of Kim Jong-il's place in "pop culture". Very few "in pop culture" articles do it right, this isn't one. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or selectively merge. He is a public figure who's been the subject of some amount of satire or usually hostile commentary, so there is information here that should not be lost. Surely his appearance as a major character in the major motion picture Team America: World Police belongs in his article in chief; it belongs there whether he has a separate "in popular culture" article or not. As for referencing this article, for purposes of this information a link to the article about the movie is easily sufficient; any skeptic can verify the fact by watching the film. The same holds true for most of the other appearances.
The offloading of valid material into "in popular culture" sections which then get deleted with arguments such as this is becoming a tool for censorship, when people imagine that satirical portrayals sully the dignity of admired figures. But how many fans does Kim Jong-il have here? - Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have no reservations against a selective merge of pertinent information into the parent article, but I think that only goes back to the original problem. The source of most of these "pop culture" articles is usually an unresolved debate among editors of the article in question as to how much (if any) trivia appearences is warranted in an article. Instead of resolving the issue through the normal debate process, it generally involves an edit war of unilateral deletion of all the material in the article and the inclusion of any hint of an appearence, regardless of how important or notable it may be. Instead of reaching a compromise, someone invariably forks the information out into one of these articles, which invariably appear here on AfD. This would not be an issue if there were more editorial cooperation in these disputes and the application of normal dispute resolution rather than seeking unilateral solutions such as wholesale deletion of a section and forking it out. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the first thing we need to correct is the perception that the direct portrayals of public figures in motion pictures, TV shows, and other fictional works is "trivia". I frankly don't grasp why these things are thought to be somehow beneath notice. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an actual portrayal and simply an insulting verbal reference. That's the issue in this case. Actually portrayals i have no problem with, but tagging verbal insults is not noteworthy. Icactus 22:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - There is a difference between this and portrayals or appearances or characterizations in popular culture (like the page "Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush"). This page simply lists occurences where Kim Jong-il has been insulted by figures in US pop-culture. The only listing of any value would be the "Team America" portrayal which is properly located on the page regarding the movie. Otherwise the page is just a check list of verbal insults which on their own have no encyclopedic or substantive value (as well as unprecidented on wikipedia). As for a merger of the "Team America" reference: Kim Jong-il's biography should stick to things he has done or has had influence over, and not things representing him (like the film depiction) that are outside the scope of his life. Icactus 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Sr13 (T|C) 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unencyclopedic. Apart from the "Team America" reference, this is a completely random list of references to an internationally important figure. The number of such references is surely too many to be organized in a finite list. As for the "Team America" reference, that is something that really belongs on the "Team America" page. Dr bab 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia that doesn't deserve its own article--$UIT 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is pretty much like Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush which also provides only a couple of references, but everyone can watch the movies. The article should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 07:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge - doesn't need its own article apart from the main Kim Jong-il one. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mere trivia (even if it were verified); delete. -- Hoary 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of number one videos on VSpot Top 20 Countdown[edit]

Unencyclopædic listcruft; no sources, but even if there were, I can't see how it could meet any notability criterion. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:37, 31 March 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 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not appropatie for WP Regan123 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft, WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Inapropriate, useless. Retiono Virginian 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, trivial list, WP:NOT suitable for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this type of information is generally incorporated by succession boxes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima /talk/ 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired videos in VSpot Top 20 Countdown[edit]

Unencyclopædic listcruft; no sources, but even if there were, I can't see how it could meet any notability criterion. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:37, 31 March 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 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not appropriate for Wikipedia - this is just a random collection of information. Regan123 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- More useless junk. Random info, per WP:VSCA. Retiono Virginian 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, trivial list, WP:NOT suitable for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Acalamari 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima /talk/ 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan King[edit]

The guy isn't even remotely notable, and the article fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the content, besides the un-cited previous political candidacies, is non-notable. What information is notable, just the minimal information on the previous political runs, isn't really enough to justify the existence of one article. This article should be deleted and inline mentions added to the yearly election articles about his previous political candidacies. Luke! 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but if there are external sources, I would change that to Keep. A perennial political outsider will be N if noticed by the media, just like anything else. DGG 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a perennial candidate, activist in local causes. This is well-written, and properly linked and categorised. If properly cited, it should be kept. there are far less notable people who have articles in Wikipedia, including practically every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Mr. King, in addition to running for political office all over the place, at least is real. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This individuals local causes are way too local to be of encyclopedic value; but, his public office runs are notable and I have recommended some course of action above to include this. Examples of non-notability and high subjectiveness without proper referencing within the article include "...tenant rep...involved in local causes for immigrants...expert...he has never made a living in this field...very active and prominent..." Well-written, and proper categorization and linkage are not part of the criteria used for judging inclusion, rather the notability guidelines are. There could be the most un-notable article that has characteristics of all three of those yet it does not satisfy notability to allow for inclusion. And just because other articles exist does not justify that this article should be kept. Each article is judged on its own merits. Luke! 18:44, 3 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 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 104, 000 gtest results - none of the first 10 are this particular Dan King. Violates WP:BIO I believe, NN. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per Vanderdecken, google has nothing much about him.--Paloma Walker 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can only admire his persistence in repeated electoral campaigns against all reasonable odds. Some possibly notable work is referred to in the article, such as "A briefing paper coauthored by King on GAAP and ISO 19011" If there were adequate references his work might be shown to be notable, but this article does not make there case. DGG 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I agree with Luckyluke that this article was clearly not written in an objective manner, and as such I am skeptical of how 'prominent' the fellow is claimed to be. Even taking all claims at face value, however, I don't see notability. -Joshuapaquin 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above, non-notable. Goodnightmush 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The problem with your perennial candidates this that often their quixotic campaigns are a source of notability, even though they are destined to be failures (from an electoral point of view). But this article makes no claims to notabiility as a perennial 'crackpot' candidate if you will. It does make a lot of grandiose claims with nothing to back it up. "He is an expert in Canada's tax system", "He is also an expert in emissions trading especially for non-point sources, and has worked on land trust and fundraising problems related to forest preservation and preventing deforestation, though he has never made a living in this field, his advice is widely sought by other Greens on ecology-related accounting matters." What? A re-write and some independent sourcing could help. Montco 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of the guy, but perenial cadidates are a useful part of democracy and by that action alone he is probaly notable enough- ie someone is likly to do a search to see "who is this guy" he has a way to go to match John Turmel by the looks of itcmacd 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonomically Designed Facilities[edit]

The subject of the article is not notable, and there are no articles available to establish notability (Google Search for "Ergonomically Designed Facilities") WatchAndObserve 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks rather like WP:ADVERT as well. Suriel1981 23:36, 31 March 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 10:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be original research Regan123 13:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh my giddy aunt... blatant mickey-taking. Vandalism, to be quite honest. Nominating the three images at IfD... now. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flush this article: A prime candidate for WP:BULLSHIT if ever I saw one. I wouldn't say that this fails WP:ADVERT, myself (who is supposed to be peddling this, for one?) but this is near to a blatant hoax. RGTraynor 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Ab e g92contribs 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsulas of Mexico[edit]

This page is already covered by both the Yucatan Peninsula page and the Baja California page. It's pretty unnecessary. --Georgethedecider 05:48, 2 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 10:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. If there were any actual content in this article, I'd support a Merge, but there isn't. Yay, so the Baja peninsula has beaches. What peninsula doesn't?? RGTraynor 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stubby articles are not necessarily bad articles, but this one contains no new information and does nothing to add to the encyclopedia. What qualifies as a "very well known" penninsula, anyway? Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. Starting at Category:Peninsulas >> Category:Peninsulas by country >> Category:Peninsulas of Mexico would get one all the info in this poorly written and poorly categorized article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Strategies[edit]

Non notable company, essentially an advert Artw 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable spam. Leuko 17:36, 31 March 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 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Hmmm, I saw the title and thought "oh cool, someone's written an article on Sue Riechert's classic studies of the evolution of fighting strategies in spiders"..." but no, this is an Corporate advertisement whose only sources are the company's website ... and ... the company blog, company blog?! (really, go there and be treated to an essay about how crazy it is to not upgrade to IE7) Pete.Hurd 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think it meets WP:CORP.--Paloma Walker 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was some suggestions to rename/move or merge this information but no consensus to do so. Debate as to those editorial decisions may continue on the talk page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austrian sail frigates[edit]

Prodded twice with reasons "unreferenced, indescriminate listcruft with virtually no information" and "Appears to be an arbitrary list." I am neutral. Note similar articles in Category:Lists of sailing ships. –Pomte 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list (like many) would be better as a category, but that requiresther to be articles on some of the ships. The same applies to other lists in the category. Some one has been undertaking substantial research for some of the other lists, and referencing them to reliable printed sources. I suspect this has the same sources. I also suspect that they are in fact all (or mostly) naval ships. People treat the Austrian navy as if it were a joke, but Austria had a coast for a period in the 19th century when it possessed Venice. I would thus suggest it as a Weak Keep. A similar proplem seems to apply to some ship lists that do not appear in the category. Peterkingiron 09:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatian coast was part of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary until 1918 and the Austro-Hungarian Navy usually won their battles, unlike the land forces. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too lousy and would only discourage someone to create an useful article somewhere in Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. A list of AH sail ships with technical details is e.g. on [4]. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This isn't much, but there are numerous lists of warships, including broken down into sailing ships. What makes this any more "arbitrary" than any other list? RGTraynor 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - this is just as valid as List of French sail frigates, List of sailing frigates of the United States Navy, List of Turkish sail frigates et al. Remember, what's now Croatia and much of what's now northern Italy was historically part of Austria for centuries & Austria was a major naval power right up until WW1. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This did seem like the Seacoast of Bohemia, but I am glad to have the geography explained. DGG 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might want to rename to clarify that this is the Austrian Empire and not present day Austria. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the many flaws in non-noteability policy is its tendancy to further reporting bias within Wikipedia in favour of present powers. It is unreasonable to declare large lists and catergories of large nations are allowed, but not small lists and catergories from small nations - (or ex-empires). It would be cruel if this list has been created by blind application of policy to subdividing all lists of naval ships into smaller catergories - great to tidy up lists of USN or RN vessels, an unintelligble mangle of tiny catergories and sublists for 9/10ths of the worlds navies. I think the best solution would be amalgamation into Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. In the ideal world I'd like to see the author list all of Austro-Hungary's ships in one place, and ignore the policy of subdividing all smaller nation lists and catergories into sub catergories you have to click on to reach the one or two or six items inside. (A similar problem blights aircraft lists outside the top 4 or 5 manufacturing nations and so forth). Winstonwolfe 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JMathLib[edit]

Apparently non-notable software; project website has no Alexa rank. WP:PROD notice removed by creator with no explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software actually does have an Alexa rank. I changed the URL to the software. The original link was very new and not indexed well at Alexa yet.User:stmueller 24 March 2007

Indeed, Sourceforge.net has an Alexa rank of 98; this says nothing about the notability of the software it happens to host. - Mike Rosoft 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a central notability standard for software? I could go either way on this one. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of; there's a proposed notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software). - Mike Rosoft 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can see, it fails that guideline. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Matlib,~~ Matlab as a clone.DGG 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) DGG 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean Matlab? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to get more votes/comments. - Mike Rosoft 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a thirdparty reliable source (like a review maybe?) or evidence of popularity can be found. --J2thawiki 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no assertion of WP:N. - Aagtbdfoua 02:33, 2 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 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:Notability.--Paloma Walker 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Paloma Walker Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notable enough. John Reaves (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaky Hands[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaky Hands indeed satisfy the criteria for notability. They feature two members who have been part of the notable indie folk band The Castanets (Nicholas and Nathan Delffs) [5], and they also represent the Portland indie rock scene, as is shown by their popularity in the Willamette Week [6]. They've also been featured on Pitchfork, which is at the forefront of the national indie scene [7]. (Kneebiter42 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Kneebiter42 - they have a review in Pitchfork, on top of having the local paper features. This article needs more development and sourcing, for sure, but the band seems to satisfy WP:N. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Wilson (Actor)[edit]

Not notable. Compare the IMDB entries for this name, none of which seem to match. Flex (talk|contribs) 13:15, 31 March 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 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom non notable and the IMDB entries don't match as I also found.--Paloma Walker 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wilson can be seen in several Red Hot Chili Peppers' videos in a very prominent role. The article needs cleanup and wikifying, but it shouldn't be deleted. I was very happy when I saw there was an article about this man, and now you decide he is not notable. Sorry, but that is simply untrue.--Vitriden 10:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is on you. An appearance in a music video or two does not in itself constitute notability. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE, weak independent coverage, not even an IMDB entry. Porn 'stars' have to make a hundred films, we have standards. I've tagged for cleanup and wikify in the event it passes. --killing sparrows 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just re-affirming my vote since this was relisted. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reminder: Wikipedia is not censored and don't nominate something for deletion just because you don't like it. John Reaves (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hui Voine![edit]

Irrelevant and unnecessary, not to mention obscene. This phrase developed doesn't seem worthy to be an article on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiming and strolling in the rain (talk • contribs).

delete no sources, probably non-notable--Sefringle 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This slogan is very well known. -- Esp rus2 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Su37amelia (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 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 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have been a fairly non-notable event (judging by the references and the description). Besides, the information is already listed in the t.A.T.u. article, so I don't see why it needs its own article. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be well known but it doesn't need to be an article of its own. --User:Renee Jaslene Natasha 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It does not need a separate article, unless it can be shown that it has become used in other contexts. DGG 07:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per nom excepting it's perceived obscenity. WP is not censored. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect to t.A.T.u - can anyone read the Russian language WP article? Seems as big of a deal as many of their songs, its a notable part of their act. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yannismarou 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Alcorn (author)[edit]

nn author, WP:VAIN dtony 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦Delete Self-serving of little or no importance other than to the author. This is an example of why MySpace was founded. Shoessss 11:30, 31 March 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 11:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Has written several books—self-published, apparently—but article contains no evidence that WP:BIO is satisfied, and it violates WP:AUTO. I also recommend deleting the WP articles on the books (linked in the article under review). Deor 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’ That’s right, I’m changing my initial evaluation. The young lady does have two published books with Amazon.com. That is good enough for me. Shoessss 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazon.com does not publish books. Amazon.com is a bookseller, and will distribute any book, self-published or otherwise, as long as it gets a commission . A listing there is proof that a book exists, and can provide some basic data, but it has no more significance towards notability than a paid advertisement. There is perhaps some level of unsalability below which they will not even list, but I don;t know that there is. DGG 07:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Vanispamcruftisement along with articles on her books - a simple Google search led to her Amazon.com profile, which in turn led to http://www.backpack45.com/ ... she is obviously the editor Backpack45scb (talk · contribs) who authored this article, as well as the articles for her books, Camino Chronicle, Richmond - Windows to the Past, and We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill ... none of these articles have any WP:RS citations, neither she nor these books meet WP:N, and the books should be included in this AfD ... this is a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. (If deleted, don't forget to zap the disambiguation page for Susan Alcorn.) —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability reasons. Kntrabssi 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu multimedia center[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 06:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero evidence of notability. Deiz talk 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DXRAW 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - notability is just about there but needs work. Regan123 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't really know... Looks good, but offical site is an Internet junk... SQL Errors when obtaining main forum page, no screenshots, no info about distribution, when clicking "Download" site redirects to some domain seller... Hołek ҉ 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet, and might never be. If it does become notable, there will be enough articles and sources for a decent article. Until then, if somebody really feels strongly about this fork, you could possibly insert the information into the Ubuntu article. --Poeloq 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Poeloq - delete. If it ever becomes notable, it can have an article. Until then, we don't need one. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merege Merge with Ubuntu. George Leung 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per George Leung Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookin' Out[edit]

No context, no assertion of notability, smells like WP:NEO. The only references are a definition of one word (not the subject) and a book or website that I can't find. I googled Cookin' Out to no avail, and when I googled the second reference, I came upon a government website but could find no reference to "Cookin' Out." The article was originally Trans-wikied to Wiktionary, but later deleted from that. Rockstar915 05:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Violates WP:NEO. Sr13 (T|C) 06:50, 31 March 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 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a lifelong Western Australian, never heard of it. "Cookin' out", in WA, although rarely used, would probably mean getting stoned beyond measure with friends in somebody's backyard or in another outside venue - probably an intuitive meaning that would arise in other English-speaking locales. Orderinchaos 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Lankiveil 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Call Team network stations[edit]

Nominated because Wikipedia is Not a Directory. Todd661 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it belongs anywhere at WP (and I'm doubtful of that), it belongs in the main article. Otherwise, WP is not a directory. Realkyhick 05:33, 31 March 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 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not only is WP not a directory, but such a list could be done for every radio or television program. An article of a film could have a list of every theater where it played. An article on a recording could have a list of every station that aired it. DGG 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DaveApter 09:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WWIN Kntrabssi 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Networks like Austereo or Macquarie merit lists of this type, but not radio stations carrying a particular segment. (Imagine "How Green Was My Cactus network stations"...) Orderinchaos 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, How I long for something as funny as How Green was my Cactus, or perhaps an updated version of Guru Swami... who constantly hit everyone over the head with a sitar player. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure trivia. Lankiveil 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was 'deleted by User:Wiki alf per A7. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lopardo[edit]

The article seems to be very unencyclopedic in nature. Very vague info. Sushant gupta 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment uh, very vague, really quite nonexistent. I'll go drop a note at nominator's asking if correct name. Shenme 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current state. Nonexistent. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Web[edit]

This topic gets very few google hits. I'm not entirely convinced it is real or if it is, what it is about. It was tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page, but that didn't really seem to fit and the prod has been removed, so I am bringing it here. BigDT 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, the form is bad, and doesn't clearly explain what happens, or even the etymology of the term. Second, even the article admits it's not notable. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't even detail what the "Kyoko Web" legend is supposed to be about. There are no examples, yet there are supposed to be at least 5 variations of this.

It seems that "Kyoko" is attempting to create an urban legend about herself. I don't know why, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any urban legend called "Kyoko Web." I found 1 reference to the existance of the story, but no examples of it.

63.195.188.162 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the author admits ii isn't notable, that's good enough for me. :-) Realkyhick 01:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable--$UIT 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acalamari 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator of the article has created no other articles outside of the subject of this AfD. --Dennisthe2 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article itself says it all "While the Kyoko Web isn't a popular enough myth to appear on many sites or blogs[...]" No listing at Snopes, the ultimate compilation of urban legends, few gHits, if this was really a popular internet meme or legend, you'd expect to see more of a net presence. Possible hoax? Wintermut3 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, not referenced. There's no 'core' to the article, no 'tale' in the tale. This is a campfire story that would put everyone to sleep. Shenme 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Campfire? Dude, I nearly fell asleep at work reading it! --Dennisthe2 06:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and references. Sr13 (T|C) 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. —dima /talk/ 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets and roads in Hong Kong[edit]

Prod contested. This article meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory and should not serve as an index of roads in Hong Kong. Not all roads and streets in Hong Kong are notable. While some roads are notable, the listing of all roads and streets in Hong Kong will spur the eventual growth of non-notable roads. This existence of such a list is hard to maintain. This article can better fulfill its intended goal through the use of a category and merging the remaining useful content into Transport in Hong Kong. Luke! 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and de-list Turn this into a coherent article, not just a scattershot list. This stuff could potentially be merged into some existing article as well. SchmuckyTheCat 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's amazing how many streets and roads in Hong Kong have their own articles already. Realkyhick 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for lists. Change to keep per everyone else who said to keep. Acalamari 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is just as good as any other article in the Category:Lists of roads. No reason to delete this; improve as needed. Hmains 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has the potential to be turned into something useful. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and postpone any action, until the WikiProject Hong Kong people can be consulted. I really don't think this article can be considered in isolation from the others that apparently fall within that project, and may have been fostered by the project with goals such as splitting information into multiple pages to unclutter and provide navigation resources. Without referencing the aims and methods of the project, we shouldn't judge an isolated piece of it. There are several other articles which could also be judged harshly, in isolation from one another. Here are a couple:

It may be that together these effectively enhance the ability of reader to find the information they seek. And that is a valid use of lists in Wikipedia. Please consider this is much larger than the issue of one article. More background evaluation is needed. Shenme 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shenme. From WP:LIST, one of the purposes of a list is to be useful for development, and this list can clearly be expandable and also to show which articles do not exist, as well as whether they should be. It is not unmaintable. This is not a directory as much as a list of countries is a directory: it is not a list of loosely assicated topics, or a list for conducting business. –Pomte 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Pomte, plus that it is important to differentiate a list from a directory.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 06:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Very useful here at Wikiatlas. What, this site is an encyclopedia and not a street directory? Oh, then delete. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but a fair few of the streets link to disambig pages. Lugnuts 09:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do the road all pass WP:50k, in that they are ALL meaningful to at least 50,000 people? I doupt it.--Dacium 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So 1. Are there more than 140 roads on the list? If yes, just delete some items, but not the whole list, and rename the list into "List of notable streets and roads in Hong Kong". 2. Are there more than 140 articles about roads in Hong Kong? --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hong Kong article says the 2006 population was 6,864,000. With reference to the WP:50k rule, that'd be a maximum of 137. Counting just the roads I come up with 242 entries minus 90 redlinks, 152. Pretty close if you throw out the entries without articles. Shenme 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONLY. If it can be renamed and de-listed. i.e. turned into a coherent article. Tom M. 12:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Regan123 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I can't imagine any vote to keep here. This isn't a list of significant or notable roads in HK, it's a list of ALL of them. That's the dictionary definition of a street directory. I'm also unimpressed at the assertions that this article "could" become useful or that it is a temporary holding page for the HK Wikiproject. This article was created fifteen months ago, and before a flurry in March there'd been few substantive edits for half a year. Plainly the HK Wikiproject isn't as invested in it as all of that. RGTraynor 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RGTraynor. Like RGTraynor, I am confused to see any votes for keep here at all. Some have argued above about the useufulness of this article, but usefulness is not an inclusion criteria. Dr bab 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Well, I know this more of what WP:ATA mentions as 'bad' to say in arguments, but to avoid some parochialism simply because it is Hong Kong, please compare to New York City. In that area there are a web of interlinked articles and categories - here are 'some' of them:
Transportation in New York City, Category:Transportation in New York City, Bridges and tunnels in New York City, Category:Bridges in New York City, Category:Tunnels in New York City, Expressways in New York City, Category:Buildings and structures in New York City, Category:Transportation in New York City, Category:Streets in New York City, Category:Streets in the Bronx, Category:Streets in Brooklyn, Category:Streets in Manhattan, Category:Streets in Queens, Category:Grand Street (New York City), Category:Fifth Avenue (Manhattan), Category:Streets and squares in New York City, Category:Railroad terminals in New York City, Railroad terminals in New York City, List of streetcar lines in the Bronx, Category:Bus stations in New York City

What is the difference in the implementation of the Hong Kong-related set, apparently patterned much like previous projects, that upsets people? I suppose some didn't realize that at 6.8M people the Hong Kong population is certainly of the same magnitude as New York City at 8.1M people. And I haven't looked at places like London. (hmm, peeking I see Tunnels underneath the River Thames)

I believe several people simply don't like 'lists', and so want to vote delete here. As I've said above, I think that properly used lists and categories can serve as navigation aids and therefore are useful. (And usefulness is a valid consideration, otherwise you would want to swear off things like WP:ANI and other shortcuts). Please do not single out one article because you dislike the idea of lists. Would converting to a more category heavy mix be better?

So what I'd like to hear is, what is a useful direction to suggest for this information? Remembering of course that that same suggestion could (should?) be applied to New York City and every other project like this. Shenme 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the analogy of the above articles,and the general way decisions are going, the solution is a category, which will include all the streets and roads notable enough to warrant separate articles. There are a small number of tunnels under the Thames, or bridges in NYC, and the history of them as a general topic is therefore notable--and books have been written bout just such topics. DGG 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a category would be a better solution. Then all lists that are noteable enough to have their own article would be included, and debates on inclusion and deletion could more easily be handled separately. Dr bab 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- It could be argued that most lists on Wikipedia amount to directory entries; if it were only notable streets, it could be from a directory of notable streets in Hong Kong. There are loads of such lists, a lot of big cities have them for streets, subway stations, skyscrapers, etc, and valid arguments have been made for their usefulness. Until there's a more general discussion on whether all of these do or don't belong on Wikipedia, I don't think targeting one city is appropriate. bobanny 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or a bunch of mismatched information. This list only promotes the creation of small street stubs (which deserve to be deleted too) which will probably never get beyond being a stub. If I made an article List of streets in New Zealand, it would be deleted & all its articles deleted too. Other than the main streets, all should go (perhaps rename the article to List of main streets in Hong Kong). Overall delete, but if someone can suggest a better idea, please do so... Spawn Man 05:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Taylor[edit]

Adult actor stub started with no assertion of notability and two lines. Possibly speediable. Originall submitted by user:DimaG, I completed it for her. Dennisthe2 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted, very little context provided. Realkyhick 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non notable and the article gives very little information about this person--$UIT 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable, little information. Acalamari 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - insufficient context. So tagged. MER-C 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO, no context Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, google returns hits. [8] Porn cruft. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 06:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have this. I have sources but then even those might not be notable. Although I removed the speedy for this AFD, I'm leaning toward delete. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I replaced the speedy tag as there's only two relevant ghits [9], so non-notable and no context- meets CSDA1. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 07:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per lack of context. Tagged as such. Sr13 (T|C) 09:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Reyes[edit]

– Non-notable biography of a contestant on a reality TV show in the U.S. (and possibly elsewhere). The Pussycat Dolls as a group are notable - the people they audition to join the group are not.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into List of contestants on The Search for the Next Doll, or something similar. A basic bio on each contestant (name, age, short background, etc.) can more comfortably exist on a list page next to all the others. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information can be merged to The Search for the Next Doll. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a fan base as Filipino; curiosity about her ethnicity led me to research her in particular. She is one of the four remaining finalists. Greimalkin 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hillary[edit]

While she may have notable family members, there is no evidence of her notability in the article. Mattinbgn/^talk 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pretty well written, but the notability of this person is not enough to warrant an article. Honestly, merely being related to someone who is notable is not enough by itself. Anynobody 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a bad article, just the topic is not notable in her own right Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and "Hilary is a (sic) fiercely private..." anyway. Clarityfiend 05:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. I kept trying to find 'achievements' of note - there's more made of her parents divorce. Shenme 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with BLP problems--the article reports her as trying to avoid personal publicity. A mention in the article on her grandfather would be appropriate. DGG 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; being a relative of someone that is notable does not necessarily make you notable. Sr13 (T|C) 09:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expect that in the future she will be notable enough based on her own accomplishments to merit an article, but she is not now. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hornandsoccer Bandwagonman 10:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a shame to nominate an otherwise good article, but she's just not notable enough. Lankiveil 13:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After My Own[edit]

Non-notable band. Prod removed.Propaniac 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable and after doing a search, the only site I got was the MySpace page--$UIT 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "They have no labels at this moment however have great expectations". That's about all I needed to see. Mwelch 01:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, despite the fact that they are "locally huge." SkipSmith 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can find no third party sources, trivial or otherwise. I'm also not convinced being "locally huge" in one town in MA qualifies as even a claim to notability, therefore it's borderline Speedy A7 Delete. A1octopus 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mishon Ratliff[edit]

Non-notable actor Mhking 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable enough... major role in a popular TV series. --W.marsh 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 1,500 exact Google matches; seems notable from appearances. Michael 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Major role in TV series. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but definitely needs to be expanded. Sr13 (T|C) 09:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per all keep comments so far, and agree with need for expansion Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IrishGuy ^talk 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolhandbook[edit]

Article about a supposedly popular website giving funny hints to students. There is no indication that the site is that popular, if wikipedia had every little website out there the site would be huge. Borjon22 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable website. Lorty 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliably-cited assertion of notability other than a generic and weak-at-best statement that it is "a semi-popular website". Seems to fail WP:WEB badly. DMacks 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless sources towards meeting WP:WEB are shown to exist. I'm not seeing any: [10], [11]. --W.marsh 02:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the site was notable the article is not really even a stub. Also the site itself isn't notable for a number of reasons. Anynobody 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable web site--$UIT 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I'm missing something here, this is a blog with one entry over two years ago. Clearly not notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, but more over, not useful. If you forgot your pencil, look on the ground for one? Shenme 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable website. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkipSmith 08:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 College town, merge is unnecessary as topic is already covered there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

studentification[edit]

Largely unresearched neologism Loodog 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michael 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful info into College town, until enough is accumulated to make a decent article. It certainly is an important issue, but is referred to better in the second article. This article is just not well-bodied enough to stand on its own. For instance, it is all relative to one starting paper and one 'typical' set of examples. Shenme 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Sr13 (T|C) 09:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I find hundreds of Google hits for "studentification", and many or most of them appear to be on serious UK academic and local government sites. As far as I know, the word is largely unknown in the US, but it appears to have gained some genuine traction in UK urban planning. Kestenbaum 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Studentification is a self-admitted neologism, and one reference surrounded by a miasma of original research. Interesting idea, but looks like a tempting depository for everybody's original research.

Followed up on Kestenbaum's google search, and found mostly similar articles to this one: people describing the phenomenon as they see it, but no serious research yet.--Loodog 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term may be a neologism, but it's clearly been widely used in recent years.
And it's complete nonsense to say there has not been any serious research, given the Brighton research that's mentioned in the very first paragraph of this article.
I refer you also the fact that it has even been discussed in the house of commons.
This is obviously a notable subject worth keeping. --David Edgar 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. While there may be some useful and new information in the article and the term may be new and gaining popularity, it doesn't seem distinct from College town or Town and gown. Therefore a merge seems in order, no reason to spread/replicate a single topic across multiple pages with different names just because different names are applied to (what appears to be) the same thing. DMacks 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is distinct from town and gown, etc., because it refers specifically to the effect of the large number of students--generally as voters--on the area. It's important because this can greatly affect the political balance in a district, and is therefore the subject of media reporting. DGG 07:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Is a college town a residential-commercial area that sprouts up around a university or does a new university placed within a residential-commercial area drive studentification? Sounds like it's splitting hairs and should be merged into college town or town and gown.Madcoverboy

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unburied[edit]

procedural nom on behalf of incomplete actions by article's creator, who has blanked the page several times with edit summary of "Band broke up, article no longer needed" DMacks 05:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont even see why this band needed an article in the first place.--Joebengo 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As described, sounds like it should have been db-author ? Shenme 06:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-author. Sr13 (T|C) 09:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure it qualifies as ((db-author)) as there have been a number of non-trivial edits by others (largely IPs that may have been the author), but either way it does not meet inclusion criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If editorial disputes continue, the proper method of resolution can be found under WP:DISPUTE. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix scheme[edit]

This article has become an edit war. Well to say it's become an edit war would be to insinuate that it hasn't been one for well over a year. The article has *never* achieved any degree of neutrality, and at least one site (matrixwatch.org) actively tries to use the article to increase their exposure and thusly draw traffic to their site. The thing is so full of rhetoric and half-truths and accusations from both sides of the argument that it's just become untenable. Samoyed 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable marketing scheme being investigated by regulators in both UK and USA. Cited. Needs arbitration, but the topic is notable. Obvious edit war. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is the problem. It's NOT being investigated by regulators. There have been various snipets that have come out that one side of the argument tries to contort into "being investigated". Sadly, article HAS been through arbitration and still this edit war carries on - even amongst the parties that were involved in the arbitration. There will NEVER be a solution to this article, and for all intents and purposes the business model is no longer even really practiced on the internet. Heck, even the name the article was created under ("scheme") implies some form of conspiracy or illegal behavior in spite of the fact that there's (for some reason) absolutely no law against it. Samoyed 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is not a reason to delete the article when the subject is controversial. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and adequately sourced. --Carnildo 05:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Ponzi scheme. It is notable, regardless of the current state of the article. Clarityfiend 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable and referenced. And incoming links. Shenme 06:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, deletion is not the way to resolve an edit war. Plenty of reliable sources are cited; notability is firmly established. An edit war, no matter how prolonged, is not a valid reason to delete a perfectly valid article. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. AfD is not a way to solve edit wars, it is a way to delete articles that should be deleted. read here. --Dennisthe2 06:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Primary reason suggested for deletion (Matrixwatch.org link) is not even linked in the current article. Arzel 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I feel that the article has changed out of all recognition, I feel the article itself is useful - if only to show in the history how the truth has been distorted! Ideally, I think that the article should return to the original mediated version from last year, as it currently fails to tell the whole truth. --Cybertrax 22:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. While AFD solves an edit war in this case, it also removes encyclopedic content. Seek assistance from administrators/mediators.--WaltCip 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is an editorial decision that does not need AFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities)[edit]

The article deals with a minor character. Clarityfiend 05:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Keep until someone can make an actual argument for deletion. --W.marsh 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT says minor characters should be included in List of characters, not a separate article. Also, it is just a regurgitation of her part in the ending - no additional content. Clarityfiend 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So shouldn't this be put in said list, instead of deleted? --W.marsh 17:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of characters, including her, in the main article. Clarityfiend 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - maybe just rename to list of minor characters from ATOTC. - Peregrine Fisher 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable minor character per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Schwartzman[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 05:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Vanity article with no notable accomplishments. Clarityfiend 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Vanity, COI, and my oh my, what a mess. Created and edited (essentially) only by User:Fluxbiz (talk • contribs), who is the subject of the article. (see the first edit by user in December). Then there's Generation My, which says

"The idea was developed by Jamie Schwartzman in 2004. The thesis is is being written, and he holds URLs for www.GenerationMy.com and www.GenMy.com."

An article about a thesis being written? Oh my. And created and edited only by User:Fluxbiz. Which only has one inbound link from Jamie Schwartzman, which itself has only one inbound link, from Generation My. Oh my my. Anybody see WP:COI? Delete both Shenme 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps a speedy as nonsense. DGG 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generation My[edit]

WP:COI, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR: you can pretty much take your pick Mwelch 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Schwartzman. MER-C 08:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above. -- RHaworth 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the more so. DGG
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omgdidinsane[edit]

Non-notable forum. No reliable sources, verifiability, etc. Moogy^(talk) 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clearly fails WP:WEB. JavaTenor 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I concur with JavaTenor. Quantitatively, the website ranks 600,000's in web traffic according to alexa.com [12]. Kevingamer 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete It seems to be a blatant case of internet advertising. Also, the board itself is no more than off-topic ramblings of utter drivel. Non-notable. - XX55XX 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like fuc This site got taken over by SOLO RULZ so it pretty much fails who da fuc cares 20:58, 10 April 2007 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
OMG...Delete... I like omgdidinsane but WP:ILIKEIT is not a good idea, obviously. (sup WP:BASH) Per Moogy. ^cont ygugsa295 _talk 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dekimasu よ! 10:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue in human culture[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only criteria for inclusion in this article is that the word "blue" be in a title, or that the color be present. There is very little explanation as to the significance of the color in the factoids; they are things like On Star Trek medical and scientific personnel wear blue uniforms; "Big Blue" is a nickname for IBM; and Bands called "Blue" include an American group and a British musical group: the American rock group Blue and the British boy band Blue. Any sections which appear relevant or coherent (perhaps religion, and perhaps symbolism) can be merged back to the main article. Dekimasu よ! 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, everything ever concieved by humans that is in some way related to the colour blue is not an encyclopedic topic. If even 1% complete it would be length of a small novel. We might as well have articles on Circles in human culture or Metal things in human culture. And how many non-human cultures are there?--Nydas^(Talk) 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's always those Vulcan science officers.... Dekimasu よ! 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost nonsensical. JuJube 12:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable trivia list.--JyriL ^talk 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created it by splitting a big section from Blue. With the section merged in, it would be too big, at least 50KB. Georgia guy 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be merged. Perhaps a small handful of carefully chosen examples should be given in the main article, and the rest can go by the wayside. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. See WP:USEFUL#Better here than there. Dr bab 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for all of the standard reasons that X in pop culture type articles usually die - the article is nothing more than a laundry list of trivial appearances and does nothing to treat the topic in the title, such as, what is the history of X in culture, how is X usually used in culture, etc, with perhaps a few examples to back it up. This aricle is not that. Worse than most of these types of articles, blue is pretty ubiquitous, and a list would be unmaintainable, anyway. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and an absurd, flagrantly unmaintainable list. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do think that an encyclopedic article could be written about the color blue and how it is used in various cultures, but this appears to just be a list of things with the word "blue" in them.22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Chunky Rice 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept because all the other major colors have a "[the color] in human culture" section and it would be inconsistent for a major color like blue not to have such a section. However, it could be edited to be less lengthy. Keraunos 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To me, that's really more of an argument to delete those other sections, than keep this one, if they're all in the same condition. Chunky Rice 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other "[the color] in human culture" sections are NOT in the same condition--they are all much shorter. That is the whole point. The "[the color] in human culture" sections should be concise and relevant, not of excessive length like the Blue in human culture section that was so long it had to be exported into a separate article. (P.S. to Dekimasu: Don't forget that Mr. Spock is half human!) Keraunos 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep this is not "in popular culture" but "in human culture" a much wider and more sensible concept. There seems to be enough for an article. However, this particular article is disorganized and uncritical, and there is a lot to be said for starting over. DGG 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what I'm talking about regarding keeping "[the color] in human culture" sections brief, in for example "Blue in Judaism", all that is necessarty is one sentence under "Religion" that says "the color blue is associated with Judaism". Anything more should be in the Blue in Judaism article. This is the way all of the other "[the color] in human culture" sections are written, but for some reason, the "Blue in human culture" section became grossly distended. Keraunos 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substance here (pop culture items excepted). It would be a pity to loose it all. Some editing though is certainly needed. Buistr 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After reviewing the continuing discussion, I went into the article and made a major edit. I attempted to take out everything that was simply a dictionary definition of something with "blue" in its title, to limit the article to things that discuss the relevance of blue. I think I was fair in my removals; this is my edit. If I was overzealous, please do a partial revert; there seems to be broad consensus, though, that this was significantly bloated. The main article, blue, is now only 13Kb. Perhaps a merge discussion would be more appropriate at this point. Dekimasuよ! 08:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Well done. As it stands now, the article represents a fair portion of the importance of blue in hunan culture without diverging into trivia. I suggest a merge is now a good course of of action, but the section would need to be watched, as people would start adding and re-adding to it like there is no tomorrow. Perhaps a general guidline on the talkpage would be a good idea? And then an html-tag at the head of the "Blue in human culture"-section could advice people to read said guidline before editing?Dr bab 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - I have remerged the remaining information and am withdrawing this nomination. Dekimasu よ! 10:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Douglas County, Colorado. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy at Castle Pines[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 07:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find anything notable about this school via Internet searches. -Seinfreak37 17:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom., schools are not inherently notable. Rjgodoy 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge and do not delete. The creator never made another edit after typing in these few lines back in mid-February. Merge into Douglas County, Colorado. It can simply go in as a short section of that article. Keep article as a redirect for possible future revival. Noroton 01:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but to Lone Tree (temporary location) or Castle Pines (future permanent location). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge into Douglas County, Colorado (since the school is moving from Lone Tree to Castle Pines I think both locations are superseded by the first). After American Academy at Castle Pines be a section of Douglas County, Colorado, editors there will decide if it is notable. Neutral about keeping article as a redirect. Rjgodoy 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Editors should seek to improve this article based on the comments made in this discussion to avoid a future renomination. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest timeline[edit]

Contested prod. A compilation of material from primary sources and unreliable secondary sources (see the "source" column in the tables and draw your own conclusions), and more importantly WP:NOT for plot summaries Fram 07:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Time line of a fictional setting is quite meaningful, and while I can see some room for improvement on the page, I don't see a need to delete. Plot summaries as an objection doesn't hold water since this is a subset of a larger article, that of Everquest itself. Oddly, there isn't a history/story section on that page. Probably needs to be fixed. That said, I can imagine the name itself might be worth changing, since timeline could refer to the history of EQ development. Everquest storyline would be my choice. FrozenPurpleCube 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is the kind of plot summary that doesn't help you when you don't already know the story (which is after all the intention of including a short plot summary: to give those unfamiliar with a subject some background as to what's it all about). Perhaps entries like "14:33:28 EST, 11 March 2005", "Most recent date for birth of the Combine Empire", or "High Elven beachhead thwarted by Venril Sathir's froglok army." are meaningful for those that are already familiar with the series (i.e. those people that will also understand what the two / three different years mean: "After Nameless"?), but that is not the intended audience of a plot summary as a subset of the Everquest article (i.e. as an explanation of "what is Everquest" for those of us who only have the faintest idea what it is all about). Now, a timeline of the development of the game (and other media) may perhaps be a better use, but that is a completely different article: an in-universe timeline serves no purpose, is contrary to WP:NOT, and if needed a text recounting briefly the events in Everquest would be much much better as background to the Everquest articles than these tables.Fram 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many articles like that on Wikipedia, which provide insufficient context to understand them, the solution is to improve them, not delete them. Conceptually though, I have no objection to it, as the history of a world is important to understanding the setting, and the setting of Everquest is reasonably important. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Timelines of fictional universes are fairly common around here, and while generally I loathe the use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keeping an article, I believe this to be a case where sufficient precedent exists that fictional timelines are not a violation of policy or guidelines. Granted, this article needs a lot of cleanup, especially some out of universe context per WP:WAF to help readers unfamiliar with the subject make some sense out of it. But again, this is an example where perhaps tagging it as ((in-universe)) or perhaps simply ((cleanup)) would have been the better route to go. I also agree with FrozenPurpleCube in that a rename to something like Everquest Storyline or Everquest story timeline may make more sense than the current title. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want recent precedents? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present. There may be counterexamples, but I don't know them. And I don't see how you can rewrite this in a out-of-universe way. Anyway, if you propose that it needs to be completely rewritten and that it needs a new title, then why not just delete it and start a new, independently sourced, out-of-universe article with the correct title? Fram 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is NOT a plot summary, nor is it a storyline. It is a timeline of major in-game events that gives a sense of the continuity of the EverQuest universe. As such I see it as a very important part of the EverQuest, EverQuest II and EverQuest Live articles. I DO think that this timeline might fit better at EverQuest/Timeline as a subpage of the primary EverQuest article. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainspace articles should not have subpages, please take a look at WP:SUBPAGES. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it that one keeper wants to rename it to Everquest storyline, and the next keeper claims that it is no storyline at all. I don't see how this is a "very important part of the Everquest articles", as it is completely incomprehensible for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. A timeline is a plot summary in chronological order, it is a retelling of the story events. To claim otherwise is, well, bizarre. Fram 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as much as you disagree with that poster's contention, that in no way changes the value of relating the story of Everquest. Try to focus on that subject, not one editor's conceptions. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete: Where do the games fit in here? Where's the WAF? Nifboy 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE #7. Unless reliable source analysis can be provided and article be reworked out of its universe. The current references are either broken or unacceptable. MURGH ^disc. 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update & Merge or Delete. While I appreciate the work that went into this, my problems are two-fold - many of the source links no longer work (violating WP:ATT) and it also seems rather crufty. Perhaps a cut down version could be put into the page describing the EQ fictional universe? Dr Aaron 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Pure plot summary. Written in an entirely in-universe style that asserts no real-world notability. Could easily be cut down. Also recommend merging into the main EQ article if salvagable. hbdragon88 08:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unless an article complying with WP:WAF called "World of EverQuest" is created that discusses the setting. — Deckill er 07:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barney[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable, potentially an auto-biography indicating that there is a WP:COI. Author has very few other contributions and the IMDB link is not a very good resource as now anybody can set up a page on IMDB. Vaniac 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete it. I saw the show in Berkeley and I am interested in filling out the "Pillowman" universe. I was also looking up info on the only woman to direct that play, but if people need to be more "notable" than that, I'll let it go. Thanks for keeping my other contributions, though. I made a table on the Pillowman page! Coooool. :O)

Zipperzoo 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator would like to change his vote to keep per Zipperzoo. I simply thought it was an auto-bio, I have done more research and Barney seems to be up-and-coming I guess. Still not very notable but he is out there. Vaniac 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Y (Y NOT?) 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lubavitch Yeshiva Network[edit]

We already have Category:Chabad schools, but this sorry mess is neither a "list" nor an "article" it is just a poorly thrown together hodge-podge often with telephone numbers given (with international codes when dialing from the USA) to boot. One shudders to think what happens if this type of thing ever gets to grow on Wikipedia? Basic violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and it just looks like a huge WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY) to promote one brand of Hasidic Judaism. Mercifully, no-one has thought of creating comprehensive lists (with telephone numbers and names of staff, offices and dorms, oy!) of every last school affiliated with every branch of Hasidism... Perhaps, when more decent articles about schools and yeshivas are written there can be a List of Chabad-Lubavitch yeshivas to go with Category:Chabad schools, but for now this mess must go. IZAK 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Shirahadasha 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Indeed, the "article" is a disaster.--Yeshivish 04:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
clearly this article has no merit and should be deleted but the topic of a "lubavitch yehsiva network" can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I hate it when a bad article is deleted and then a good article with the same name is speedied as "Recreation of deleted material". The comment in the deletion should make it clear that a real article on the topic should not be deleted. Jon513 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inginuative[edit]

Transwikiied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, since there are no references and it is only one line long. Gman124 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G12 by Alison. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEO Meet[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement, it turns out that the author was one of the founders of this meeting regards, ironically, spamming. Contested prod. MER-C 08:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the "references" are ectually links to the owners' homepages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No assertion that this has any notability whatsoever. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per the nomination. Watchsmart 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: the right tag would be db-spam. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC). --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

This is nothing but a dicdef with a trivia section attached. Classic example of what Wikipedia is not.

NOTE: During this AFD discussion, please try to keep the focus on the article itself and not on the number of previous AFD nominations. Remember, GNAA was finally deleted on its 18th nomination and no article has immunity from process due to the number of attempts it has survived in the past. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st nomination Keep
2nd nomination No Consensus
3rd nomination Keep
4th nomination No Consensus
5th nomination No Consensus
6th nomination Keep
Deletion review 21 November 2006 Deletion Review Endorse Keep

--Oakshade 06:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; still a dictionary definition. How about transwiking it? This way, it will be Wiktionary's problem ;-) Tizio 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I believe that the number of noms is evidence for deleting, in this particular case: the fact that the article has not been improved after 6 noms is a proof that it cannot in fact be made past its status of dictionary definition. Tizio 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Edison 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it's had enough time, perhaps more than enough some might say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per every single solitary reason given the first six times. Does not violate any policies or guidelines, meets all relevant inclusion standards. It'd be great if people stopped trying to force a result seven or eight times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first section of the article consists entirely of a dictionary definition, which violates the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The second section consists of an indiscriminate list of a handful of instances where someone has mentioned the term on TV. Such trivia sections are also recommended against by the WP:MOS. I don't see how you can get a good article by concatentating together two sections that are both against policy or guidelines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first section simply sets up the stub. Poorly written isn't a reason for deletion, especially when it can expanded past a dicdef, which this can. As for the trivia sections, they should be avoided, yes. It doesn't mean we can avoid them now, though, not that it requires that they not exist. So, again, there's no problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article has existed for nearly three years. Exactly when is it going to be expanded beyond its current pathetic state? The fact that no substantial improvements have been made in all that time is strong evidence that the article will never be more than the dicdef+trivia stub that it currently is. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe when people stop trying to delete it and start trying to improve it? Moving our reliable sourcing standards past the relative stone age will help, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe you can also wish for world peace and a pony, too. As for trying to improve it, where have you been for the last three years? Maybe you can make up for lost time using actual reliable sources to say actually meaningful things on the subject over the next few days, show us how it's done. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        where have you been the last three years? It's already obviously meeting all the standards we need, so there's no real problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of noms is not evidence for deletion, it is evidence for the persistent efforts of a few eds. against general opposition to keep trying for deletion. Sometimes this is legitimate, for opinion can change. But when carried to this extent I do not think it is legitimate, I think it is knowing that the balance of people here will vary and that sooner of later chance will favor it. It is the very essence of failed procedure. Systems need closure.

I know that in the past it has been considered that any number of repeats are allowable, and I think it is time to change. The relatively newer people here may not feel the same as editors in the past. They may be less tolerant of procedure that degenerates into farce. There are two directions to accomplish the change--one is through changes in the policy pages, and the other is through changes in the actual decisions here, based not or IAR, but on Common Sense is the Best Rule. Both are valid methods; both should be pursued. It may take awhile until this repeated nomination is recognized for what it is, abuse of process. GNAA is a precedent to be rejected, not followed. 07:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 April 2007

"Has been kept in the past" is not a reason for keeping. If the article violates a policy (in this case, WP:WINAD), a local consensus on AfD should be ignored. As well as 6 or 17 or 100 AfD's. Tizio 09:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is referenced and it's an encyclopedic topic (however crass). And going through so many AfDs that all resulted in the article being kept is an important issue during an AfD, albeit not the primary one. --Oakshade 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nothing here. And saying that previous AFDs have kept it means nothing except a knee-jerk reaction inside of an actual consideration of the actual issues. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, valid topic, relatively sourced, and per WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a valid article, just needs expansion. remember that all articles started off as a single sentence. after all one can define AIDs as a disease and be done with the article, doesnt mean it ought to be deleted.--Greg.loutsenko 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all information should be freely available, if its is considered simply a dictionary def stub it, because it needs more info, but it does have allot of cultural refs which dictionaries do not. perhaps they should be described within the article, but it should not be deleted. The 7th attempt at del perhaps indicates that it is contravertially significant. ZyMOS 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so i edited this unpleasant article so that is would read more as an encyclopedia entry. I hope this will clear up the dictionary problem. I hope it now can be kept, for anyone who wishes to know about it. ZyMOS 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the format of the article, but it's still a dictionary definition with information about when it has been used. To make it an encyclopedia entry, it needs information about the subject itself. So far, it has information about the term. Tizio 10:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per current merge proposal, appropriate to merge with Coprophilia Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't there a limit on the number of times an article can be AFD'ed?Gateman1997 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take out the trivia, and you're left with a single sentence defining the term. If an article can't be expanded beyond a single sentence in three years, that sounds like an "unexpandable stub" to me. Shimeru 04:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The GNAA article was ultimately deleted due to a lack of sufficient third party references. Does this article share that same problem? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet more abuse of the AFD process... lets see if we can get this to 50 nominations and maybe a delete vote YAY... nominator should be blocked for WP:POINT / Disruption. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nomination. Nothing there then, nothing there now. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can think of many, many ways this could be expanded beyond a stub. Incredibly pervasive within culture. Many stubs seem like dicdefs. The ones that should be deleted are those that are not expandable. I think that most people that nominate this just don't like the subject matter. Voretus 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no references and it's too short and been like that since a long time. Gman124 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the references in the article can be considered "no references"?--Oakshade 06:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Slang term for some sort of sado-masochistical act which is not particularily widespread. Although some sources are presented which verify that the term is used (I would call the article verifiable), I don't think this kind of slang term is sufficiently notable. (This is just my opinion though, the "keep"s present some valid arguments as well, they just don't convince me.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask what you'd consider "widespread" if this doesn't fall into your definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the term is in use so often that we could reasonably expect a lay-person to have heard about it. I know that is hand-waving, but my feeling is that this term is very specialized for an activity which has hardly any adherants. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sexcruft. DicDef. Herostratus 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cr*p - Whatever happens, that's some sick sh** right there, yessiree... However, not nearly as sexy as the Boston bulldozer... (Neutral in case you didn't know) Spawn Man 06:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but stubbify. Valid points were raised on both sides, but enough information does exist on the subject that an appropriate, encyclopedic article can be written. However, the current "point-counterpoint" article is at present in tone, format, and the amount of original research present unsalvageably far from that hypothetical future one. Hopefully, starting over will allow that article to be produced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of eating meat[edit]

Strong keep The article does a good job of presenting a well balanced exposition of a difficult, emotionally loaded subject. The style of the article - arguments for and against, with rebuttals for each - may not be common in WP, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it, and there's no policy (that I'm aware of) that precludes or even expresses disapproval for such an article style. The article does a particularly good job of citing its sources, and the community does a good job of fire-fighting when people's passion gets the better of their editorial rigor. Waitak 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had to think about this one for a while, and I was trying hard to find something that would nudge this up from being a very well written essay to a properly attributed article - but I can't find it. Unfortunately it appears to be WP:OR or perhaps WP:SYN but either way it's lacking the kind of sourcing that WP:ATT requires. Wikipedia is not a source of original thought, and as well-intentioned and well-stated as the thoughts in this article might be, it is just that - original thought. Rather too bad to see this one go, though, it's well done. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article is well written, provides the two opposing viewpoints on the issue, and appears to maintain a neutral bias throughout the article. It has to be a keep; as the ethics of meat-eating is a subject worth discussing about. - XX55XX 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencylopedic point-counterpoint article. All the good stuff here is covered in other articles (vegetarianism, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is well written, and an interesting read, but seems to be largely original research and, as mentioned, the subject can be better handled on vegetarianism/vegan pages. The point/counterpoint format also seems inapproriate, though I wouldn't delete on that basis alone.Chunky Rice 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced and tottaly unencyclopedic point counter-point debate. Many of the citations qualify as sythesis of sources to prove a specific point. Great example of how wikipedia should not be a battleground. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a good essay, but the sourcing relies upon summaries of more detailed arguments, and many details are unsupported. I see the POV as balanced.DGG 07:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Waitak --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too much original research, and too much like a battleground between veggos and omnis. As already said, only about 20% is worthwhile - and this 20% is already covered in other articles on vegetarianism etc. --58.165.47.97 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in the process of a major revision to this article, most of it will be deleted. There's enough about the ethics of eating meat to merit a short article. --Calibas 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It will need to be heavily expanded but I see it having potential; it's certainly the kind of thing that comes up in conversations...question: is it handled at all on the vegan/vegetarian pages? Jakerforever 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is too broad a topic to deal with only on the vegan/vegetarian pages, and not all vegans are so because of ethics. — Eric Herboso 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lotta useful info. --Lhademmor 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daniel J. Leivick Baristarim 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: even if all the information isn't perfect it gives ideas on the subject to look up elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.201 (talk • contribs) 13:59, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article contains a good amount of material which should be removed until it can be sourced, but it also contains material which is relevant and attributed to reliable sources. As the deletion policy says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." It specifically mentions Template:Verify, which redirects to Template:Not verified, which is already in place at the top of the article. — Elembis (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strongly delete the neutrality of the article compromised Gman124 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Elembis. This article should NOT be deleted, but rather should be better sourced. The ethics if eating meat is a topic which deserves space in the wikipedia, and once properly sourced, much of the material in this article can easily remain. — Eric Herboso 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Keep, but cleanup per Calibas --Green wood tree 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup While I hate the layout and the ridiculous amount of "Some people say.......however,..." arguments, the subject is notable enough. As a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that POV is not a valid reason for deletion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Silly (humans need to eat dead animals) but encyclopedic. --Ezeu 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr William H. Bassichis[edit]

Article does not meet notability criteria --Blueag9 (Talk) 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The teaching award seems to indicate notability, in part because of its cash value. I am not sure how widely used the textbook series is, and I note that the publishing company is (like TAMU) located in College Station, Texas. If the article is kept, it should be moved to William Bassichis --Eastmain 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article surprised me a little, because it did not mention research, and Texas A&M is not likely to extend tenure to physics professors without research accomplishments, no matter how excellent their teaching. (Those who only do teaching at research universities usually stay as Instructors). So I checked Web of Science, and added the most cited 5 of his 51 papers. The most recent was in 1982. He is obvious a senior man, with his research behind him, his status achieved, who has for several decades been concentrating on teaching. Some faculty do that, to the great benefit on the undergraduates. I think he's notable for the combination. DGG 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lechnerds[edit]

Article does not meet notability criterion --Blueag9 (Talk) 09:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-noable group of friends. IrishGuy ^talk 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (if not speedy) Non-notable. --Ragib 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Wasp (Projectile)[edit]

Clear violation of several points of WP:NOT. Prod removed by author without explanation. NMChico24 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly violates several WP:NOT policies.--DO11.10 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colayer[edit]

Looks like advertisement, notablity is not asserted. Was speedy deleted a few times per G11 but never seen an AFD. Alex Bakharev 10:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, what do you mean by "notability is not inserted"? I have included references from other sources which indicates some reliability of the article. Can you please advice? Nasha24 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is also improved and is more towards encyclopedic form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzz (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete - this doesn't need an afd to determine whether it's spam or not. Just salt it already. MER-C 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant spam which keeps regenerating. --Bongwarrior 17:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD #11: blatant advertising. —David Eppstein 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT WP:CSD #11 definatly applies. It's a no-brainer specially if it keeps being re-created. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy When I speedied this, I was the fifth to do so - it's just spam. jimfbleak 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly a conflict of interest and WP:ADVERT. Danski14^(talk) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lee[edit]

Weak Delete Two tv show only non notable actor.[13] Usnc3222 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomGman124 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CS#A7. --Wafulz 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ektos Mahis[edit]

I first heard about this band reading the article, while updating WP:GREECE. I checked Google search, using the Greek characters (Εκτός Μάχης), and I had not more that 2 hits about the band (using members's names as well in the search, the results remain disappointing), and these coming from their official site. Using the English characters, I did not have more than 8-9 hits about the band. I don't think it is notable enough for the English Wikipedia. I don't even think it is a notable Greek band. Yannismarou 11:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unremarkable garage band. So tagged. MER-C 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salt if it becomes a problem - not now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLEZ[edit]

Vanity. Prod removed without explanation. NMChico24 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ViperF (talk · contribs) has also removed the AfD from the article (they never explain their edits), and this article appears to be their only interest in Wikipedia ... no WP:RS citations to establish notability, even as a pseudonym ... not even close to satisfying WP:BIO ... it's just WP:VSCA to draw traffic to their blog. —68.239.79.97 12:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per below (also speedied with no content and possible notability). Cbrown1023 talk 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Evans (As The World Turns)[edit]

STRONG KEEP Article was prod'd as possible hoax; I googled it and found out it was not a hoax so I unprod'd it and put it in a category. Someone else reverted my deletion of prod saying it was vandalism therefore ignoring rule not to replace prods once they are contested. Therefore, I am taking it to AFD to simply avoid it being prod'd again. This is a legit character on a legit show and the character was on the show for about two years. As with other characters on the same soap, esp. ones that have been there for a long time, there is no reason this article should be deleted. If this article is deleted, all other character articles for the show should be deleted as well! Postcard Cathy 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article has only one line, it could just be stated in the main article, and he's a minor character Gman124 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rustbelt Dreams[edit]

I am questioning if this company is notable or not. Seems to be an attempt at free advertising to me. Postcard Cathy 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable company or blatant advertising. --W.marsh 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One 7-minute short. DGG 08:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CORP, borderline speedy as advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's very little NPOV or sourced enough to merge, and no consensus on where to merge it to in any case, but there is a pretty clear consensus that we shouldn't have this article. If anyone needs a temporary userfied copy to assist in putting something about this in an existing article, let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy[edit]

I'm as big a Doctor Who fan as the next man, but this whole "controversy" was nothing more than a tedious points-scoring exercise between science-fiction fans on message boards, and is desperately, desperately unnotable. Perhaps, perhaps, it could be a note somewhere on a Stargate or a Doctor Who page, but that's at the very most. I can't see how it merits its own page here. Angmering 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is indeed a note on the Stargate SG-1 article on this very controversy. That's probably sufficient for Wikipedia, and the notability of this controversy is questionable at best. -- GJD 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Guinness World Records#Reliability_questions as per Helm, below. -- GJD 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not terribly encyclopedic as is, and the way it is written is POV pushing - the article seems to support one side of the controversy over the other. It's a minor point of debate between fans - and being an avid fan of both Doctor Who and Stargate SG-1 I've heard it from both sides. Anyway, as pointed out above, this blurb is mentioned elsewhere but is not notable on its own merits, and both of the "sources" are primary - they come from the broadcasters of each series, respectively. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge — The dispute was covered by BBC News and The Guardian, which could be used to support a notability claim; however, it's probably still not encyclopedic enough. The content could be incorporated into a re-structuring of Lengths of science fiction film and television series which I've recently proposed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has sources and is adequately written. --Darth Borehd 01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial non-controversy. The current mention in Stargate SG-1 and a minor update to Doctor Who are more than sufficient. —Cryptic 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable enough info for a mention on one of the Stargate or Doctor Who pages (or Lengths of science fiction film and television series), but not for its own page. --Brian Olsen 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lengths of science fiction film and television series. -Sean Curtin 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Josiah Rowe and Sean Curtin. I would note that it's not just a message-board thing; in fact, given the bbc coverage, it only fails WP:N on the independence criterion. Having reread this page and seen the guardian ref, it's only one reference away from passing WP:N. Percy Snoodle 09:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it "interesting" that this AfD coms scant days after the page was [prod]ded, and improved to, as it were, 'beat' the prod. It would appear, therefore that the page doesn't meet one of the "other" criteria on Wiki~: namely, it lacks a sufficently high-powered sponsor, and therefore will be shot unmourned by those who "matter". This is a documented instance of the Guinness Records getting something arguably wrong-ish, and I suggest now, as I did on the prod, that the article should at leastr emain until the next edition of Guinness, to allow an independent documented argument. -- Simon Cursitor 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't have enough infoGman124 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Guinness World Records#Reliability_questions and Lengths of science fiction film and television series. --Helm.ers 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can support that; it makes sense to put this in a section on Guiness's reliability. Will update my opinion above to reflect that. -- GJD 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has now been noted on the Guiness page under Reliability Questions--Helm.ers 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Helm --GracieLizzie 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as separate article. Controversy already noted at Stargate SG-1; it can be further discussed in the article Josiah Rowe proposes. ---Leflyman^Talk 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotelis Tsilingaridis[edit]

I'm afraid this is the very definition of non-notability. This is an article about an officer, who served in the Greek resistance movement ELAS during Axis Occupation of Greece, and then in the Greek army. But nothing notable is mentioned. Thousands of people served in the Greek army and thousands of people in ELAS; this does not make them notable. Additionally, I want to point out two more things:

This person has only two hits in Google, when I use Greek characters. One of these two hits is Wikipedia! When I use english characters, I have again two hits both coming from Wikipedia this time!
I have the suspicion that this article is written by a relative of the person described. My suspicion is based on the fact that the image is entitled "PAPPOUS", meaning in Greek grandfather. Probably, somebdy chose Wikipedia as the ideal place to honor a relative of him. Yannismarou 11:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ delete. I usually don't vote when I nominate an article, but this case is clearly an article that has no place in Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 11:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 17:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There must be something more here. "He was awarded the Golden Medal of Honour no less than five times by the then King Paul of Greece." Once might be just seniority, but 5 times must indicated significant distinction, so there is probably more to his career than expressed in this rather unassuming article. If one's grandfather is notable, he's no less notable for being one's grandfather--some articles may show COI, some don't. And even an article from elsewhere might use a family photo. But we need some help from specialists; we obviously are not going to find ghits, though there was nothing wrong in trying. Absence of ghits does not mean absence of notabiity, especially prior to 1995 or so. I know that much, but I don't know how to find more.DGG 08:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there may be something more, but the article does not indicate that. I don't think that hypotheses are good enough in order to keep an article. We don't even know his rank in the Greek army! And if it was something more, wouldn't I be able to find at least one more source verifying his so important role?!--Yannismarou 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With more information it could be an interesting tid-bit - regardless of google hits (Which are not the be-all and end-all of anything) the Golden Medal's of Honour ARE notable. Too often are people forgotten who did great things. My advice is to source the Royal Honours List of the time and the reasons for the medals (I agree that thi is probably written by a relative, perhaps they can ask their family for extra information?).tactik 11:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note is left by the bot to the talk page of the creator of the article. I hope he/she will check the AfD and think about your interesting. proposal.--Yannismarou 11:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Agree with DGG and tactik, with some work this article could be improved, depening on how involved this person was with the resistance movement. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, unless sourced by tomorrow. It's entirely unsourced, and that includes the claim of him having received multiple military honours. Even if this person was some outstanding hero, if nobody outside of Wikipedia has ever sung his praise then there's nothing we can do about him. And as for Tactik's suggestion: No, "asking the family" for more information is exactly not what WP:ATT is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just want to inform everybody here that the article's creator instead of adding the requested info, and after he removed the AfD tag from the article, he removed material. I wonder why (since he left no edit summary)? Check the diff here.--Yannismarou 10:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "The Golden Medal of Honour" itself doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. One of the few references I could find to it on the web noted that it was awarded posthumously in 1998 to a fighter pilot who had died during a training exercise, which though tragic is not a very high barrier for the award it would seem. Charles (Kznf) 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Unless it's proven that this person played some important part in WWII or ELAS he is simply not notable.I mean, I also have a grandfather that served in pretty much the same forces and brought home several medals, but I wouldn't consider making a Wikipedia article about him.--Jsone 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bustin[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). A failed candidate at UK GE 2005, and a candidate in an SP seat 2007 (see Scottish Parliament election, 2007). I suspect that this is going to be the first of several of these attempts to place a biography on Wikipedia. We have plenty of precedent here at AFD for deleting biogs of election candidates and failed candidates. Mais oui! 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - information is sourced only from the Scottish Conservatives website, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. According to precedent, failed election candidates aren't inherently notable unless they meet WP:BIO independently. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although perhaps it would be kindest to wait until May 4th - after all he might get elected! Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We begin Wikipedia articles after people have become notable, not before. --Mais oui! 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it remains an open question whether major party candidates are notable even if not elected. I think someone who is twice such a candidate almost certainly is, though I know not everyone agrees. I ask those who know: How many such seats are there ? How many major candidates will there be? DGG 08:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 73 First Past the Post constituencies, each with 4 candidates (a few have an independent standing too, but none of the minor parties - SSP, Greens etc are competing in the first vote this year). But then we also have long lists of candidates for the PR element in the 8 regions, many of whom are not actually FPTP candidates (eg Labour bans people from being on both), including absolutely tons of minor party candidates. I would guesstimate that there must be about 700 people who are standing in total. Wikipedia only has articles on the 115 existing MSPs (129 minus the 14 who are not standing again).

I ask you, do you really, really, really want another 600 new Wikipedia articles on 600 Scottish political nobodies?!? I for one know that I do not!! The standard of the existing Scottish politicians' articles is pathetically low on average anyway. Quality not quantity please. If this Tory Chris Bustin gets elected in Dundee East, then My God, then (but only then) he will be one of the most notable people in the history of modern Scottish politics ;) --Mais oui! 09:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rewrite to eliminate POV.--MacRusgail 10:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MacRusgail Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per the same reasons as DDG. Mastrchf91 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no references and does this dude even exists. Gman124 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He exists, I confirmed his candidacy at the party's Web site. Caknuck 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability thusfar is losing elections. I'm with Mais oui! on the topic of not including unsuccessful candidates for public office, even if they represent major parties. It would set a bad precedent, for the UK and the rest of the world. Caknuck 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweet[edit]

Non-notable televison personality/comedian. No sources. Google Search on "Jim Sweet Show" and the (presumed) miss-spelt "Jim Swwet Show" returns no results. A1octopus 12:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did add a reference. SosoMK 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Fails notability criteria, and a single reference doesn't been a thing around here. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave of American Grunge[edit]

Hoax or at least something hopelessly non-notable... gets literally nothing but Wikipedia results on Google [14]. Needs evidence of credible sources writing about this topic. PROD was removed with zero discussion. --W.marsh 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme non-notability, for the term, the "Terrestrial..." band or any of the bands listed on the page, they do not appear anywhere but here. Might wanna take a look at Brian Capobianco for an AfD as well, an apparent band member. (I also added this to the music category btw). Tarc 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone else. A search here for any kind of notability is akin to looking for needles in haystacks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the first name Julie[edit]

useless as a disambiguation page. Unmanageable as a list. In any case, indiscriminate collection of info. Pascal.Tesson 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julie, then delete the resulting redirect as an unlikely typo. MER-C 13:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really think that merging to Julie is impractical. There are probably hundreds of Wikipedia articles for people named Julie. This is what the search function is for. Pascal.Tesson 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmanageable, sets a bad precedent. Picaroon 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Simple enough. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Agreed, Wikipedia is not a directory, it is for all intents and purposes an almanac as well as a general encyclopedia, therefore I thought that this list was valid. Many people insist on keeping this list as a part of the article Julie, similar lists can be found on many other first name pages such as the ones on Jonathan, and Bryan, so manageability shouldn't really be an issue. No list is 100% complete, and the editors of Wikipedia over time will decide upon the manageability of the article as they add to the list. Similar lists are already being kept for people sharing a surname, why not for common names? I created this article with the intention of keeping the list separate from information about the name Julie itself, my vote, naturally, is to keep this article as is. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd be happy to submit similar lists for deletion. The difference I see with surnames is that surnames list are short enough that they can be reasonably used for disambiguation while this one is not. Pascal.Tesson 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: a pretty viable option is to link to Special:Allpages/Julie. For all practical purposes it's just as good as the list is similarly sorted in alphabetical order. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not aware of the Special:Allpages/Julie page type. I will add such a link to the Julie article, and I withdraw my objection to the deletion of this article. This is a much more practical solution to the list problem... Additionally, as for the Bryan entry I thought that the list was for the common name Bryan rather than the surname, in my haste to find evidence to support my argument I may have overlooked that detail. Thank you all for your patience and civility. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surname lists are short enough? Length varies by surname (just as by given name). Smith (surname) spun off its woefully incomplete list Famous people with the surname Smith, Li (surname) relies on LoPbN... -- JHunterJ 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see no such list on the Bryan page, and the link at the bottom of Jonathan leads to Special:Allpages/Jonathan, not to a list article like the one under discussion here. Deor 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind HHH. I have to agree about the Bryan page, but as far as Jonathan is concerned the list did exist up until a few hours ago when I made the whole thing into a proper dab page. Pascal.Tesson 06:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and any other lists of people by first name. If such search capability is desired, it really should be added to MediaWiki as a database function, not implemented in half-assed lists that will never be kept up to date. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the timber rattlesnake above. Deor 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but also be aware of earlier discussions on similar topics: community discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 25#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), and Talk:Jennifer. -- JHunterJ 17:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate about Allen is about Allen as a surname, which is a completely separate issue: in that case, there's a clear value to these lists as a disambiguation tool. However, someone looking Julie Delpy is unlikely to try to go through List of people with the first name Julie. Pascal.Tesson 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But it is part of the picture painted by the other discussions as well. I'm with you on the delete, I just want to be with the editing community on it as well. -- JHunterJ 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Julie - Surely this is not unmanageable; an editor looking for a "Julie" who didn't have an article would stumble across Julie and insert the relevant line before creating the missing article. Of course this assumes someone has first created a complete list (using Special:Allpages/Julie as a base) as I did with Derek for example. Abtract 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a lot of work but always out of date, while Special:Allpages is no work and always complete. Chris the speller 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Derek for some discussion about the validity of allpages as a tool from outside wikipedia. Abtract 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list per nominator (unmanageable list for which we have Special:Allpages/Julie in this case), but merge Julie Berthelsen (Danish Popstar contestant) and Julie Gonzalo (Argentine actress) with Julie since they might be known by just their given names, i.e. the need to disambiguate exists. Leave an invisible note on Julie to just list people named Julie who are actually widely known by just their given name. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't even think about it, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or pointless lists. to the garbage!! Baristarim 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, personally, I am against a merge. Merge for which reason? Is there a point to this list? Is every name article going to have a humongous list of everyone who happens to have that name? Especially for such common names as this? Come on :) Baristarim 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Julie, disambig page. --FateClub 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP is not a directory, and it would be both pointless and useless to maintain Julie as a list of everyone with that first name. This is just a complete waste of an article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect) to Julie, obviously, as there are so few uses of "Julie" that are not a person's first name.

MER-C's solution is unacceptable for a couple of reasons:

"Merge and delete" would violate sections 4-I and 4-J of the GNU Free Documentation License (with which I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself) by failing to maintain an edit history for the content being merged. We can't use content if we have no persistent record of who originally posted it. Generally speaking, it would violate copyright law, but even if the original writer's right to attribution is somehow waived, a user who merges the unattributed text would (as far as we can tell) be fully assuming any liability that might arise from publishing it. On a list of names this concern might be minimal, but in the case of a real article, you could be cutting and pasting factual errors, libel, or even an elaborate hoax.

If merged the redirect's title List of people with the first name Julie would not be, as you put it, an "implausible typo". It's written in proper English, with no spelling or grammar errors, and perfectly describes what would be the contents of the target page.

Somebody suggested linking to a Special:Allpages query. Once again, I must advise against that. Please read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Wikipedia not only condones wholesale copying (and even modification and resale) of its content, we also encourage it, as long as it is released under the same license, and as long as the edit history is also made available. Special:Allpages/Julie is a useful tool, but does not exist outside of Wikipedia, and would not function properly on a mirror site, as the query results are not stored in any persistent form, and would not be present in a database dump from which a mirror site would be constructed. Even if the mirror is another wiki using the same software, we have no reason to assume that they have chosen to include every single "Julie" article (maybe they plan to write half of them from scratch, which they have every right to do). In effect their copy of our content would lack the functionality present in the original (it would consist of a David Bowie song and a bunch of dead links, instead of actually helping readers find biographical articles). A non-wiki mirror site might collect a one-time snapshot of the allpages query to replace the missing list, but this, again, would be unattributable content. When an article is created or deleted, it appears on, or disappears from the list, there is no centralized record-keeping for such changes, and it could be argued that there is no GFDL-compliant way to copy that content (because it's not really content, it's an index, a search engine result). Special:Allpages/Julie is not a complete list even for us, because more articles will obviously need to be created in the future.

More broadly, I'm not aware of any appropriate reason, other than on a (hopefully temporary) maintenance template, to link to a "Special:" page from article space.

As for what to do with a list of people named Julie... well, finish building it of course. Brief biographical information is always nice, year of birth (and death if not living), nationality, and occupation(s) are generally the bare minimum for disambiguation pages and lists of people by name. These also are features not available in the special-page solution. Lists may become long, and they may need to be split by the alphabetical range of peoples' last names. But it's not as difficult all of you make it sound. — CharlotteWebb 11:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again): one more previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135#Name pages and disambiguation -- JHunterJ 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- entirely un-encyclopaedic and contrary to WP:NOT#DIR --Leflyman^Talk 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How are disambiguation pages "un-encyclopaedic"? — CharlotteWebb 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a disambiguation page. It's a list of people with a particular given name, none of whom would otherwise have been the subject of an article titled simply Julie. It's different than an ((hndis)) dab page like Julie Brown (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 23:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If merged, which I feel it should be, it would be a redirect pointing to a disambiguation page. See, for example, Elvis, Derek, Rory, Katie, Leroy, Lois, Rachel, Phillip, Morgan, Jeremy, Kevin, Jason, or hell, Charlotte to name just a few random ones. Granted none of them are complete, but no article pages of any kind are ever complete, and it would be easy to update any of them to include, at least, links to pages which already exist, though a proper indexing of the missing articles would require a bit more research. — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many lists of people by name are included on disambiguation pages, yes. That doesn't mean that lists of people by name are disambiguations though. Other lists are kept on "XXX (name)" or "XXX (surname)" pages, or indeed on "List of people named XXX" pages. There is a new topic on the village pump that readers here may be interested in: WP:VPP#Lists of names -- JHunterJ 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all of this we are in danger of losing sight of the fact that we need an article Julie for two reasons; first the obvious one of talking about the name and its origins, but also there needs to be a place for readers to find a Julie when they can't remember the surname - look at Derek to see what I mean. At Derek it is easy to find "that Dutch actor ... Derek whathisname ... ?" Derek de Lint which is not to say he is ever known simply as "Derek". Without the article Derek, where would we look? The fact that it may be difficult to create/maintain such articles doesn't mean we should delete them when they exist. Abtract 08:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For other solutions to that problem, there's also a Search button next to the Go button to search Wikipedia, or the Special pages link will take you to a link to All pages with prefix (which is the same as the Allpages link or the ((lookfrom)) template that could be added to articles, with the drawbacks CharlotteWebb noted above). -- JHunterJ 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition from subconscious[edit]

A combination of the obvious, with nonsense, from serial nonsense-creator User:GeorgeXY. greenrd 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly indecipherable OR. —Cel ithemis 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. Sr13 (T|C) 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPS Police[edit]

Company fails notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Google only found 627 references, nothing notable. Stoic atarian 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This seems a national company--it seems the leader in the field. I'd like more documentation of that, but the article seems relatively free from the customary commercial spam. DGG 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources Guy (Help!) 08:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yarmouth Schools (Maine)[edit]

No notability asserted, article was created a second time after first article was speedy delete due to copyvio Seinfreak37 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Notability is a ridiculous concept for school districts. If either the (encyclopedic) information on the district is too large for the locality article or the locality article needs to be pruned back, then creating a school district article is the way to go. Although Yarmouth, Maine isn't too long and this school district article wouldn't yet overhelm it, the school district article was created only days ago, so it's premature to nominate for deletion when the creator may be ready to add plenty of encyclopedic information. If much more information is going to be added, I'd want to keep; if not, I'd want to redirect. Noroton 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School districts are inherently notable and this article makes explicit claims of notability above and beyond that. That the article was recreated after a copyvio speedy is irrelevant, unless copycio issues are being raised again. This article should be the poster child for creating school articles: use the school district article as a shell for information about the district; create individual school articles once they have been expanded and can demonstrate independent notability. This AfD is entirely counterproductive. Alansohn 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School districts are inherently notable as government bodies and as discussed countless times. TerriersFan 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the same logic that causes us to keep even unsourced articles on tiny little villages (whatever logic that is). --Butseriouslyfolks 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This sort of article seems the practical way to handle the problems with articles on individual schools: aggregate to the appropriate extent, depending on the material available. I see a number of people with different views on school notability seem agreed on this as a compromise. DGG 08:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete & Speedy delete (A2). Cbrown1023 talk 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco cristo[edit]

Regardless of what language it's written in, it's still vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the artical to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_cristo. See if they delete.Shoessss 13:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you missed the target; that looks like Portuguese, not Spanish. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't redirect stuff in between wikis, unfortunately. Were you the one who copied and pasted it over there? If not, then we have another way to deal with this crap. MER-C 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A2 (foreign). Sr13 (T|C) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, because they're cheap. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coughlin's law[edit]

Non-notable movie reference, about 774 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Cocktail (film) then... plausible search/link term related only to the film. --W.marsh 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too obscure. Redirect if really necessary. GregorB 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brea Canyon[edit]

Contested prod. Stretch of road in California with no apparent importance. Can't see the encyclopedic value here. Pascal.Tesson 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 552 news results. While a lot are just passing mentions... 552 is still a lot for a road. 552 people have found it notable enough to mention in articles. Some articles are just about the road, e.g. "Brea Canyon Road Widening Studied" in the LA Times. Shouldn't be an issue with WP:V/WP:N here (or whatever the policy is called today). --W.marsh 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But article should perhaps be renamed to Brea Canyon Road since that's what the article is about. --W.marsh 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the Google news search results fails to impress me. You do realize that a lot of these articles are of the form "car crash on Brea Canyon Road", "left lane of Brea Canyon Road closed this sunday" or "address of this company is 455 Brea Canyon Road". Sure, there's the LA Times story on widening the road but even that is pretty thin material to build an encyclopedia article. Note also that the current content is speculative OR. Pascal.Tesson 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We keep articles on state roads and even county roads without even really looking for sources sometimes... here's a road that at least has some unique, verifiable information in print about it. I didn't deny that a whole lot of it was passing mentions, but it still seems to be enough to create an article from. And that an article needs improvement obviously isn't a reason to delete, improvement seems possible here. Honestly a lot more possible than with some state road articles I've looked at. --W.marsh 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I'm just not sufficiently aware of common practice about county roads. It seems pretty pointless to have articles saying that road blah goes from X to Y but if consensus is that we should keep all of them, I won't argue. Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; news reports on deaths on the road do not necessarily make the road itself notable per WP:N. What we really need is a specific notability guideline on geographical locations, to weed out articles like this (at the moment, many users seem to think that all major roads are inherently notable). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my last comment above got in edit conflict with this one. Interestingly enough, I agree with Walton that this should not, in the absolute, be kept but I am also concerned about consistency. I should point out that I'm pretty sure that the debate would be quite different if this was not a road in California. If the time ever comes where an article about a small road between La Roche-sur-Yon and Les Essarts, Vendée is created and nominated for deletion, it will be met with a flood of "delete, not notable, local road". Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's a fair argument, you have no way of knowing what I'd argue in a hypothetical alternate afd... and this is being met by a flood of "delete, not notable, local road" votes despite accusations of bias. --W.marsh 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'm speculating. But I do think that this is what would happen. Of course, this has no bearing on the present AfD and I don't want anybody to think I'm using this as an argument here. What I do think is that in the absolute, we should not be interested in keeping articles about local roads unless there's sufficient material to build a comprehensive encyclopedia article. This particular road does not meet this criterion. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some precedent for notability of certain types of roads, such as US and state highways. There is ongoing debate as to whether county roads meet the same precedent. Otherwise there needs to be some claim of notability, which this road does not have. The article also seems to be mostly unsourced statements and speculation. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, though, that Brea Canyon Road is not actually a county road by the legal definition. The only ones in Orange County, in fact, are S18 and (I think) S19, which forks off of S18 in Trabuco Canyon. (Yes, I'm from the area. =) ) BCR is actually northwest of the beginning of S18 by about...oh, maybe eight miles as the crow flies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Strictly speaking, Brea Canyon is the name of the geographic area that the street that this article describes cuts through, but the only significance to Brea Canyon Road is that it's effectively an overflow/side road to California State Route 57, which it does indeed parallel for a short while, for commuting between Diamond Bar and Brea. Beyond that, it's just another unnumbered road in my home state that connects my home county to the neighboring county. --Dennisthe2 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Cheng[edit]

It seems that Gordon Cheng's only claim to notability is that he a priest who happens to be somewhat active within his diocese. Troyac 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fact a very very strong Keep. Has more than enough credentials to be included in Wikipedia. Shoessss 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - although sources are cited, most are affiliated with Cheng or the Anglican Church, or do not meet WP:RS (e.g. his personal blog), hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless appropriate independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep as more references have now been added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this has already been nominated and renominated for deletion, with no new information added as to why this should be deleted. The claims to notability are already made out. This should be closed immediately. The nominator has nominated this article to make a point because I kept removing the word "priest", which is inaccurate. JRG 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Firstly, I am not trying to make a point. Priest or otherwise, I believe this article should be deleted. One could equally argue that JRG has a vested interested, since he appears in the page history frequently. Secondly, in what way could he possibly considered notable? He's a cleric? He edited the Diocese of Sydney's newsletter? He wrote for same? He wrote a few books, which were published by a printing-house closely associated with the Diocese and are probably not read by anyone outside it? None of this is remotely unusual for cleric and I don't see how it makes him notable in an encyclopaedic sense, even though he may be well known in his diocese. Troyac 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Matthias Media is not an Anglican publication, despite its beginnings and some of its staff being involved in the Anglican diocese - it's non-denominational, and is quite big in England as well as Australia. Gordon's notability comes from his authorship of his books on encouragement, etc., his notable contributions to online media, and his association with MM. He's written articles for one of the major newspapers in Sydney as well (a couple in fact in the last few months) on aspects of religion. I would refer you to WP:CIVIL for making accusations about vested interests - I keep tabs on this page because I'm sick of it being nominated for deletion after the countless debates that have already occurred here. As for making a point, it seems no coincidence that this article wasn't nominated for deletion until after I had removed the word "priest" a couple of times. JRG 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Well, if you want me not to make accusations about your vested interest, I would appreciate it if you were to refrain from accusing me of attempting to make a point. The only point that I wish to make is that this page ought to be deleted on the grounds that it is not remotely notable. It is clearly a vanity page. Furthermore, it seems that I am not alone in this, given that this page has been nominated multiple times before (which I didn't realise at the time I nominated it). I would appreciate it if this article were debated on its merits. I agree that Matthias Media is notable but that doesn't make its employees notable. In any event, I am not claiming that MM is an Anglican organisation, I am claiming that it is closely associated with the Diocese of Sydney, an assertion which your comments seem to support. Troyac 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I say Keep because Gordon is only ever nominated for deletion when he gets in a debate on Ship of Fools and various people get annoyed at him and come over to Wikipedia and either try to delete or change Gordon's entry because they are grumpy at him.Knobbly 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not actually a member of Ship of Fools, but as his article states that he has been banned from it, I find your argument unlikely. It still remains to be shown that he is notable. Troyac 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - For the information of users here, they should see the following:

There has been a majority say that this article should be kept. This debate should be closed for the reasons listed above. JRG 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such majority. On the first page, there is in fact a majority in favour of deletion. The second page has a large number of keeps and deletes, but most of either kind fail to offer an argument to support their position.Troyac 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have not offered any further information as to why this should be deleted. Please stop it. JRG 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Can you provide any evidence at all that Gordon Cheng is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works"? Or even one? You argue that he is notable because he has written some books (which were published by the organisation of which he was editor). Have those books been cited in multiple non-trivial publications? Are they known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? No, no, no and no. Clearly, this individual is not notable. I believe that the onus is on you to give some reason why he should have a page on Wikipedia. Troyac 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that Gordon Cheng is discussed so much suggests to me that he must be notable. And he's well-known by people in other denominations. StAnselm 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's being discussed for deletion does not mean that he is notable. Quite the opposite, in fact. Anyway, I am not disputing that he is well-known in the Sydney evangelical community. I am arguing that this does not, in and of itself, make him notable. Perhaps WikiBios would be a more appropriate place for this article. Troyac 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. An article cannot be maintained if it cannot be sourced to any non-trivial third-party reliable source. --cj | talk 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing the article up at the moment - there are a lot more Daily Telegraph articles written by Gordon. JRG 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not attributable to reliable sources. There appears to only be one news article about gordon, although he appears often in the letters section of the paper, and no books about him. Appears to not have the multiple independant source requirement of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update comment - I've done a bit of sourcing of this article and added more information on Gordon's writings in the Sydney media, which have been fairly extensive recently and which give Gordon some notability to people outside of the Anglican church. I can look through Briefing articles to source his views on particular Christian issues, but I would hope that this is more than enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article and meet the criticisms levelled at this article for not being reliably sourced. JRG 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly but ignoring the references written by him ( which cannot really be relied on as reliable about him )...I can't see any article ABOUT gordon. He attracts some small media attention, which is as expected as he works for a PR /media arm of the church, but noone outside his employer, church and a couple of blogs has written about him ! I can't see the multiple independant, reliable sources writing articles about Gordon Cheng - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I don't see the difference - not everyone needs encyclopaedias or books written on them to be a notable person. A person, for example, that gave a great speech would be notable through what that speech said. Personal details don't really matter too much for this article - it's Cheng's work that makes him notable in this case. JRG 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the work were truly notable, then it would be cited elsewhere. Taking your example of the great speeches, think of some of the well-known speeches - the Gettysburg Address, for example, is certainly the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. If Cheng's work makes him notable, then surely there must have been other published works which talk about it. If you can find them, then I will concede that he is notable. Troyac 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper article isn't going to be sourced; they are there to show the prolificity of Cheng's work in the Sydney media, and his work as an author. I've cited numerous newspaper written by him and a couple of him mentioning his work as an author - what more do you want? I think everyone is being overly harsh now - why does everyone have unreasonable expectations of an article when they don't want it kept? This article is more referenced and sourced than about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. You asked for sources, which was reasonable. I have provided them. JRG 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I asked for evidence that he is notable. These means sources that refer to him in some way but which were not written by him. One can easily be prolific without being notable and Gordon is a case in point. Troyac 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced article. Notability established.--ZayZayEM 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZayZayEM. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZayZayEM et al. thewinchester 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears well enough sourced for me. Multiple media appearances seem to establish notability. Lankiveil 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete all sources are Gordon's Cheng. He is not notable, there appear to be many sources mentioning him but they are ~~all~~ his. --FateClub 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the sources? They are not "all his" - there are articles there by major newspapers in Sydney, including ones not written by him - and even if he did write some, they aren't published by him, but by major news and media sources unrelated to his work. It really sounds like you haven't read any of the sources. JRG 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. That's why I say let's delete this article and reserve articles for notable people. --FateClub 17:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have read them. None of those sources are written and published by Cheng in order to make them unreliable - and the ones that he has written were published (and probably commissioned - you can't just send something in and have it published normally) by Sydney's most read newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. And at least 8 of the 15 references were not written or published by Cheng. To say "they are all his" is blatantly untrue, don't you think? JRG 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I changed "all" to "most". --FateClub 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and just to note: Gordon Cheng is not a priest nor is he a minister. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - are you saying that he hasn't been ordained at all? Or that he's just a deacon?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyac (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter School[edit]

This article, on one of the older schools in England, was speedy deleted by an admin with the cryptic reason "Poor excuse for an article... I'm tired of babysitting it". DRV overturned, as this reasoning is not with the CSD, among other things. I'm only guessing, but I presume the valid objection to the article was its lack of reliable sources. The matter is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as per comments here and below)~~Delete~~ The article is unsourced, but I get the impression from the article history that an editor has been faced with reverting a lot of vandalism. If someone would tell us that they're interested in keeping an eye on it, then I'd support keeping it. Lack of references also make it very unimpressive. Noroton 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the lack of references this is an interesting article about a school with a very long history. It has far more content than the vast majority of school articles. Vandalism is not a reason for deleting an article. Dahliarose 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean to say that there's no reason to delete an article if it is continually the subject of vandalism and usually an embarassment to Wikipedia while simultaneously annoying readers who are searching for information about the school? I guess we just disagree. Noroton 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I truly believe that this is a very notable school. It is probably much like Phillips Exeter Academy. However, until it is sourced it will not withstand an AFD challenge. It would be easy to wikify it. However, the only sources listed are the school itself. I would imagine a little work could get this past a WP:A challenge. However, in its current state, it must go. I would be more lenient if the page had not been created in 2004. For a 3 year old article, this level of sourcing is inexcusable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable (although rather less so than Phillips Exeter Academy); bad quality of writing and poor referencing are reasons for improvement, not reasons for deletion. — mholland 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know about the quality of the article itself, but [15] does also say the school was founded in 1633. I am willing to accept that any school a couple of hundred years old should probably have an article. Lack of sources is an issue, but not one that convinces me deletion is warranted in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete - some tentative work has started by a couple of editors (inc. me) to raise the article up to standard. Weggie 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have it on your watch list? Are you interested enough in it to occasionally check it for vandalism? Or is someone else? Noroton 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my watchlist. I will revert any vandalism within a reasonable time frame. I am not an admin however so will be pressing for semi-prot at the first act of vandalism (if and when..)Weggie 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)****Good enough for me. I changed my vote to "Keep" above. I just looked over the history of the article again, and maybe I misconstrued just how much vandalism was going on. You can also report vandals if you think that's necessary. Noroton 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reasons above. It's getting better all the time. --Keefer4 | Talk 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has some issues but is notable and has plenty of potential. Frequent vandalism should not be a reason for deletion, instead article semi-protection or full-protection should be used. Camaron1 | Chris 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established in the article and references. PCock 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hugely notable with nearly 400 years of history. TerriersFan 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~as unsourced OR per WP:A, although clearly passes WP:N.~~ As TerriersFan has done a nice job sourcing some of the statements in the article. (I took the bull by the horns and sourced the claim of dating from the 1870's myself. I didn't notice it at first but the school was designed by a noted architect who has his own WP article.) This would have been a good job for Alansohn, if he wasn't so busy with NJ municipalities. Also, if vandalism were a valid reason for deletion, some guideline would so state, and we'd have to delete George Bush, Bob the Builder and other frequent targets. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have enough work to do!?!?! Looks like the needed work has been done already, anyway. Alansohn 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean no one is checking those articles and reverting deletions? Noroton 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep even those few arguing for deletion admit the school is notable. There is no serious question that it is sourceable, and we do not delete obviously verifiable articles for lack of sources. The effort used to delete it would have been better used to source it. (And a speedy seems altogether irresponsible.)DGG 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School is clearly notable and issues with sourcing have been addressed. Bravo TerriersFan, et al, who have chipped in to improve the article. Alansohn 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per sourcing concerns. I tried pretty hard myself to locate some sources on this school: we'd figure if it was founded in 1633 there would be some, right? But I really couldn't find much. If all we can source is that the school was founded in 1633 and later changed its name, it's really not enough. Perhaps there is a book on the history of the school somewhere, or maybe a chapter in a book about Exeter? So those of you saying there are no sourcing concerns, I have one. This school is very old... but not everything created in 1633 has struck people as worth writing about. Mango juice^talk 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Okay, wow. I should remember to reread the article before saying stuff. The above was based on the state when the article was deleted, back when I commented at the deletion review. Things are much better now. Mango juice^talk 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the article is greatly improved, another thank you to TerriersFan for taking the time to tidy it up. I am sure all those who voted to delete above would reconsider in light of the recent edits. Mangojuice, the school has plenty of archvies that need to be dusted off. To declare my interest, I am a former student of the school and am currently looking into the history of other notable students.ADevNull 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Victory[edit]

Unsourced article, reads as a personal essay. Notability asserted but no evidence in the form of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the only source provided is to the IMdB, which is not sufficient to meet WP:PORNBIO. Delete unless further independent sources are added to establish notability by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Walton Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woems[edit]

Does not appear to meet the notability standard. FisherQueen (Talk) 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertising/spam. Jtrainor 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete reads like an advert. Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District 57 Prince George. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckhorn Elementary School[edit]

Little to no citations marking its importance; fails WP:N, WP:V, and perhaps WP:OR. Elementary schools are typically not permitted on Wikipedia unless they are of greatest importance. WaltCip 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to the school district article. On the one hand we have this little orphan waif of an article, sitting around with nothing being done to it, and on the other hand, nearby, we have this mama of a school district article, waiting with open arms to get more information put into it and just hug this lil stub of an article and care for it and nurture it and maybe help it to grow into a mature adult article. Let's not stand in the way of this inevitable family coagulation. And let's not delete, meaning an admin would have to approve recreation of the article when junior is big enough to cut the apron strings. Noroton 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible compromise. I'm willing to go with that.--WaltCip 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Merge into School District 57 Prince George per Noroton. Split back out again as necessary. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Noroton's extremely cute and cuddly argument. :) Pinball22 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Norton and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails to establish notability, no sources, etc. Pretty much what the nom said, really. There's really nothing to merge into the school district list, so at best redirect.--Wizardman 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Chkhaidze[edit]

The article has no independent reliable sources. Notability is asserted, but not substantiated. The original author, Kira Medvedeva (talk · contribs), is affiliated with the subject,[16] who seems to have quite a PR campaign on the WWW,[17] of which the article seems to be a part (however, this does not rule out the possibility that the subject is genuinely notable). —xyzzy_n 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, without prejudice. The practice you alluded to above, spamming random message boards (about IPod hacks, sports, mechanical engineering, the Courier Journal's tech talk page) with queries about this fellow has made it pointlessly difficult to find a reliable source about this artist through a web search. There may be such, but finding them now is a bigger chore than I choose to undertake. In the current state of things, I say, delete this as spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply because I cannot see an outside mention/review of the artist. If these were present, then we could evaluate on the importance/notability of the person in question. Baristarim 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD188753b[edit]

The subject of this articles is misnamed in the title, and a detailed article already exists under the correct name at HD 188753 Ab. mikeu 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Due to the arkward title. Things like this happen. When things like this occur don't bother to put up an AFD dicussion like this. Just simply redirect to the proper content. Retiono Virginian 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wrong spelling doesn't merit saving the redirect. —David Eppstein 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Due to redundancy. — RJH (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F-117 Nighthawk#Combat loss. Apart from a (unsourced, hence not merged) line about owning a pastry shop, this is not about the person, but about the shootdown, and duplicates information at the target location. If he ever gets notable for anything else, he can have an article again. Sandstein 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Dani[edit]

Non-notable. There are millions of people who did impressive things during a war, and most of them are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Edrigu 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 17:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- and some of the million are notable enough. his accomplishment seems very distinctive, as a unique accomplishment against a very much more sophisticated enemy. The USA today article is sufficient documentation. DGG 08:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is it really his accomplishment? I think it's the accomplishment of his unit, he just happened to be commanding it. Edrigu 15:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I agree that the role Dani has played is distinctive. It is possible to justify, though, merger of this biographical article into the section F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_losses because the only notability the person has is apparently in relation to this military aircraft. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ceyockey Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1998 WWE television ratings[edit]

Largely unsourced and has been for some time. McPhail 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete As unsourced, lacking notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. This applies to all except for maybe these "Monday Night Wars" ratings. That at least seems to have some context to it, rather than just indiscriminate collections of TV ratings. If someone can find some reliable sources indicating that the "Monday Night Wars" are notable, then I would consider saying Keep for that. Leebo ^T/C 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above. Wikipeida is not a directory, fails WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' List_of_television_ratings_during_the_Monday_Night_Wars, delete the rest. I can accept that that ratings battle which produced a DVD [18] is sufficient on its own for coverage, and I see the listing of the various weeks as reasonably important. The rest should just be summarized in WWE history. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning above. Wrestling is way overrepresented on WP anyway, and to have this violates a lot of policy here. Biggspowd 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, per above, WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. Sr13 (T|C) 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Monday Night ones, Keep the rest They do need better sourcing, but they are notable. TJ Spyke 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Even the Monday Night Wars one is not notable enough for its own article. It should be cut down by just stating major trends or using a graph (image), putting that into the main Monday Night Wars article. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The ratings, as they current are, are nothing but raw data and requires explaining and meaning, what it says about the audience and the show. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nominator. McPhail 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For future reference, the closing administrator will likely take your nomination as a Delete. Leebo ^T/C 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monday Night War ratings, delete all others. The Monday Night Wars era was one of the most significant in professional wrestling history, and it's important to have a reference of the week-by-week ratings, the most central aspect of the Nitro/RAW rivalry. Jeff Silvers 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. Gman124 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G4 --BigDT 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christos coin[edit]

Article about a non-notable coin collection. Unreferenced and a linkspam magnet; similar in title to Christos Coins which was deleted in AfD and has since been salted. Article has had a bit of cleanup by a neutral editor, so it probably will not qualify as either spam or repost, but the problem with verifiability remains. <"Christos coins"> gets 51 Google results, but all are either trivial mentions, or Wikipedia and its mirrors. [19] Alternate names of these coins: <"Coins of Christ"> gets 9 hits, all of them passing mentions or Wikipedia itself [20]; <"Windows in the Wall of Life"> gets exactly one hit, and you know what it is. [21] Resurgent insurgent 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this vanispamcruft all over again. Can't this stuff just be speedied? Delete on sight. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. From what I can tell by looking at an archived Noticeboard discussion about this article, it was originally a fork of Christos Coins, and was then converted to a redirect. When Christos Coins was deleted via AfD, the redirect was deleted as well per CSD R1. This article was then recreated a few days later. I'm not an admin, so I can't compare this to the deleted article, but I'd guess that this could be speedied as a repost. WarpstarRider 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouper[edit]

Article has no sources (thereby failing WP:ATT), has no incoming links (suggesting it isn't a topic of encyclopedic value), and is little more than a dictdef with a bit of original research tossed in. Prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced neologism. JavaTenor 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Made up in school one day - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably is made up. It is not in the full Macquarie Dictionary, the definitive Australian dictionary. --Bduke 08:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard it used, I've heard other nicknames for redheads but this isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 08:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bduke Bandwagonman 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook neologism. Lankiveil 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction[edit]

Ridiculous list. There are no substantive thinkers in the humanities since the 70s who were not "influenced by deconstruction." Some reacted against it, some followed from it, some were just plain influenced by it by virtue of having read it in grad school. But you can't make it through a graduate program in English without deconstruction influencing your development. To isolate particular people as "influenced by deconstruction" is fundamentally to trivialize what was, in fact, a landmark moment in a particular field of thought that shifted the entire direction of the field. Nobody didn't respond to deconstruction in some way - this is like saying "List of physicists influenced by Newton." Phil Sandifer 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment unmanagable list of potentially huge proportions, "thinkers" poorly defined, but... The list is of higher quality and focus than the poor title would suggest, and reading discussion on the article's talk page leads me to believe that efforts are underway to address some of these problems. I'm willing to argue for deletion in the future, but don't want to cut off attempts to repair the concept. Pete.Hurd 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Phil Sandifer is right, and this has been discussed on the article's Talk page with no satisfactory response. No reasonable criterion for inclusion has been specified, so the list is already a hodgepodge, and it can only grow even more miscellaneous (and less useful) as it is updated. Neither "thinker" nor "influenced by deconstruction" is sufficiently specific to exclude almost anything. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your reasons for wanting to delete the list are focused on the title of the list and not the content. If you take a look at the list, it doesn't include people that are merely aware of American-style deconstruction or people that know about it and simply reacted negatively to it. The list only includes *published* people that have written about deconstruction, used uniquely deconstructive concepts in a published work, or have outright stated that deconstruction has influenced their thinking. If you'll notice, people like Allan Bloom or Slavoj Zizek are not included in the list even though it's beyond dispute that they are/were aware of deconstruction and have reacted to it. The list has not grown very much for an extended period of time because the number of significant thinkers who meet the above criteria are limited. Perhaps you could address the merits of the actual list and not rely on a straw man argument that attacks the title. Hay4 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the article should be kept because it's nothing like what it says it is? That's novel. There are plenty of lists, articles, and other overviews of deconstruction that I'd support, but this list is just a ridiculous attempt. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm looking for you to explain *why* the list is a "ridiculous attempt." And when you do so, I expect you to talk about things in the list and not opine on what you think deconstruction is or should be. Moreover, when you talk about the list, I don't want to see you criticize the list by saying it's "infinitely expandable" because (a) it's not, and (b) other lists (such as the list of atheists) seem to do just fine with a much larger pool of potential listees. Of course, if you don't think the title of the list is a good one, then I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for a new title. Disagreeing with the title of a list is not a good reason to delete an entire list.Hay4 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't said a word about what deconstruction is or should be. Please do not take this as some sort of attack or critique - far from it. Nor is the issue that the list could become very large. We have means for dealing with that. The issue is that I have no sense of who does not belong on the list. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1) I didn't say that you had "said a word about what deconstruction is or should be." I was merely letting you know what I didn't want to hear. (2) You have no sense of who does not belong on the list? I set out criteria for inclusion in the list and people who don't meet the criteria don't belong on the list. It's pretty simple. Hay4 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is not ridiculous. There is a definite community of scholars who see themselves as under the umbrella of Derrida's work. The links within this community are strong, although there are divisions within it also. There are, of course, some people who are more definitely beneath the umbrella than others, and some about whom there will always be argument. But if there is debate and discussion about who to include and who to exclude from the list, so much the better. Deconstruction is not just a reading strategy, nor is it reducible to "an ethical and political stance." But the AfD page is not the place to debate what deconstruction is or is not. This list may well be helpful to people who do not know all the names on the list and may be interested in finding out about their work. I also note that some of the entries on this list are important scholars who do not yet have their own entries. For that reason, the list is useful in identifying these people, where they teach, and a brief statement about them. To delete the list would delete this information. It is also handy that the university affiliations of all these people are collated for easy reference. The list is well referenced, notable, and factual. There are only benefits to keeping the list. There are no benefits to deleting it, nor are there any persuasive arguments. FNMF 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the list isn't List of people who cite Derrida a lot in their work. Under its current title, there is no sane or usable rationale for including or excluding any prominant humanities researcher, as deconstruction, broadly construed as this list offers it, has influenced just about everybody. List of thinkers in the deconstructive tradition might make sense. But this is just an incoherent topic for a list. Far too broad, no useful criteria to include or exclude. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put another way - name a thinker in the humanities since 1980 who has not been influenced by deconstruction. Who exactly is excluded from thls list? Phil Sandifer 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Phil, but I can't agree. I think the list is more or less coherent as a group. I don't believe I was arguing that the list should be of people who "cite Derrida a lot in their work." This is not the measure of influence. I don't consider that the list is so wide-open as you make out. Yes, it is possible to construe "influence" broadly. But it is necessary to look at the format of the entry itself. It seems to me that most if not all entries on the list include a brief quotation indicating the character of the connection to deconstruction, and/or a brief description of that connection, supported by a reference. This is a lot more than just a list of anybody who ever read a book by Derrida. The argument you're putting seems to me to be more like an argument to change the name of the list, rather than an argument against the list as such. Personally I don't have a problem with the name of the entry, and don't consider it a make-or-break issue for the fate of the entry. To me the list seems both sane and usable. FNMF 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Hay4 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a strikingly excellent example. First , the criteria are clear, specific and sophisticated: "written about deconstruction; used uniquely deconstructive concepts in a published work; or has stated outright that deconstruction has influenced his or her thinking." Second, the individual are well characterised, with useful description--the capsule summaries are excellent. Third, the list is fully sourced. A true model for how to do this sort of article. DGG 08:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted, those criteria were added after the deletion nomination, and do make me feel somewhat better about the whole thing. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG FNMF, and others Johnbod 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is very good. The only "ridiculous attempt" I see is Phil Sandifer's unilateral decision to submit this article to be considered for deletion. 141.161.127.75 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus is...[edit]

After five days of discussion and voting, most voters decided that the list should *not* be deleted. So, I am going to remove the "up for deletion" tag from the list. Hay4 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - an admin should close in the normal way; I reverted. Johnbod 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, non-admins are allowed to close AfD debates if there is a clear consensus to keep an article. However, for the sake of avoiding conflicts of interest, it is usually inadvisable to do so for editors who have been involved in the debate - particularly those who !voted to keep it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buyology[edit]

Sorry to say what happens to many small companies, just like this situation, the articles are deleted as “Spam” because they have not yet gained notoriety. This is not to be taken as a negative to the company or the individual writing the article. However, there is a misconception that Wikipedia can and should be used as a directory (or as we call it State side: Yellow Pages) or a listing of companies. Sometimes we forget that the Wikipedia project is supposedly an encyclopedia providing a research tool for individuals to explore “Note” worthy items that are not widely known outside there small area or are widely known, but the individual would like additional information. All-in-all, I believe the article will be deleted. However, as I stated earlier, please do not take this as a derogatory statement to you as the author or the company you are writing about. It is just a state of affairs that I believe is not a good fit for Wikipedia at this time.Shoessss 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del. notability not stablished. wikipedia not yellow pages nor who is who. `'mikka 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11 Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gnilitskiy[edit]

Non-notable artist; author has history of serious COI issues. Patstuart^talk·edits 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable per google.--Paloma Walker 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The article was created by User:Bereznitsky-gallery, with an external link to the gallery, which I deleted as an inappropriate commercial link. This appears to be link spam with full articles attached. — ERcheck (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phyrst[edit]

This is the second afd for this subject; I must admit I'm a bit shocked to see it survived the phyrst (sorry about the pun, couldn't help it). In any case, I've lived in State College in the past, and I can guarantee you this place is not worth an article; perhaps a mention, at best, in State College. I would be shocked if you could find non-trivial mentions outside the local newspaper; the fact that some minor bands have played there most certainly does not make this a notable bar. Patstuart^talk·edits 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nn `'mikka 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, CSD G11 Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Up! (album)[edit]

Non-notable possibly bootlegged album that appears to have no reliable sources to back up any information. There is no way to be sure that this album really exits at all. --Wildnox (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was waiting for somebody to comment on the notability of this album on the Slipknot talk page. Or even to confirm that it is attributable to them. Since nothing was forthcoming, and the talk page has been frequented since the question was answered, I assume, like the nominator, that this is non-notable. Being voted #351 at rateyourmusic does not constitute notability, neither does "rare" or "bootleg" together, necessarily. Bubba hotep 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 `'mikka 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity[edit]

100% original essay on blood purity in Harry Potter world. It is high time to clean all fancruft from abound in this kind of cruft. Any volunteers to start a WikiProject NOR-FAN? `'mikka 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all its ilk. Maybe the Conservapedia ~~whackos~~ independently minded users have a point - what the hell does it say about Wikipedia when an article on a trivial aspect of a series of kids' books is twice the length of the article on Gospel of Luke? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a fair comparison; most of the actual information we have on the Gospel of Luke is located in other articles linked from the "Content" section. This makes sense because all three synoptic gospels have a majority of their material in common. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says that people are more apt to write about and make good articles about current fiction rather fiction from 2,000 years ago. John Reaves (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice as pure fancruft OR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any cited portions into individual character articles. By the way, if this is deleted, it's going to leave a lot of dud redirects and redlinks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. We don't need the fancruft in the encyclopaedia. Parts that are cited can be transferred to another Harry Potter article. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above; it's not exactly original research, though I do agree it's fancruft that may be unnecessary. A lot of work has gone into it, however, and it'd be a shame to see it wasted. Madman bum and angel 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although poorly cited, it is certainly not 'fancruft': the issue is a central theme to Rowling's novels, and the article describes how and why that is so, and the features and effects of that in the novels. Moreover, I have to say I find the nominator's remarks, and those of User:Iridescenti, remarkably offensive: wikipedia has room for articles about novels, and claims that articles about the Bible should be longer than those on a novel, whilst good in principle, ignore the rather obvious point that fewer people write about the Bible than Harry Potter, and consequently the articles on subjects such as the former suffer as a result: Iridescenti, why don't you write more about the Gospel of Luke? Michael Sanders 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What constitutes Original Research, taken from WP:OR:
  unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material
  (emphasis added) For information to be included here (on Wikipedia), it must be published elsewhere, in reliable sources, first. Just saying "I read it all in the books" doesn't cut it here. Wikipedia does have room for articles about novels but that doesn't mean we need an article about every idea in every novel. As this article doesn't seem to deal with the symbolism of the whole concept it isn't even an exceptionially good article about a novel. It appears to be mainly a collection of facts about the characters in the novels. Also, "fewer people write about the Bible"? I sure hope you are just referring to Wikipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, as an contemporary absolute, it is likely that more people currently write about Harry Potter than about the Bible - there are fewer fan-forums discussing whether John the Divine will kill off his hero in his next book, for example. Naturally, more people have written about the Bible, and more people currently write worthwhile reading about it than about HP; nonetheless, wikipedia is written by everyone, and, in this world, the collective everyone is at present more interested in and capable of writing fluently about the relevance of purity of heritage in the works of JK Rowling than of St Paul. More to the point, you appear to be contradicting yourself above: OR is unpublished or synthesised material; yet you also claim that material from the novels (in this case, the very epitome of non-OR) is not appropriate. I suggest that you, and anyone who believes the article contains OR, sweep through it applying ^{[citation needed]} labels; show us what you believe is OR, since quite obviously an article about one of the central issues of the novels is extremely relevant to the coverage of the novels by this encyclopaedia. Michael Sanders 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" This seems to be the majority of the article in question. While much of the article simply reports facts from the books: Lucius Malfoy is known to be a Death Eater. That is a fact that anyone can see by reading the respective book.When Bellatrix says "sons" it must be taken in context - in the scene her sister Narcissa weeps that her son Draco Malfoy has been given a terrible task by Voldemort. Bellatrix would likely make no distinction between a son or daughter, pressing either into Lord Voldemort's service. That would be considered original research by synthesis. This article seems to primarily base itself on primary sources (ie. the books). However, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and urge to tag with ((in-universe)) and trust the WP:WPHP to clean-up and cite. There's a difference, as Madman mentioned, between original research and what this article is. It is not, in the real world's definition, original research, but by Wikipedia's definition, it is, because, apparently, it is not referenced. Please note that not being referenced is not a reason to delete an article, if it can be referenced, and this article can be referenced through the use of various interviews with Rowling, the books, and a number of scholarly essays (I own a book with at least two, and there are probably loads more online). Consider that this article is not deletable material, but rather just in bad shape. Also, please do not go out of control with the fan-hatin' and the comparing-to-other-articles-which-you-deem-more-important, as usually happens in a Harry Potter AfD… just keep to Keep, Delete, or whatever, and leave the "überfancruftism" extremes out of it. :-) Just a friendly comment to keep things within reason here. Harry Potter has just a place as any in this encyclopedia, and sometimes articles can get a little carried away with text and a little lacking in references. We are trying to clean that up. Thank you. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Blood purity (Harry Potter) to acknowledge that this article deals with the concept solely in the context of the H.P. universe. I recommend cutting everything from where the "Between both worlds" sections begin, since that is where the article begins to go off topic, reiterate other articles, or delve into original research. The first part of the article can and should be sourced. --Metropolitan90 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dposse 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this could absolutely be properly sourced; there are more than enough published sources that could be brought to bear to source this article. There are literally dozens of books about Harry Potter out there, even some academic books and articles, and I guarantee some of them will discuss this aspect of the books. Chubbles 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Particularly important in understanding and discussing this series. A prevalent theme throughout and needs a central article. User:Dimadick
Keep - important concept of notable series. See WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a significant cncept within Harry Potter (part of a "larger topic"), article contains some sourcing and Wikipedia is not paper. It's an encyclopaedic topic - live with it. Matthew 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it seems this is going to be kept, I must bring up another point that I said earlier but was buried in another comment. The reason that this appears to be a "fan article" is because it reads like one. It simply describes a concept used throughout the series, making no reference, that I can find at least, to the literaty significance of said concept. It gives a ton of facts about the stories (way too many) without delving into the symbolism behind the concept. It just doesn't "look" encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of thing I would expect to find on a Harry Potter fansite, not in an encyclopedia. As it stands, this isn't an article about a theme but about a simple idea used in the books. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To z-man: okay then, instead of demanding it be deleted here, raise the issue on the article talk page, show what you think needs changing, help make it a better article. That would be far more beneficial to wikipedia than simply demanding it be deleted. Michael Sanders 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a number of parallels to genocide and racism in reliable sources. I'll look through this essay book I have tonight. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above users that feel the article should be kept. I think that this is an important article, and contains a lot of quality information that is very relavant to the Harry Potter series. Perhaps some cleanup, and the addition of sources would make this article seem more encyclopedic. Greenboxed 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with remorse Superbly well written article, great information... just all-around something I'd love to see here. WP:OR is the problem. I think perhaps that policy needs some revision so we don't lose great things like this, but perhaps this will be a great point for that (as opposed to WP:POINT). It should also at least be moved to "Blood Purity (Harry Potter)" as Royal Family blood purity is a real world kind of topic that this name could apply to. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:WAF? Bringing that oft-forgotten guideline into focus, and latent application, this article would (in my opinion) fall apart. Gracenotes ^T § 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those in favor of deletion are struggling to make relevant points, even stating what a good article this is without offering valid reasons for deletion. Some of the people endorsing deletion are also suggesting that it needs OR in it through the addition of literary analysis and analyzing the symbolism. Take one side or take the other, make up your mind. People seems to be saying "delete" because they feel some obligation follow the other lemmings. Clearly a bad-faith nomination in regard to the "fan cruft" (i.e. I don't like/can't understand this, so delete it).John Reaves (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is one of the *major* themes of the HP series. Really, basically the whole second book revolves around this theme (the villain plans to get rid of all Hogwarts students whose blood isn't pure enough) and it is followed on in books 4-6 (where the villain and his henchmen commit further attacks on those, they consider non pure). Besides, the Gospel of Luke has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If people are unhappy with the later article's length, they can make it longer and more detailed. Deleting an article about a completely unrelated issue, is completely besides the point. But I agree to change the title into Blood Purity (Harry Potter).Neville Longbottom 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please get yourselves familiar with the policy "no original research". Just like you cannot simply write in wikipedia what you see in real world, once equally cannot describe any "imaginary world" beyound plot summary: any drawing of conclusions (including the opinion that this is the "major" theme) by wikipedians is expressly disallowed. `'mikka 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not drawing of conclusions. It is stated by several characters in course of the books. Both Dumbledore and Hagrid mention this in CoS, Arthur Weasley during the Quidditch Worldcup in GoF and Sirius Black mentions it in OotP. Not to mention, that the villainous characters (for example Draco Malfoy and Tom Riddle in book 2, as well as Bellatrix Lestrange and Walburga Black in book 5) state several times outright, that it is their aim to get rid of all the muggleborn wizards. The villains do not even lie about this! It is a theme of the book, and directly stated several times within the text! Neville Longbottom 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody is arguing that the concept doesn't appear in the books. The problem is that many of the "facts" presented in the article don't; they are just constructed from real facts. I've put a list of things that need to be done on the article's talk page as well as assorted maintenance and "citation needed" tags on the article. Also, as it stands, this is not an article about a true literary theme but simply a plot device. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made a few changes, adding a few cituations as well as deleting some parts, which admittingly were indeed just speculation by whoever wrote them. It is not done, I have to search for a few of the quotes, but quite a few changes are already made. Neville Longbottom 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Auto et al. WP:OR is a core policy that cannot be overridden by consensus. This is completely a synthesis of primary sources, hence original research. Sandstein 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quote WP:OR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.. This article collects and organises information from the published primary sources, the books. It is therefore 'strongly encouraged'. It does not create a synthesis, which means to use sources to make an argument. It reflects the concept as presented in the books, and as Rowling has commented upon it. Sandpiper 09:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here "collecting and organizing" went over board, i.e., way beyond listing or making a table. Plenty of conclusions are drawn, hence it is a one big piece of original "fictional genealogy" research. `'mikka 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slight overstatement there: there were undoubtedly a few conclusions drawn, but most of it was simply a summation of the situation in the books (and it has been given a good start at clean-up by one of the WP:WPHP members since then - as would have happened had Z-man's actions been performed by the original nominator). Where it was undoubtedly remiss was in a lack of non-novel references - a use of secondary source interpretations of the motif in the novels. Again, you suggest that on the talk page. You don't nominate it for deletion, which always brings out "I hate what you say, and your right to say it" mentality - particularly when the nominator takes such a repellently strident attitude. Michael Sanders 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR. You seem to not understand this that some "few conclusions" may be the base of the article and being OR invalidate the whole rest. Ah, btw: "a few conclusions drawn" is a "slight understatement". The article is simply crammed with judgemental statements rather than statements of facts. `'mikka 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR." Not anymore. It's a fact stated in the books and I edited the text, mentioning the book and chapter title, where it was siad. Neville Longbottom 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly why the article needs properly sourcing. And why editors who haven't read the books and are clearly less than fully informed about it should really watch what they say, in case they make foolish statements such as "The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR." (it was never 'OR', since it is - repeatedly - mentioned in the books. It was, however, uncited). Pretty good evidence, it seems to me, that when an editor comes up against an article or a part of an article he thinks questionable, he should actually talk to the people who edit the article, instead of nominating it for deletion. Michael Sanders 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK I admit this was my blunder, and posibly my nomination was misjudged, but this doesn't change the fact that the whole article reads as OR, especially in the view of the fact that the corresponding section in the HarryPotterWiki is far less elaborate. May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style? And I am still unconvinced that collecting a piece from here and a piece from there into a single coherent picture or the PotterWorld is not OR. Now, strike 2: "Some of the strongest proponents of blood purity are surprisingly not pure-blood themselves." 2.1: who says thate these "some" are "strongest proponents" and in which exactly words? 2.2. why "surprisingly"? Who says that Tom Marvolo Riddle is among these "some strongest proponents"? Strike 3: "By no means is pure-blood status a guarantee of a person's attitude." Who says this? In what words? `'mikka 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I went through the whole article looking for dubious statements. Feel free to do this yourself and pick out anything I missed with ((cn)) tags. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        2.1 The books say this, because these some tried to kill Muggleborns, for the sole reason, that they are not pure. They outright admit, that this is their reason. The same is true for Tom Riddle. He is Voldemort, the main villain. We meet his parents via flashbacks in course of the series, and his father was a Muggle, therefore he's a Halfblood. Since he himself said, that it is his aim to clean the Wizarding World of the Muggleborns, he's one of the strongest proponents, in spite of not being Pureblood himself. That's simply a fact from the books, like "Harry Potter has a scar". Besides, in this very same paragraph, I added a link to an interview with author JK Rowling, who said, that she did this on purpose and that it is meant as a direct parallel to Hitler. ABout point 3. There are purebloods in the books, who are nice to Muggleborn. I gave several examples and added the book chapters, where these are found. Therefore being Pureblood is no guarantee for one's attitude. Neville Longbottom 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not even a fan of Harry Potter but I still found it encyclopedic. What, we're not allowed to have articles about popular culture on Wikipedia, just articles about Archimedes and zoology? Squidfryerchef 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squidfryerchef, the argument for deletion wasn't that whole articles about Harry Potter were wrong (though one user compared its length to another article, which I personally don't feel is a valid argument), but that it wasn't sourced, could be original research and sounded too much like an essay than an encyclopedia article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are tags and templates for those things. Don't delete the entire article. The "Archimedes" comment was a protest against deeming all pop-culture related articles as "fancruft". Squidfryerchef 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, but I was just explaining the other side of things. :) --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nominator: "...this doesn't change the fact that the whole article reads as OR, especially in the view of the fact that the corresponding section in the HarryPotterWiki is far less elaborate. May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style?" First of all, it is merely your opinion that the whole article reads as OR, not a fact. Second of all, the condition of the HP-wiki article is irrelevant here, since it isn't wikipedia - I don't pretend to know how it works, so I can't explain any differences between that and this, but I expect there could be plenty of reasons why the articles would read differently. Thirdly, it's a bad idea to say this article measures up badly to a second article if you are making it clear you don't approve of that second article. Fourthly, it's a very bad idea to risk stirring anger by saying, "May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style?" What if there are HP-wiki editors here, quite serious and respectable editors both there and here, whom you have just insulted? Maybe you don't like Harry Potter, or WP:WPHP. That's fine. But "I don't like it" is not an appropriate attitude. Michael Sanders 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that anything that goes beyond plot description and proceeds into various theories about a fictional world without secondary sources is original researh ad fancruft, and in a sloppy form, without adherence to wikipedia rules, which among other things makes it extremely difficult to judge the article even whether it is correct at all. You may play these games as long as you have sigificant support, but I am in opposition, period. If you outvote me, fine, I will not choke and die. `'mikka 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should point out that the HP wiki article was basically written by me, because one day I happened to notice that they had a stub or just a mess, so I wrote them one. Thank you for what I choose to construe as a compliment on its quality. However, the main reason it is relatively so much shorter is that it has only ever been edited by two editors. On the whole, Hp-wiki never got off the ground, because the coverage on wiki is frankly vastly superior, including this particular article. I consider the main difference between the two is that the article here includes greatly more detail, and that makes it better, not worse. No doubt statements have crept into it which can not properly be justified, as is the case with every single article on wiki. however, on the whole its content is sound and directly attributable to the books. Perhaps one of the critics of the article would care to spend the time required to read the sources and reference everything? Sandpiper 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to go through the article with a chainsaw first, before any further attempts at sourcing are made. The article has far too many examples for what it is about. The article is about the concept of blood purity, there is no need to go into great detail about each major family and then have a list of single characters as well. Most of this info could either be moved to a new article like List of Harry Potter families by purity (possibly unencyclopedic though) or, more preferably, just removed. I would suggest that everything up to and including section 2.2 is relevant. All of section 3 should be condensed into 1 paragraph per family maximum. Section 4 should be removed altogether, converted to prose, distributed into the rest of the article, or significantly trimmed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that rather than delete the article, it should be split and we should have two? I don't see the point. There is no reason why the actual examples of people in the various groups can't be in the same place as the explanation about them. This article is referred to by others where the concept comes up, and it makes sense to have all the examples here for ease of referencing. Sandpiper 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that this article is far too long. If WP:WPHP must keep all of this information somewhere, it shouldn't all be here. There is no reason to go into great detail about every family mentioned in the books. The article is about the concept. Articles should be comprehensive but should not go into unnecessary detail. I've listed a few examples of this on the article's talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant delete. While I admire the devotion of Harry Potter fans and understand that wikipedia is not paper and some notable fictional worlds may be described just as a "real world", the absolute lack of reliable secondary sources means that absolutely every sentence must be sourced and often quoted. Sorry, I cannot accept the argument that "just read the book, it is all there". Comparing with the "real world" it is equivalent to saying: "just look out of the window and you see that there are trees with leaves and without leaves". The major reason to request secondary sources is peer review, which ensures that expert's opinion about world is correct, see my points in the discussion about the role of truth in wikipedia. In our case I have very little reason to believe that the text of the article is indeed a correct description of (fictional) facts and states only opinions expressed in the book. Because wikipedians are not trusted experts, by wikipedia rules. Mukadderat 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule about wikipedians not being experts means that we cannot apply our own analysis. Whereas, the problem everyone else seems to have with the article is that there wasn't enough analysis, because only the books hadn't been used. And nothing in your above point seems to be a reason to delete: but rather, points to bring up on the article talk page. You don't believe the article represents the facts as presented by the author? Okay, demonstrate what you think is wrong, and it can either be sourced or removed. Asking that it be deleted, however reluctantly, is not helpful. Michael Sanders 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is that the article is not simply a list of "facts". It is a whole sociological theory. Does the book discuss this theory as theory? As for being helpful, I promise if the article survives, I will do something useful. By the way, is the term "blood purity" discussed in the book as a theoretical term, not just casual usage of words "halfblood", "muggle", etc.? The last question means that making an abstract notion from several "facts" is definitely research. The question is whether it is done in the book, by persons of the fictional world, or by wikipedians. Mukadderat 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I understand the difficulty to come with professional secondary sources for such things. "Serious", books, such as Qu'ran, Bible, Gone with the Wind or War and Peace enjoy plenty of published literary criticism. I am sure the world of Harry Potter deserves its niche (due to its popularioty), but unfortunately I don't see how current wikipedia policies can handle this case in favor this article. The WP:NOR does say that "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I am afraid in the case of this article, the burden of independent verification is just too big. It is not about 2-3 facts; it is the whole content. Mukadderat 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, even if erverything does get sourced, there is still the problem that much of the article is written as "in-universe" which is also to be avoided on Wikipedia. It starts off well, but as it progresses into the families, it begins to describe the characters as if they were/are real people, making less and less distinction between fact and fiction. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For an article to survive deletion, it is not necessary that it be sourced, merely that it is possible to source it, given some work put into it. In this particular case, no specialist knowledge is required to verify the claims. All that is needed is to read the books. this may take some time, since there are some 2500 pages, but it is well within the ability of anyone capable of posting here. In-universe writing is also not a valid ground for deleting an article, whatever you may consider about it as a style of writing. I have to agree, that if you disagree with the reliablity of specific statements in the article, your proper course is to point this out where they appear, or indeed rewrite in what you consider proper form. The fact that some wizards consider themselves superior by virtue of 'pure blood' is indeed explained within the books by characters, and from memory, there are at least two set-to scenes where people have fights about it. In the green corner, the purebloods who support the idea, and in the red corner, other 'purebloods' presented by the author as 'enlightened', who oppose it. Rowling has also discussed the matter in interviews. Sandpiper 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasons above. Jakerforever 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Hamlet[edit]

Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list. The number of references to Hamlet in popular culture and elsewhere are so many as to make this list infinite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmaintainable list, this would be like trying to compile Television in popular culture. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Notable references should be merged into Hamlet. Madman bum and angel 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously encyclopedic. It can be divided up into separate articles as needed. Researchers, browsers and artists of various types would all find encyclopedic use for this topic. Noroton 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how splitting the article will solve anything. The number of references to Hamlet will still be too large to maintain. Furthermore, usefullness is not an inclusion critera. Dr bab 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As it is now, the article is pretty sad and falls into a lot of anti-wikipedia categories, however I do not think deletion is the answer, but improvement. Here are some suggestions for improvement: 1)Eliminate references that merely quote Hamlet, rather than being based on its plot in some larger way. 2)Organize those plot portrayals into prose. This, I think, would make a very nice, useful article. Many literature articles have sections like this in them (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight similar stories section), but with Hamlet there are too many similar stories to fit into a section, and an article is needed. In short, kill the list form and the less notable info, and compile the rest into more encyclopedic prose. Wrad 07:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just used it, and found it very useful, and you want to delete it? Think of people, instead of looking good. Sharpevil 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Wrad's suggestions do make some sense, but I am still unsure whether it is possible to write such an article that is of a reasonable length, and avoid it being a long listing (not a list, but still a listing) of various works, and wether it is at all probable or possible to make it complete. There are a LOT of stuff inspired by Hamlet out there. Another issue is to find someone willing to undertake this massive task.

I will not bother with it at the moment, but if this article does not get deleted, I will go over it and at least delete all the items that merely quote hamlet, or have too thin a connection, as suggested. But for now, I will see how this afd ends.

Sharpevil's comment is not really helpful. As stated in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, whether or not an item is useful is not relevant to wether it gets deleted or not. What matters is wether it belongs in an encyclopedia or not. A lot of useful information does not belong in an encyclopedia.Dr bab 09:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comments

One thing that will make it easier is that there is already a Shakespeare on screen page with movies based on Hamlet, so those could be deleted or moved . . . Wrad 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be moved to Influences of Hamlet. The Shakespeare on screen info could be moved/summarized into it, and the lesser references removed. The rest could be turned into prose somehow. I'm willing to give it a try, see how it looks. School is almost out for me. Wrad 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Promenade Shopping Centre[edit]

Notablity not asserted, same can be said for most of the other shopping centers listed in the template. Seinfreak37 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and right now thats all this article is. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Quite a number of other shopping centres around the world have significant entries about them on WP, and with some work this could be brought up to a reasonable level. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who cares if other stuff exists? This article, as is, fails WP:N and is nothing more than a directory. -Seinfreak37 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition at Northgate[edit]

Article is about a private residence hall in College Station, Texas. I believe it does not meet the notability criterion. Article has been created on March 6, 2006 and has not been updated since. Has also been listed for AfD but template was deleted. --Blueag9 (Talk) 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. PCock 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a non-notable residence hall. -Seinfreak37 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott goodson[edit]

Autobiography, article also re-created after initial speedy delete. Seinfreak37 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. PCock 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Was speedy deleted before anyway. Sr13 (T|C) 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but might possibly be fixed if the full time was allowed.DGG 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Anthony.bradbury with the note "repost. Also NN bio"--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon A. Harnois[edit]

unreferenced hoax, author removed the PROD note --Xnuala (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further information has come to light, such as a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Harnois, so I have tagged it as speedy.--Xnuala (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Nothing at "notable source" Forbes.com. Both User:Wikiartwriter and User:Newportriboy seem to be single purpose accounts relating to this. --EarthPerson 20:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running on Empty (comic)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable webcomic (earlier published in a student newspaper). Running on Empty plus Daniel Beadle gives 32 google hits (excluding wikipedia}[22], with Dan Beadle it gives 10 hits[23]. No hits from reliable sources, no indications of notability. Fram 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:ATT Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr.Z. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sources. Nothing I've found online suggests notability or verifiability. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:ATT, nothing to verify this article.. MURGH ^disc. 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piczo Top 40 Songs[edit]

Per this article, this is a Top 40 list which is "compiled from various members of the web building site" - basically, an online community where any user can vote for their favorite songs and they compile a list. In other words - no official monitoring of radio airplay or record sales. This indicates to me that this is in no way an official representation of any country or region but instead an unofficial list put together by pop music and chart fans. Even the article for the Piczo website is a bit wonky with its sources. - eo 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:ATT. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Börse[edit]

This is supposed to be a disambiguation page for a German term meaning stock exchange. It consists solely of material unsuitable for such a page: in part it is a mere dicdef, then a list of various German stock exchanges (which would not be candidates for a dab page as per WP:MOSDAB, since their names only contain the word "Börse" but are not confusable with it); then a list of entirely unrelated and irrelevant "see also"'s. (e.g. Brugge, a city name that has absolutely nothing to do with "Börse". The only two entries that have a semblance of being legitimate dab entries are two names of locations in eastern Europe, which the author alleges are called "Börse" in German. But this claim seems to be false, it is probably a free fabrication (one of the places actually has a different German name attested, of the other no German name is documented; "Börse" would be linguistically implausible for both.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two other pages link to this disambiguation page, one of which is another disambiguation page! -Panser Born- (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completly agree with the case made for deletion. ~Furthermore, the author of the page is notorious for inventing false German etymologies [24] and getting historical facts wrong [25]. Delete. RCS 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, appears to just breach the notability requirements. John Reaves (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Reeves[edit]

non-notable individual Mathew5000 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states she has (1) "played in poker tournaments all over the world", (2) placed 8th in one minor tournament, placed 114th in one major tournament, and tied for first in one very small tournament, (3) "competed in the World Series of Poker" (as have tens of thousands of other people), and (4) appeared on TV in the Ultimate Blackjack Tour. None of this meets the criteria of WP:BIO. --Mathew5000 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't know much about pro poker, but going by the article and its lack of reliable sources I'd say delete per WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nowhere close to notable in terms of poker accomplishments. The only possible argument for notability is her blackjack status. She was one of the invited "professionals" on the Ultimate Blackjack Tour which aired on CBS. But, referring to WP:BIO and the 'Athletes' criteria (probably the most applicable here), Ultimate Blackjack Tour is definitely not equivalent to any major sports league, nor in my opinion does it constitute playing on 'the highest level' of the sport. Despite the significant money at stake, it seems to be more a made-for-TV event than any kind of serious elite competition. For example, many famous poker players with no blackjack credentials at all were invited to play. Cases like this have very little precedent though, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. --SubSeven 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She should be kept based on her blackjack accomplishments. She was featured on the cover of the January 2007 edition of All In magazine and also appeared on the Ultimate Blackjack Tour.
Delete. I would think she needs more than just "blackjack accomplishments" for inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite. The poker accomplishments are basically non-existent. They should be covered in a single more encyclopedic sentence -- clearly the fact that she entered the World Series of Poker is not encyclopedic or meriting an article. The blackjack TV appearences and cover of a magazine though would seem meet minimal criteria though. 2005 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in assessing notability, we should be careful not to be biased in favour of recency. There have been lots of models in the last sixty years who have had one magazine cover and one television show appearance. It wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia if those appearances had been in 1973 and the same accomplishments in 2007 are no different. --Mathew5000 07:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: She's not just a model; she's a blackjack player who won a major event, and she had a feature article as well as appearing on the cover of the magazine. (I should have been clearer when I pointed out her mention in All In earlier.) Rray 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on All In magazine cover story and UBT appearance. Otto4711 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VinylVideo[edit]

It is apparently a real technology, revived and refined in the late 1990s as kind of art project and installation. But this article doesn't reference that it seems to have been extremely limited in release. I'm particularly struck by the limited editions of ten copies which are priced from 6,000 euros to 12,000 euros.[26] I'm extremely inclined to view this article currently as "art" or a prank rather than as a legitimate article. Pig^man 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, and a website linked from the article describes it as fake anyway Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarloafer[edit]

Contested Prod. Neologism and possible advert for Sugarloaf ski slopes. Term seems to have some use on google, but these are not about the term, they merely reference it--contrary to the guideline at WP:NEO. Augustus Rookwood 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant advertising! --Orange Mike 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, too. —Cel ithemis 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. What? Not CSD'd? Sr13 (T|C) 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Finngall ^talk 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.Rey[edit]

Non-notable (as per WP:MUSIC) Closenplay 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Comment Could have been listed for speedy deletion using WP:BIO. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 delete No notability present or claimed. A1octopus 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webalect[edit]

Neologism. For "standard web-based jargon", its usage on the web usage is stunningly low. Article als appears to be a promotion for a software product of the same name. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEO, and reads like a vague advertisement. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though perhaps it could be transwikied to somewhere appropriate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah A. Yow[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. College directors are not inherently notable. Schools have many departments, many programs, and employ thousands. Being employed at a college does not make one notable for an encyclopedia. The most notable thing she has done was writing a 180 page book with two other people seven years ago. ISBN 0789009358 Arbustoo 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete per A1 (little to no context), A7 (doesn't assert importance or notability), especially given the fact that the page was created as a one-sentence piece. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unambiguous Keep as a geographic location . Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin)[reply]

Twentymile Creek[edit]

Very short article on a non-notable creek in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Dtbohrer 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit a weak one. Real places get kept, and being a very short article is not a reason for deletion - it is a reason for expansion. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, No offense, but I've actually been there. There's nothing special about it. There are creeks that were named after their distance from Erie all along the coast of Lake Erie in Pennsylvania. Dtbohrer 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the stream is a geological feature. Whether one feels the stream is "special" or not is not revelant. Gjs238 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Needs expansion. Malepheasant 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debut album[edit]

This article has been a dictionary definition for almost a year now (since it was created). There used to be a list of best selling debut albums on the page, but it was decided this article was not the correct place to have such information. I doubt this can ever grow to be more than a dictionary definition, and propose that it becomes a redirect to album -Panser Born- (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef.Dr bab 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Funk Order[edit]

Do not see how this is notable enough to put on the Wikipedia, suggestion is to delete the article. Kranar drogin 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does it seem to be an advert (company mission!?!?), it also fails WP:WEB. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears as advert, article does not assert notability. Dooms Day349 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11 Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete but once it's here, it should be discussed.DGG 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Newyorkbrad 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Armenian army[edit]

Not notable enough, no reliable sources barely any information only bias sources if found based on research it should be deleted. Artaxiad 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Artaxiad 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator is approved and banned sock master that was used counteless socks.Possibly there are some cocks in voters.This AfD is redundant.Must.^T ^C 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Google hits [27] Artaxiad 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it was sourced, it hardly qualifies as notable.--Domitius 22:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it is a reality, has enough sources, need to development.Must.^T ^C 10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your defense? if this is a "reality" good for it. It does NOT have enough sources. Artaxiad 10:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listen, I don't know what is going on, but I think that you guys should give it a rest. As far as notability goes, the main criteria is the outside referrals to an organization/person/etc. It has its own file in the MIPT Database [28]. I haven't done more research on it to be honest. Now, I don't want to get into an argument over how many attacks a group must have carried out in order to have a page in Wikipedia and what makes those "attacks" notable, but the article looks descent enough, is concise, has an outside referral from a reasonable non-partisan specialized source and doesn't violate any Wiki rules as far as I see (WTA, OR etc). Keeping it cool, what seems to be the problem with this article? (for a notability sidenote, check this out: Category:Communist parties of Turkey - there is even a "party" in there which I know for a fact is run by ten people from an office in a Paris suburb! :)) Baristarim 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your going too far off topic. Artaxiad 10:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, my last comment (and this) was/is off topic.. I had been wanting to tell others what a WP:N violation that category is!! What is this for example? New Build-up organization? They surely must have been running out of ideas for a name, weren't they? Baristarim 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Artaxiad 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't believe it has enough sources to provide any reason that the article can grow/develop anymore than it already has. The group was responsible for one "attack", two decades ago. --Rayis 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I tried expanding it. Artaxiad 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the only feasible way to deal with political movements is to consider them notable if they have a name and a source. trying to judge importance will inevitably produce irreconcilable disputes. The discussion here is a good example of why that's the way to think about these. DGG 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Armenian Red Army, as it is how the group is referred to by MIPT. deniz^T_C 16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Rayis. Similar groups appear every once in a while to claim "an attack" in the Middle East and are not taken seriously or covered. There must be a dozen groups that have claimed a single attack in Iraq alone and not much coverage of those "1-hit wonders". - Fedayee 23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What will happen to Kemalettin Demirer if this page is deleted? deniz^T_C 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We request speedy deletion, per redirect to non-existence page. Artaxiad 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the event is widely recorded in many languages as part of the "armenian terrorism" [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. The proposal of this Afd is to remove this and the other article which mentioned the event "Kemalettin Demirer". I believe this article should be kept until someone writes a new article about all of these related terrorist events; then both Red Armenian army and Kemalettin Demirer can redirect to it. John Vandenberg 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-Armenian Genocide timeline; I have added an entry for this event on that timeline, as it provides more context, and less weight to this minor event. John Vandenberg 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rayis. ROOB323 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rayis -- Aivazovsky 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a source, seems notable. --A.Garnet 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe any of the nominator's arguments justify a deletion but only some rewriting.--Doktor Gonzo 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Assassination of a diplomat should make it notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. If we have an article on Khachkars (which I totally support), we should well have an article on a terrorist organization. More references should be collected, but I can't see the problem with the current ones.--Scientia Potentia 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom and WP:NOTABILITY.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, borderline speedy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinn the Rap Rocky[edit]

Fewer than 200 G-hits. MySpace as references. No evidence of notability. Disputed PROD Gillyweed 22:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC (and WP:BIO, with references like that). -Panser Born- (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete in its current form. However, Erebus (or anyone else), feel free to recreate the article using the sources you've found when you have the time. Shimeru 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewood School[edit]

Delete: Article does not nearly assert notability as it stands now. I had speedied the article but restored it per Erebus555's request. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% non-notable. The article doesn't even assert why it is worthy of inclusion. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Upon looking at the article as it stands now, I would say Delete but this does have potential and I am willing to work on the article and to expand it. I have already developed a collection of sources enabling me to do this. - Erebus555 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. Articles on schools should pass WP:N just like every other article on Wikipedia. -Seinfreak37 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del the article is clearly writen as a joke. `'mikka 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handed issues[edit]

This article is completely non-encyclopedic in both tone and content. The "notes" section appears to be a joke, and it is unclear if any of the information is in any way derived from the "references". While the article may not be a hoax, it appears to be an inside joke on the part of its author which the reader is not let in on. Perhaps an encyclodia article could be written on this topic, but this article is not it. IPSOS (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Must be a hoax. ArchStanton 22:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be a joke / hoax article. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed'. A sufficient number of commenters below feel that an en masse nomination in this case prevents each article from being properly evaluated. This closure is without prejudice to individual AfD listings of the articles. Xoloz 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced popular culture articles[edit]

NOTE: This is an omnibus deletion vote. If the consensus is to delete, then ALL of the following articles:

Henry Darger in popular culture
Philip K. Dick in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.
M. C. Escher in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Isaac Newton
Che Guevara in popular culture
Illuminati in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky
Bruce Lee and popular culture
Mark Twain in popular culture
Jack Kerouac in popular culture
Mercenaries in popular culture
Miyamoto Musashi in fiction
Ninja in popular culture
Emiliano Zapata in popular culture
Emperor Norton in popular culture
Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Rasputin
List of references to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in popular culture
Representations of highwaymen in popular culture
Cultural references to the Rosenbergs
Secret societies in popular culture
Nikola Tesla in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Dylan Thomas
Walt Whitman in popular culture
References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture

will be removed. All these articles are basically detached trivia sections. They contain few or no references, and therefore violate WP:V and WP:RS. Furthermore, most of these articles are shot through with original research, inferring the presence of something that might be a reference to the subject. None of these subjects are so culturally ubiquitous that they need a separate "popular culture" page; a few especially prominent examples in the subject's main article should suffice. (There's already a separate article for the iconic Che Guevara photo, for instance; the rest of the stuff in his popular culture article is rubbish.) As Wikipedia has begun to take sourcing policy more seriously, the trend has been to delete articles such as those nominated here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All for the extensive reasons given in the nomination. Having taken the time to look them through individually, they are completely arbitrary lists that make no attempt at all to place a collection of pop-culture references in any kind of framework, or distinguish between the significant and the trivial. Andrew Levine 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per thorough nom. Bravo! Sr13 (T|C) 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Other than missing sources, I don't see anything wrong with the majority of these articles. They may need clean-up here and there, but deleting them all is just silly. --Darth Borehd 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and if desired relist separately. Sorry, but there's a number of reasons not to make mass nominations, and I think this is one of them, namely that each article may have its own merits. And I do not agree with the nomination's reasoning in many salient points. First, lack of references is not always a reason to delete. In some of these cases, it may not be necessary to have a reference other than the work itself. Take Mark Twain. Only one of the entries would I say needs a source outside the material itself, and that's the Jimmy Buffett entry. It could easily be removed if it can't be sourced/verified. Second, several of the subjects are quite culturally ubiquitous, especially the ninja, secret societies, and mercenaries pages. Individual people? I might see those better as merging, but those concepts are more than wide enough to support articles. Might merge the Illuminati one to secret societies though. Still, I don't think this mass nomination is the way to go, especially with your declaration that they must all go. That is not the way bundled nominations work on AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD and Keep. I agree some of these should be deleted, but some should be kept. The nominator seems to be trying the lazy mans approach. It's not that simple, nor should it be made that simple. There is no Wikipedia rule against IPC articles and many of these are perfectly valid and useful articles. -- Stbalbach 01:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consider in particular Mercenaries in poplar culture, Ninjas in popular culture, and secret societies in popular culture. In each instance, the portrayal of these subject in modern media is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the historical or factual subjects themselves, and therefore articles on the portrayl of these subjects in modern media will contain information the articles on the subjects themselves could not possibly or justifiably contain. Such articles discuss significant aspects of modern culture and should therefore remain. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Zelmerszoetrop 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as such articles can in fact become featured per Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Such articles are spun off from main articles to avoid excessive cruft in large articles, but are still valid. There is nothing wrong with Trivia sections as long as they are effective - Arrested Development (TV series) became a featured article with a Trivia section. This is just "I don't like it" hack-and-slash. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SwitChar's reasons above. Deepdesertfreman 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't lump articles discussing the important cultural depictions of Che Guevara together with List of references to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in popular culture. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Afd and re-nominate separately. Although most of these articles, at first glance, seem to be worthy candidates for deletion, the commmon nomination is problematic. Some parts of some articles might have some merit, and this could lead to keep-votes for the entire collection. Please re-nominate the articles separately though, and I will try and join the debates so that the articles that deserve so are deleted. (From the nature of your nomination, perhaps you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup?)Dr bab 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Close AFD and nominate separately per Dr bab. Many of these such as Mark Twain, Edgar Allen Poe, Che Guevara or Nikola Tesla could easily have as many references added as desired. Edison 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you trie to ask for references first before asking for an ombibus vote? I think this makes a mockery of the entire procedure. User:Dimadick
Keep The few I clicked at random look rather nice, some may need cleanup, but deleting all of them is definite no-no. Grue 08:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - indiscriminate collections of information seeking to capture every reference to their subject or any reference that in the mind of some random editor reminds them of the subject. The arguments in favor of keeping these sorts of articles generally boil down to variations on WP:ILIKEIT and earnest promises to clean up the articles, which rarely if ever happens. Otto4711 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. I thought these arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT :) -- Stbalbach 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, last I heard WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NPOV did not equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Otto4711 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's WP:JUSTAPOLICY - there is no way to generalize that every single entry, in every single article, of this AfD violates policy. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All -- If "taking the sourcing policy more seriously" means deleting inadequately sourced articles, then a huge chunk of Wikipedia content has to go besides ones WP:YOUDON'TLIKE because they're to do with popular culture. Like any article or stub that that is not up to snuff, the solution is to edit it, tag it if necessary, remove material in it that is inappropriate or unverifiable, etc., on the principle that many Wikipedia articles are drafts needing work, not deletion. Perhaps some of these should be deleted, but there's no way of discussing the merits or notability of these subjects when they're all lumped together, only whether some imagined quality standard is met in how the subject is presented. bobanny 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I think the first step has been made to draw attention to these articles, now we can find ways to improve them and make them uniformly worthwhile. I think they are useful in that they show the significant influence that people like Edgar Allan Poe and Jack Kerouac have had on popular culture - and that's hardly trivia. Besides, deletion en mass is dangerous. Midnightdreary 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-close this nomination and deal with them separately. The underlying issues are not identical in each of these cases. They need separate investigation and discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion based on lack of sources should be based on the inability to find reliable sources after diligent effort or the impossiblity of finding such sources. Here, with effort nearly every claim in these articles probably could be sourced if someone took the time and expended the effort to do so. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to prod the admin community to take the deletion/attribution policy more seriously but the apparent consensus that I've seen (in the responses to my call to action) has been more laissez faire, so why tilt at that windmill any further. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source them. Everyking 10:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mukadderat 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some and Keep some. Basically speedy-close and re-list separately. --FateClub 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close mass AfD, Keep and renominate individual articles: There is no firm Wikipedia guideline that "in popular culture" category has been depreciated. Each article needs to have its own AfD and be argued on its own merits - not all of them are in violation of WP:V. This nomination is smacks pretty much of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - whats the hurry to delete them in a mass AfD? WP:NOTPAPER - articles with sourcing problems can be addressed and fixed, only the articles that do not meet WP:NOTE should be deleted. In short, close, keep and renom only those that fail WP:NOTE --Eqdoktor 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of these are relevant, accurate, notable and sourced. Indeed, many of the entries in these articles consist of references to the works in which the people and phenomena concerned are depicted. Any single articles that are actually ropey should, naturally be relisted. Otherwise, this looks like a job for cleanup rather than deletion. AlexTiefling 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All -- I would much rather have this information on a subpage then have anonymous IPs dumping this stuff onto the main article. Of course, some of these pages need cleanup, but much of it is quite notable. Additionally, I don't understand why an editor would nominate these few when I suspect hundreds, even thousands more of these type of pages are out there (I've seen several articles with these, and take at look at a Google search for these pages: [34]). If we are going to delete some of these, it should be on a case by case basis, not in some kind of random nuke. Danski14^(talk) 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Storng keep i found the references on the jack kerouac page very useful when i wrote my dissertation on him.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.143.248.109 (talk • contribs).
Keep although tag all as unsourced. Quadzilla99 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and renom separately. If completely separating the debate is undesirable, let me note that there are several different types of articles in the list above. (1) (General thing) in popular culture articles: Ninja, Illuminati, Mercenaries, Highwaymen, Secret societies. There are probably articles that could be written about these things. (2) Cultural depictions of (specific person): Sammy Davis, Jr., Isaac Newton, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Rasputin, The Rosenbergs, Dylan Thomas, Mushashi. Although these articles are in some cases not sticking to the topic, their title implies a restricted topic, namely, places where that specific character is depicted in fiction. Unlike a list of depictions of, say, God, these lists can have well-defined boundaries. (3) Articles about "references": Jacqueline Onassis, Oscar Wilde. (4) (Creative person) in popular culture: Some of these have salvageable material. For instance, the article on Poe in popular culture restricts itself to Poe appearing as a character, so with renaming it may be okay, and the article on Philip K. Dick is somewhat unfortunately named but really seems to be about the influence of an important writer, not just unincorporated trivia. I hope this explains why these are hard to discuss as a group. (I do agree, most of them need deleting, though). Mango juice^talk 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per nom and seem like trivia. Gman124 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach and Danski14. --Aude (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep are going to be sourced soon. --Bryan Seecrets 06:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maaser Rishon[edit]

WP:POVFORK. Created 2 days after Levite Tithe, in order to present a biased view. The Levite Tithe article is sourced from this Jewish Encyclopedia article, while the Maaser Rishon article, as created, appears to have been unsourced. ----User talk:FDuffy 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per WP:point this is in reaction to Levite Tithe being posted for deletion. Jon513 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shuki 19:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POINT nomination by creator of POV mouthpiece Levite Tithe. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article and Levite Tithe have never had a merger proposal made or acted on. Accordingly, I believe a merge proposal would be the best way to handle the parallel articles Maaser Rishon and Levite Tithe in the first instance, and both this AfD and the parallel AfD for Levite Tithe should be closed as premature without prejudice to future actions. Note that this article is properly sourced to legitimate reliable sources representing the Orthodox Jewish POV. --Shirahadasha 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above reasons. IZAK 07:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linz sisters[edit]

Tragic story, but news item or notable in an encyclopedic sense? I suspect the former. kingboyk 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I suspect that the article passes WP:NOTE, but I am skeptical. Sr13 (T|C) 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic story indeed, but the only criterion of WP:BIO it could possibly satisfy is "multiple features in credible news media", and it seems like the story has hardly had multiple news articles written about it. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic content. suits for wikinews. Mukadderat 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Notable, but if online references are scarce, then book/newspaper sources should be found. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. I merged the non-listy information into the main McDonald's menu items#Canada section, in addition to the existing sentence. If you feel I missed something that could have been merged, please pluck it out of the McDonalds' Canada Menu article behind the redirect. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds' Canada Menu[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is definitely not encyclopedic. John Reaves (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT#UNENC. Sr13 (T|C) 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to McDonald's menu items which was kept in January of this year. It is encyclopedic to cover the products offered by a major corporation like McDonald's including their regional menus. That said, I see no reason why this should be off on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to McDonald's menu items. I agree that this is a good idea, and that there is information in this article that is quality, and should be kept. Greenboxed 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you are the author of this article, Greenboxed, you are in the best position to find the items worth keeping and to merge them in to the parent article. (aeropagitica) 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you, and would be happy to merge the article. Greenboxed 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to McDonald's menu items per concensus thus far - particularly, in the regional section. McDonald's in Canada isn't that much different from McDonalds down here south of the Great White North so as to have its own menu items article. --Dennisthe2 06:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to McDonald's menu items. There are distinct items lacking any coverage such as the trial Bacon Ranch McChicken and the deli sandwiches. –Pomte 02:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Could be used in WP:NOT for what Wikipedia isn't and (shouldn't be). I wouldn't even mind if the menu items article was AfDed :) "items lacking coverage such as the trial Bacon ranch McChicken"??! Why don't we give the link to McD's website and let the webmasters paid by the company elaborate on the subject? Come on people, let's be serious :)) Baristarim 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I totally agree with you in sentiment. Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't contain this sort of info in your view, but then the millions of people shouldn't have made the mistake of eating up all these items either. There's even a news article on a related item: "wow, the bacon ranch chicken sandwich must be really irresistible!" but What I actually think is, `wow, the new spokesperson for McDonald's is an idiot" [35] The main article was kept 2 months ago, but you're free to nominate it again. But while it exists, we should merge this info so undue weight isn't given to American items. –Pomte 09:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good point. Since the original article was kept, merge it is :) Baristarim 09:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per consensus Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Engine[edit]

Not a real, meaningful term. Added here only to promote a product. Not used in this context in general, basically a neoglism RxS 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be redundant of search engine, doesn't it? Fails WP:NEO. Sr13 (T|C) 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, a clear violation of WP:NEO. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its exact same as search engine. --Coetzeen 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an admittedly made-up word.DGG 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Seems as though the outcome is to transwiki; I've tagged the article as such. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Framis[edit]

Non-notable neogolism, possible WP:HOAX, Google turns up no reference of the word other than the personal website, unable to verify the other references listed. Leuko 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax. Neither is it a neologism. The Oxford Companion to the English Language, p. 415 and p. 321 should be sufficient citations to keep this article. See other references and comparisons/contrast just added to the article. Gekritzl 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: That is if the inclusion of this word can be verified. Since it is nowhere on the internet, sorry if I am skeptical. Does anyone else have a copy of this book that can verify? Leuko 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: Thank you for your input, honestly. Regarding "Nowhere else on the internet" - try Google, and the external links. Hoping someone has The Oxford Companion to the English Language, it's by my side right now. Great book! (P.S. Wow, you are right, very few hits on the internet. I could scan the page in Oxford Companion and email it to you...) (PPS I just read Leuko's Wiki page, you're very serious about Wiki and that's great! Please check out my history of contributions and my (just created) Gekritzl author summary. I'm serious about accuracy and expanding Wikipedia too.Gekritzl 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Thanks for the offer, but I would prefer an independent editor to verify it. The external links provided are not WP:RS, and are essentially self-published sources. Thank you for the compliment, and yes, I do have high standards for articles in WP, so I hope you do not take offense to my nomination of an article which is unverified. Your contributions are positive from what I saw, but the only thing nagging me is that the only mention that I could find on the internet is from the Urban Dictionary (not a WP:RS either), but it lists a completely different definition. Leuko 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Printed sources are every bit as appropriate as online ones; what you can do if you doubt them, is ask the ed. to put in a quotation of the essential part. WP is not an encyclopedia of the web, but a general encyclopedia.DGG 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but simply claiming something in a printed source is not the same thing as it being attributed/verified. I didn't have access to the book, so I asked for an independent editor to verify the claim. Please see Free State of Montzoar Palatinate for an article which claims to have printed sources, but in fact, they are fake. Without independent verification, how can an editor not be sure that this is not the case here? Leuko 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By going to their own library. it is a very commonly held book. The situation is different with unusual material. DGG 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Author recommends closing this discussion and keeping the article based on added refereed citations, references, and Wiki policy and procedure. Article was created one evening, questioned that evening, citations added that evening, changed from stub to completed article same evening. Gekritzl 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see WP:DP. 1) You can only "vote" once (though AfD's are not votes), and 2) you can't "recommend closing the dicussion" early. Leuko 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Ah, thank you. On our NGIN^[1] system at NASA we keep ongoing CM discussions, and I (erroneously) likened Wiki's system to such an iterative procedure/dialogue. Will gladly abide by Wiki procedures. Article has been significantly improved since submission a couple of hours ago. Perhaps I'll scan the Oxford Companion page in and just post it to the internet (might be a good way to validate the citation) and if I do, I will definitely cite the source due to copyright restrictions. Gekritzl 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Oxford Companion mention is enough for me. I know this borders on OR, but I've used the word before for years. Example: The radio station where I worked went off the air during my on-air shift. The manager calls and asks, "What's wrong?" I reply, "The framis regulator is broken. Get the engineer in here." (Translation: I have no idea why we're off the air.) Realkyhick 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Transwiki to wiktionary? Gekedo 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as this is not very notable but it is a nonsense word, perhaps becoming obsolete. It was popularized in the 1950s by "double-talk specialist" comedian Al Kelly, note the redlink, or I would vote "merge". He's mentioned in Friars Club and Milton Berle, for some confirmation of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at the public library now and have the 1992 version of Oxford Companion. Framis shows up on page 415. Recommend keeping this article based on Wiki's Missing Encyclopedic Articles project philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.116.204 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Not that one would have any reason to doubt an anonymous IP address, but... Leuko 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: There seems to be some use of the word as an alternate to "thingamajig" as in Urban Dictionary and also on this site: http://www.unc.edu/~ptw/techisms.htm -- a trip to a university library may be in order. Gekritzl 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to double talk. That's the name of the entry in the Oxford Companion; "framis" is simply mentioned as a synonym. —Cel ithemis 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ CosmoCall Universe™ - NGIN (Next Generation Intelligent Network) Platform Overview

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Sr13 (T|C) 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, as this is a dictionary definition which doesn't really provide a context for the notability of the word. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smathers[edit]

Subject of article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:BIO. No independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has lots of hits under "Pat Smathers" including a full biography in the Mountaineer of Waynesville, NC of June 26, 2006 available from Highbeam. Please attempt to do some research instead of just the nominating. It takes more time but saves us all time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N requires multiple non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 09:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is fairly notable, somehow I've already heard of him and I'm in Australia. I get the sense he will become very important in the future, perhaps affecting the lives of everyone on this planet.WunNation 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Nv8200p talk 13:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - explain how he fails WP:BIO? If you want to complain that it's a partisan article that needs to be tagged for WP:NPOV cleanup then you've got that right, but don't tell me that a mayor running for Lt. Gov doesn't receive significant press coverage. I spent 5 minutes looking and found a photo of him touring a flood site with Sen. Mrs. Dole, on her own webpage. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google and Yahoo! bring up at least 10 very good secondary sources. For the rest, as per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. Poeloq 08:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find these very good secondary sources. Why don't you add them to the article so they can undergo peer review? -Nv8200p talk 11:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he reads this and comes back to do so. Can you state, btw, what specifically you will want to review in these sources? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the sources seem to be independent from the subject and from reliable established media. That the information in the sources support what is written in the article. -Nv8200p talk 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put a "fact" tag on those pieces of information in the article which you feel are unsupported at present, so we see what the specific problems are that we need to address? E.g., do you feel it's unsupported that he's a mayor, that he's (not officially, apparently) running for Lt. Gov., that he graduated from Duke, that he works as an attorney, etc.? If all you want is general proof of mentions in the press, try these: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Why don't you put the references in the article instead of here because the article has to assert his notability not the article for deletion. And the blog doesn't count. -Nv8200p talk 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not interested. As far as I'm concerned, those 6 links demonstrate notability, you seem to be the only one here who doesn't think so, and since I've seen far more notable topics get deleted and far more important topics remaining here with ZERO attribution in the article I think it's a waste of my time to try to improve an article to a by-the-book standard that nobody here actually cares about. I don't waste 30 seconds of time on improving a contested article, because the article often gets canned anyway because of a few people who refuse to work to consensus. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nv8200p, sadly, or understandably, I don't jave the time to work on every article that I comment/vote on in AfD discussions, and this one is for sure not worth my time. That, still, doesn't mean it should be deleted ;) --Poeloq 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, and the fact that it passes WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO. If there are concerns that add an ((politician-stub)) notation or fix the article. It does not need to be deleted. meshach 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11 advertising. NawlinWiki 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Transcriptionworks, Inc[edit]

Article seems to be solely for advertising nn company. Googling "Northern Transcriptionworks, Inc" yields 89 results. --Lmblackjack21 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, though you could probably have got it through speedy deletion by using ((db-advert)). -Panser Born- (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; reads like an advertisement, fails WP:SPAM --Mhking 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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