< August 2 August 4 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Kevin Nalty[edit]

Kevin Nalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry is actually factual and for a man who is quite prominent on Youtube. Keep it, please.

No one is trying to delete it.CoolKid1993 10:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Get Back[edit]

Get Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE: I think we have to delete this first because the page has no independecy yet and almost info are shattered leaving every mind of fans blank!

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmy Caceres[edit]

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

Non-notable retired minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Bernhardt[edit]

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

Non-notable retired minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 23:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of places along the Greensand Way[edit]

The result was delete. --DarkFalls talk 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places along the Greensand Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information and WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. There are 129 footpaths in Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom alone, are we going to have a List of places along every single one? How about places along every major road in the world? And places along rivers? Saikokira 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—users have shown that notability exists. — Deckiller 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhpWebSite[edit]

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

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N ans WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Several similar articles will shortly be nominated, but rather than all-at-once, which tends to get us nowhere, they'll be separate, so whether you're feelings are the same or different on each, please note that so that the closing admin can figure out consensus more easily. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotlog[edit]

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

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up the article. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --DarkFalls talk 06:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PmWiki[edit]

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

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (keep) — some notability has been shown (though not as much as some of the others out of this batch); the AfD is split enough to warrant a no consensus. — Deckiller 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SiteFrame[edit]

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

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED-NUKE[edit]

UNITED-NUKE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up what the article is.Carlossuarez46 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website Baker[edit]

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

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular electronic components[edit]

List of most popular electronic components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. Whatever the intended purpose of this list (a type of online catalog list, according to the talk page), this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Saikokira 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Air[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, can find nothing that lends this small general aviation company any degree of notability. Russavia 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Community Academy[edit]

Bridges Community Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod (notability), but it's been around over a year and is school related so may be controversial, so taken to afd. I agree with the prod-er that it fails WP:N, and if this is the state it's in 20 months on, is it going to get any better? Carlossuarez46 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Flight Charters[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, can find nothing which would lend this small general aviation company any degree of notability. Russavia 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability; nothing readily available. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Schedule Cibao Intl[edit]

Flight Schedule Cibao Intl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Speedy delete poss? Russavia 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been speedied twice in June and has had the nameplace locked to prevent recreation, originally at Cibao Airport Flight Schedule --Russavia 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i whant to know what is the problem with this article, what bad thing it have and what can i do to become this article in an apropiate article for wikipedia??? Just because i haven´t seen any other article that shows the Cibao Airport Flight Activity and i realy whant to let people to know what is going on in this airport...

Could you help me??? Migssant19 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has encyclopedic sense, tell me why you say that it doesn´t have any? i keep without understand why is it bad??

It doesn´t matter that it was deleted in may, look at the article, what are the differents, yess, that the old one just have a box info, this one have the box info and some things that have importance in thia airport, you don´t think so???

I whant to know too how can i save it, or change it to an ``encyclopedic sense´´ if it realy doesn´t have any. i realy don´t whant you to delete this article, it was hurt for me to add it. Migssant19 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Migssant19 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Canterbury Commerce Society (UCom)[edit]

University of Canterbury Commerce Society (UCom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Nothing links to it. Bduke 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that sums up my feelings well. Mathmo Talk 08:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usherette Trixie[edit]

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

This article is the only remaining character article existing on characters from "The Rocky Horror Show". It is a non-notable character and in fact may not be a character at all. No references are cited or can be found to substantiate the claims made on the page. Amadscientist 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for showing that, however I don't know that that proves anything as both credtis are different. The 1975 prodoction is the same cast from the Roxie. The costume gave her the name and It was not credited there. The 2000 production does not give the Usherete a name again. It is Magenta in another costume and even Patricia Quinn qestioned whether or not it was a seperate character and she created Magenta. It is not accurate to start a page for "Usherette Trixie" when it was only credited in a single production of literally hundreds of proffessional productions. You would also need a page for Miss Strawberry time and for just Usherete.
  • If there are reliable sources that discuss the character, the name issue, Quinn's confusion, etc. then what else do you think is needed for an encyclopedia article? Move it to Usherette (Rocky Horror) if having "Trixie" in the title bothers you. The deletion of the articles for other characters has no bearing on this article. Otto4711 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Armstrong and Joshua Armstrong[edit]

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

2 Google hits for '"joshua armstrong" "passion food"', One hit for '"josh armstrong" "passion food"'. Fails WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D[edit]

The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired prod left by author but objected to, so I'll call it a contested prod. Prod based on "NN book by NN author. xlibris.com is a self-publishing house", with which I agree, per WP:BK and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that other sites are pointing to Wikipedia's book description, or something else? I can't quite figure out the sentence - but if so, this might be a reason for someone to place the Wikipedia article in the first place: to give the impression of an authoritative place with information about the book. --Alvestrand 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Flights Caribbean[edit]

Charter Flights Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP, unable to find anything which establishes notability of this small general aviation company. Russavia 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings breeding[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Buildings breeding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band exists more on the internet than anywhere else. Someone removed the speedy delete tag, said they could make a case for notability. This is their chance. Speciate 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--that is: delete unless somebody has more luck finding notability on this band that I have. The page claims that "the band’s album debuted at #6 on the charts for CMJ (College Music Journal) and stayed in the top 100 for nearly two months." I tried a search on CMJ but it said "No review, news or feature matches for Buildings breeding." I don't see an option for searching historical charts. --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (Slipknot song)[edit]

Scream (Slipknot song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Album cut by Slipknot which doesn't seem to have any special reason for notability other than the fact that it was a hidden track. No single release, music video or chart action here, and this info can easily be placed into the album article. Infobox is also incorrect (studio album template used). - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Not notable, unsourced. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opium of the People (song)[edit]

Opium of the People (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Album track by Slipknot. No single release, video or chart activity, and the article really doesn't say anything. THe infobox is also incorrect here (studio album infobox used) - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse detonation wave engine[edit]

Pulse detonation wave engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod whose deletion may yet be controversial; prod-er cited WP:V and rumors, with which I agree, but anything associated with Area 51 seems to have its adherents or supporters and lest I be accused of being a little green man, I'll let the community decide, but I'd say delete. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete—list of in-universe concepts that shows no real-world importance. Some of this information could be merged into other articles, so the list will be userfied. If and when the information is merged, the article will be restored as a redirect to Star Destroyer. — Deckiller 14:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Destroyers[edit]

List of Star Destroyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but these fiction articles tend toward the controversial so afd not prod is the way to go: the prod was based on "No assertion of real-world notability; article is entirely a jumble of trivia-laden in-universe plot summary" with which I don't disagree; also WP:FICT applies that this should be merged into whatever fictoverse it seeped out of. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Holmgren[edit]

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

Non-notable judging from the content. Likely created by himself.

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

The result was delete all. Kurykh 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulabo and other Pakistani films[edit]

Gulabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Jhoomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ishq Badshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sohni Kurri Chann Wargi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


expired uncontested prod but possibly a controversial delete, as sources not likely to be found in English and notable stars if sourcing proves out the claim, but mindful of WP:CRYSTAL, it should still be a delete Carlossuarez46 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Added two others to this nomination. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Added another to this nom. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Flight Charters[edit]

New Flight Charters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP miserably. This 'airline' owns no aircraft, it is simply a go between between customer and the aircraft owner - millions of those. Searches reveal nothing which establishes the notability of this non-airline. Also nominate under WP:SPAM, the article creator is clearly listed in the infobox. Should be speedy delete, but my csd was removed. Russavia 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't you think that as the nominator that I checked for reliable, non-trival sources which would have given this company some degree of notability before putting it up for Afd? --Russavia 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, it fits in with WP:CSD as being blatant advertising. I would also point you to this article [14] which is also up for nomination again, and which was marked speedy, and had that removed by yourself, even though I mentioned in the Afd that this page [15] has been protected to prevent creation afer the creator created once again after being deleted. Why is it that others can see this yet you can't? --Russavia 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifong Party[edit]

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

Non-notable term. No assertion of notability. Internet search reveals no reliable sources Chunky Rice 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't object to its deletion, the issues are dissimilar enough that I don't think a joint nomination would make sense. Plus, this one is already underway. -Chunky Rice 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right, perhaps i'll prod that one when I've a minute. Bigdaddy1981 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if using a GOP stereotype in the reasoning is helpful to the conversation. Pharmboy 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is telling of POV, though. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Naruto Stars[edit]

Jump Naruto Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about an unreleased video game, I believe it fails to establish notability. I ((prod))'d it and the user removed it. I was initially tempted to mark it speedy, but want to give the editor a chance to establish its notability. Seems doubtful. Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I will stubify the article since all of it is completely unsourced. Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Saqr[edit]

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

Expired uncontested prod, but likely to be controversial deletion on prod basis alone, so I'm bringing it here. There are lots of claims and little support for them, so WP:BLP issues as well. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TribalCMS[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY, WP:SPAM, only third party reference given is unrelated to the software (fake notability link). Jackaranga 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikibooks link is fake also, there are no wikibooks related to the page. Jackaranga 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the WIKIBOOKS link, that was meant to be just to CMS but I removed it altogether. I do not know where this idea of unrelated link comes from. Go to goodmanjones.com and SEE POWERED BY TRIBALCMS. grrr. This is not spam.......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkesalex (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete Ormand himself may be notable, and it may make sense to discuss the cup in an article about the doctor. Without reliable sources we can't do much. If anyone has issues with similar cups having other articles with little sourcing, I suggest you either try to source them or AfD them. They are not what is being discussed here. To be very clear since this discussion seems to involve some people not as familiar with wikipedia policies. If there are reliable sources about the Ormand Cup we will be happy to have an article, but we can't write an article that doesn't have them. JoshuaZ 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ormand Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting event for local sailing club. Exactly six Google hits: two for this article, two others from the organization's website. Tries to link notability to the namesake of the cup, "who was a friend of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alfred E. Smith", according to the article. Realkyhick 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Interestingly enough I found 11 google hits, not including hits that apply to subdivisions of the same website (Which would bring the total to 25). However, arguing that something is not notable just because it does not have many google hits is not much better than arguing that something is not notable because it does not appear in wikipedia. I also feel that Randall O should be given the chance to improve the article. After all, I have noted articles which are less notable than this one, yet which have been been kept, seemingly because they are well organised and presented. Moreover, I have noticed that Randall O has contributed significantly to wikipedia (Especially with regards to articles on the British aristocracy) and I therefore think it would be counterproductive to scare him off; after all, what harm does it really do if wikipedia contains articles that cover topics that are not overly famous? Wouldn't it be more productive to direct our resources to improving the quality of wikipedia articles, and countering genuine problems such as patent nonsense and vandalism?

And Zeibura, why are you using google news to attempt prove your point; just because something isn't newsworthy, hardly makes it unimportant. Otherwise most of history would be of no value.

Matisia 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might i add something here, the site on Almeda Calfornia is not complete and i,am sure someone will add to it and to Dr. Charles Ormand for whom the cup is named. WiKi needs more on boating and yachting, which it lacks. The Lord Stanley Cup is widely known, but yatching cups and awards are lacking on WiKi. why remove boating and yachting awards and cups. After all yachting is an olympic event. Also President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a yachtsman and was a close friend of his. Randall O 08:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O I vote to keep it myself.[reply]

Keep Randall O 08:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O[reply]
Matisia 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know it's not just a local trophy? There are no independent sources to indicate either way. There's no conspiracy to exclude San Fransisco anything — I would hold the same opinion if the locale was San Diego or Newport or Perth. As for the other cups given as examples (ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a moment), the One Ton Cup is awarded for a world championship for a class, thus clearly notable; the Monsoon Cup was intiated by a head of state and is part of a widely recognized international tour, also clearly notable. If you can show sources which prove that the Ormand Cup rises to the same level of prestige and notability as either of these two, I will gladly reconsider. Realkyhick 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pink[edit]

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

A small charter outfit in Serbia, with 2 small bizjets and a small prop. Fails WP:CORP, can't find anything in English or Serbian which would assert why this small operator is notable over the 10s of thousands other small aircraft operators, aside from being owned by a TV corporation (which doesn't afford it automatic notability) Russavia 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hawaii Vacations[edit]

Great Hawaii Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Can't find anything which makes this company notable over the thousands of other travel agents selling Hawaii. Appears to have been started as a spam article, cleaned up, but still does not assert its notability. Russavia 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or inshrine just might be the most boring article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, save it quickly, please. KP Botany 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for advert from non notable company. Pharmboy 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are thousands of articles of small companies in Wikipedia. I cleaned it up, and additional sources can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and as they are found, they are deleted via afd for WP:N policy. This is just one more in the long list. "There are more like it" is NOT a valid reason to keep an article (per policy). Pharmboy 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What source? I don't see any references or sources listed, other than their own advertisement, their website. What clean-up? It still looks utterly dreadful. Anyone who uses this travel agency AND reads other Wikipedia articles will see it for what it clearly is: a desperate and poorly done attempt at free advertising. It's embarrassing. KP Botany 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Martini[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no point in keeping this open. Consensus and WP:SPORTS have both proven that anyone who's played even one game in the majors is notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Bockman[edit]

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

This is another former baseball player who did nothing in his career. It appears that the user creating these articles is doing so to add players to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates players. Eggy49er 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Implements[edit]

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

I looked on google, and I wasn't able to find a lot of references to this organization. I believe that it fails all the provisions of WP:CORP. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. All major league players are notable per WP:SPORTS, so let's not waste time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erv Brame[edit]

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

He isn't a notable player at all. His record was 52-37. He won zero awards. He wasn't a on a title contender and he did nothing notable. Eggy49er 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Eastern North America heat wave[edit]

2001 Eastern North America heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strong Delete. Non-noteable event. The article read like a story. There are no references or other links provided and I have not found one myself while surfing over the internet for the past 10 minutes. Even if we could find sources-there are many heatwaves across the world every week, just because it happened in America does not make it noteable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable, no citations. Anastrophe 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable and lenghty heat wave that occured across the area. Although article can use some expansion and sources too. I've also alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology about the afd--JForget 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event. It does need sourcing, though. Not being sourced is no reason to delete something; it's a reason to find sources for it. bob rulz 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Townend[edit]

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

British parliamentary candidate for next election. No sources, Google and Google News show little relevant to him except his own and party websites. In my understanding of past consensus, candidates are not inherently notable, making him fail WP:BIO. Was prodded for these reasons, prod removed by anon without improvement but with a claim that candidates are inherently notable. Huon 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments about Sam Townend's entry would seem fair except for the fact that Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative candidate for the same seat has an entry. If Sam's article should be deleted, then so should that of his main opponent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpchambe (talk • contribs) 08:47, August 7, 2007 (UTC).

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsus Palantiri[edit]

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

Poorly written article on a contemporary wrestler. No references. Only 250 Google hits. Not notable. Shalom Hello 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My left nutmeg[edit]

Non-notable. Delete, or perhaps use as an external link in politics of Connecticut when that article is written. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playable Characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl[edit]

Playable Characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This information already exists at Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable_characters. Oli Filth 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M Dilla Records[edit]

M Dilla Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. In their own words "The label has yet to successfully distribute an album." Lugnuts 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Carefully Records[edit]

Drive Carefully Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable record label. Admits that they've only had 2 releases, one being a sampler CD. Lugnuts 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domination Recordings[edit]

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

Non notable record label. Reads like an advert/spam. Lugnuts 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Containment theory records[edit]

Containment theory records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. Advert/spam, only source is from MySpace. Lugnuts 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATutor[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. User:Varezzi

Strong keep: This article topic is a core element at the intersection of Category:Virtual learning environments and Category:Free software culture and documents. It represents a critical point of reference for anyone researching the very controversial and well-known e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc. Proposing deletion on this article under WP:N seems entirely inappropriate, especially considering that the Wikimedia foundation itself so prominently relies on Open Source and non-restrictive modalities of knowledge distribution and learning.

If this article gets deleted under WP:N, while all the other stuff at Category:Flash games (for example) remains, it will be an absolute slap in the face to the credibility of this project. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bit about WP:USEFUL doesn't seem to even apply here. Perhaps you can clarify. Additionally, your (unsubstantiated) implication of "not widely used" seems to disregard that a software title can be notable regardless of whether it is used at all.[1]
How can that be? Simple:
* It has encyclopedic and historical relevance outside the scope of its direct use;
* It features prominently in a dispute over the practices, methods, legalities and patterns of ownership in a major industry or segment of society; or
* It relates to matters that cannot be readily observed or researched by reference to an ancillary article on the same or similar subject.
All three of these apply to this article topic. (See e.g., [19], [20], [21])
The issues of Open Source software, Intellectual property, Competition in I.T. and the History of virtual learning environments all bear a strong relationship to this article topic. All of these issues are encyclopedic. None of these issues critically depend on WP:USEFUL, or how "widely used" the software package happens to be. dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first couple pages of results are all from the ATutor domain name, and past that you're surrounded by self-promotional literature. The Carnegie Mellon link would qualify as WP:RS and WP:V, but it's a self-submitted nomination for a grant, not an award or CM-sponsored thing. It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it. Your comparison to Napster is disingenuous. Napster was used by millions of people, sparked dozens of clones, and fundamentally altered the way music is marketed or sold or what have you. Oh yeah, and it is still used, even if the program isn't identical to the one that was developed so many years ago. The same can't be said for ATutor. Well, it could be said, but not by anyone who is a reliable source. The links you offer are great for the Blackboard article, but mention ATutor only in passing, the exact kind of trivial reference that notability guidelines warn us about. Consequentially 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... and people wonder why established media outlets openly ridicule the way WP:N is applied. This is a perfect example. You call my remarks "disisengenuous" ... and yet you offer: Oh yeah, and (Napster is) still used, even if the program isn't identical ... uhh yeah, right ... same name but, totally different company, totally different business model, totally different legal status, but yeah, uhh, it's "still in use" ... yeah and I guess the USA still has prohibition if you count the fact that four year olds still cannot legally buy alcohol. Yeah, right.
Even if I grant the premise that Napster-now has nothign to do with Napster-then, Napster-then still generated an exponentially greater amount of media attention than ATutor has. Napster was on TV. Napster was on radio. Napster sparked the ire of the recording industry, and was the big target they aimed at the entire time. It revolutionized music sharing. ATutor has no similar claim. The second half of your argument is an ad absurdum that bears no resemblance at all to the issue at hand.Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it? Pure hogwash: Hogwash 67,500+ times over.
Did you even look at the links? The first one, Trailfire, is a search site that's trying to steal ad traffic by listing searchable phrases. The second mirrors the first, the third article (written entirely about Blackboard and their exploits) mentions ATutor once, in a list with four other programs. Next we have a statement from a university tech service that mentions ATutor once and gives no detail about the program or commentary on it. After that is a blog, then another trivial mention in a list of e-learning products, then a single mention in a multiple-choice quiz with no critical merit or inference of notability. Then a blog. Then another blog. Then another ad site. Then two more trivial mentions (one single reference to "ATutor" in a list of five programs, with no critical mention or commentary on ATutor itself), then two list-servs, then two forum posts, then two blogs. None of that is acceptable per WP:N, and like it or not, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, from your quick overview of that small sampling of links you gave, you seem to be refuting your own remark that "the only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it". Shall I assume you now recant that incorrect statement? Now, if you want to take two steps backward and assert that those blogs and whatnot are insufficient under WP:RS and WP:V, you might have a point and I might actually be inclined to agree with you. So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention". (A term I think you are grossly mis-applying, since your application makes no allowance for proportionality of the mention relative to the coverage and depth of the article itself). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Emphasis mine. As for the second half of your comment, ad hominem. Stop that. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Napster was revolutionary and the same can't be said for ATutor? Totally irrelevant.
Badger Badger Badger wasn't revolutionary either, nor is The Hampster Dance. You trying to tell me that WP only has articles on revolutionary software titles? If so, that's more hogwash. Moreover, it's bias toward topics that tend to appeal to young children as opposed to professors and administrators in secondary and post-secondary education. Isn't NPOV supposed to be "non negotiable"? All bets are off when we are talking about article topics in general?
This is a straw man. I never said that only revolutionary software should be covered; my argument is that articles require verifiability and notability to merit inclusion, and ATutor is severely lacking in the latter. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a straw man, then what was your point in stating the (obvious) fact that ATutor is not on the same par with Napster? What's with all the "Napster was on TV!" "Napster changed the world!". If this is a strawman, then all these points you brought up must have been irrelevant to begin with. The only reason I brought up Napster to begin with was make a very simple point (which you happen to agree with down below): that usage stats are not the only standard for software notability (since "Napster-then" as you like to call it, is now totally defunct). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoratio elenchi]. Your refutation of this is a non-issue, since it doesn't address the original question of verifiability and reliable sources. The point in the comparison is that Napster deserves an article, and ATutor does not. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your point about Blackboard, you acknowledge that it passes your "notability" test, but the prominently cited examples of potentially-infringing software count as "trivial reference"? With all due respect, this response has zero credibility. If someone wanted to gain insight on quality of Blackboard's patent claims, where would they go for comparative research? Where would they go to find out about the validity and value of their pledge not to challenge open source projects? dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another straw man. Your "prominently cited example" is a mention in-passing, buried a few-hundred words into an article, in a list of five similar programs. The articles aren't about ATutor. They don't say anything about ATutor other than there's a program out there called ATutor, and it's kind of like Blackboard. That's the definition of a trivial reference. WP:N demands that "sources address the subject directly in detail," and these articles don't. They address Blackboard. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something? There are literally thousands of software titles comparable to BlackBoard, ATutor, and Moodle. Many of which have never seen the light of day outside local school districts. The fact that ATutor gets mentioned at all (and consistently mentioned) demonstrates notability by itself. Find me any detailed article that discusses the Blackboard patent as it relates to Open Source Software that doesn't include a mention of ATutor. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem, again. To the second, "any mention at all" is insignificant unless it comes from a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. If fifty people are talking about ATutor on their self-published web-sites, then we have to discount those voices. Allowing self-published material as an indicator of notability means we should have articles on every band with access to server space and HTML for Dummies. To the third, negative proof. And beyond that, articles that talk about Blackboard and its patent war are justification for an article about Blackboards patent war. I've made this argument quite a few times now, and you can't seem to reply to it. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If ATutor is indeed a piece of unknown crap software, then that would be even *more* interesting because it would tend to make Blackboard's claims of restraint ring hollow and insincere. When you delete ATutor and articles like it, you're essentially depriving readers the opportunity to make that evaluation for themselves, at least through WP. You're also obliterating a piece of history in this particular dispute.
Wikipedia doesn't exist to "stick it to the man." If the software isn't notable, that's the end of it. It has nothing to do with the merits of a David/Goliath story or an evil Blackboard conspiracy. Furthermore, claiming that ATutor's inclusion in Wikipedia is necessary to advocate against Blackboard is an outright WP:NPOV violation. We don't take sides, we reflect what is notable. We're not obliterating history, either. If ATutor ends up getting talked about in enough reliable sources to garner notability, I've no problem seeing an article about it. But as it stands, ATutor isn't notable, and WP:CRYSTAL has something to say about keeping the article because it might be notable later. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "sticking it to the man"? Who said anything about Blackboard being evil? You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head that bears little or no relevance to a neutral, emotionally-detached and objective weighing of *all* material that may be relevant in the well-documented and ongoing dispute regarding intellectual property. I said there's a dispute, I didn't say which side was Goliath, I didn't even say there *was* a Goliath, I said readers should have the opportunity to evaluate that for themselves Go back and read what I said. You seem to be the only one here "taking sides". I'm sure there are many interpretations of who is right in this particular dispute, I offered only one possible interpretation that showed how ATutor could be notable even when the software itself is evaluated in the light least favorable to the people who made the software. This is a point that seems completely lost on you. NPOV is concerned with representing all views clearly and impartially. (emphasis not in original). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem, again. That's three. And again, the argument gives no answer to the original notability quandry.
How much you wanna bet researchers in this area would want to get an idea of prior art? How much you wanna bet they would want to know the history behind the development of Learning Management Systems? How much you wanna bet that all those so called "trivial" mentions would be considered crucial to anyone doing serious investigation in this area?
I'm pretty sure that any serious researcher isn't going to start his investigation by thinking to himself, "I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about this." But that's beside the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and our job is not to establish the record for a company or a product or an idea. That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate. If an article or three that fulfills the requirements of WP:N and WP:V pops up that does discuss the history of LMS and clearly delineates ATutor's role in that history, then we're good. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to. And, if you are claiming that WP:RS has not been met, that's fine, but you're then changing the analysis to one of credibility of cites, and *not* notability. The latter is a recognized basis for wholesale deletion, the former is not.
Fourth ad hominem. The discussion of credibility is an important one, and Wikipedia agrees. The entire reason we abide by doctrine in WP:RS is because credibility matters. Newspapers are built on credibility, because people don't buy a newspaper that doesn't tell the truth. In the same way, Wikipedia does not allow citations from sources of questionable repute -- to include blogs and self-published sources -- because there is no evidence of credibility. We don't quote the crazy corner who shouts about mythical government conspiracies and then make an an article about said conspiracy because he's not a reliable source. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't comparing ATutor to Napster in terms of usage, I was however, making the point that the user stats for a particular software package is not the only meaningful consideration. This is a point that a serious researcher in this area would readily understand; and a point that that some here on WP seem content to totally ignore. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. But this is a red herring, because the argument all along is that ATutor doesn't make any claim towards notability, including a large user base. Because a large user base would invariably generate third-party content, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! You seem to be getting it! Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. That's the only reason why I mentioned Napster (what you call "Napster-then"). That was exactly my point. This is why you can dispense with the (too obvious to mention) fact that ATutor is not on TV, not in the movies, and not changing the way people think about the universe or whatever. This is *not* the "threshold for inclusion" for WP. Even if the software were totally defunct (as is the case with what you call "Napster-then") that is not a conclusive basis for deletion under WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoratio elenchi. Your twisting of the original argument fails to address the questions raised. How is it that I'm talking about WP:RS again?


Let's cut to the chase here: reliable references[edit]

Consequentially, you've provided plenty jabs at web-links suggesting notability for ATutor. You've given me plenty of high-school-forensics-friendly buzzwords like "red herring" and "straw man". You've implied that I have a problem with WP:N (instead of just a problem with its flagrant mis-application). You've even agreed with me that "total end-users is not the end-all for establishing software notability" (which is the only reason why the Napster comparison is even relevant) ... now I'm going to give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. You said: That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate.

You mean reliable sources like these?

Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention. With the exception of the Glasgow Conference, these quotes prove only that ATutor exists. If each of these sentences appears in a book that's 500 pages long, then it doesn't do much to assert the notability of the subject. There was a similar discussion on another deletion debate. An editor argued that a mention of a band by a famous music journalist was a demonstrator of notability and thus of inclusion. When it came to light that the article was of significant length and that the mention was only one sentence in the article, the conclusion was that it was of insufficient weight to demonstrate notability. These sources, essentially, say the same thing as this article from the search results above: that ATutor exists, and is an open-source distance learning tool. Wikipedia requires more than proof of existence. It requires proof of notability. Why is ATutor an important distance learning tool? Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  ... the number of (LMS) has proliferated, and at least a hundred are currently available. ... 
  In evaluating 35 OSS systems, Farrell (2003) has rated ATutor and ILIAS as the best, with 
  Moodle close behind. 
  
  Michael Hotrum and Brian Ludwig
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University
The Hotrum quote is interesting, but misleading. This article is a "Technical Evaluation Report" , also known as software review, only its a software review by a professor, and it's not even about ATutor. From the first sentence of the review, "The ILIAS learning management system (LMS) was evaluated, following its favourable rating in an independent evaluation study of open source software (OSS) products." The professor sets up a curriculum with ILIAS, then asks a group of ten students to review it. They reach the conclusion that, "In comparing an ATutor course website with a simple HTML-based version of the same site, the ten students voted unanimously to retain the simpler site." It goes on to say, "None voted to move to the ATutor platform. This result was disappointing to the course instructor, who had hoped for student feedback justifying a move to the superior support that would be available for ATutor in the University. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Its developers claim that ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market,
  allowing access to all potential learners, course developers, instructors, and administrators,   
  including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies.
  Research conducted for this report did not reveal any other software with the same functionality
  for accessibility, OSS or otherwise.
  Sharon Clark
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University
  (emphasis not in original)
Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs. The quote, which asserts only that ATutor is one of five programs that meet their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability. The article talks mostly about its features and how to install the program -- careful if you plan on doing it with Unix, as that "requires specialized server administration skills".
  This paper describes a project started at the Technical University of Sofia Research & 
  Development Laboratory “E-Learning Technologies” and examines implementation of Learning 
  Design in Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), open source based e-learning 
  environment ATutor.
  DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

  Technological and pedagogical innovation has enabled the development of virtual 
  environments that bring about the possibility of learning with others at a distance. 
  The development of these virtual environments is nowadays an expanding field of research.
  (further in the article)
  3.1 The platform used
  ... using a platform built by a LCMS (Learning Content Management System) and a Groupware. 
  The collaborative learning environment was then developed from the platforms ATutor and 
  ACollab ...
  Collaborative Learning Environments for Teacher Education
  Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
The article, "Learning Design Implementation in SCORM E-Learning Environment" is a scholarly jaunt through the world of SCORM implementation in distance-learning software, which uses ATutor as its test subject. The article is a thrilling discussion of the architecture of such a system, and how students interact with database services to acquire learning units, but again, mentions ATutor only in passing.
And so, in closing, I offer this. ATutor is one of many (dozens and dozens, according to the article) of open-source distance learning tools available to the academic world, and is the subject of research by professors at Athabasca University. These discussions, which read off the features of the program and whether or not ten students like it (they don't), amount to technical reviews and not much more. I've challenged you to provide reliable sources that demonstrate the products notability -- you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do. Along the way, you've spent roughly the same amount of words (more, if you don't count quoted text) insulting me as you have arguing your case. And I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BONUS POINTS: If you can demonstrate familiarity with any key concepts in this subject area, and explain why all of these links are inadequate, and do so without introducing cliches from debating 101; or precisely define what you mean by "trivial mention" ... you will have done a lot to enhance your credibility in this discussion.

Try Google Scholar for plenty of references[edit]

To User:Consequentially (after his/her response to the references)[edit]

You've offered many assertions that seem self-contradictory, unsubstantiated or totally off-topic. I could indicate them all exhaustively, but I'd rather try to focus on the most critical points. If you still wish to dispute this, please help validate my continuing assumption that all your remarks are offered in good-faith, by responding directly to these points.

Consequentially Item1: you've ... spent ... words insulting me

Please quote the exact text where I insulted you. If you do, I will happily either: 1) recant the specific remark(s) and apologize to you, as well as take specific steps to ensure it does not happen again; or 2) explain why the remark(s) is (are) not an insult or attack against you personally in the first place. If you fail to comply with this request, I will disregard this assertion as unsubstantiated and off-topic.
"You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something?",
There seems to be a sizable WP sub-population with the (very unproductive) practice of linking to articles from Category:Logical fallacies as a response to all disagreement. Admittedly, the "Wizard of Oz" comment was off-topic, but, quite frankly, the practice strikes me as very unhelpful, a tad condescending in itself, and it gets old real quick ... my attempt at humor (weak as it was) was not a personal attack, but rather a commentary on this very annoying behavioral pattern.
Nevertheless, I do apologize if this remark sounded disparaging, but this tactic strikes me as the least conducive means toward open discussion. It doesn't seem much better than someone closing their eyes and ears and repeating at the top of their voice " ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...".
Not all disagreement constitutes a logical fallacy ... sometimes people are simply operating on different assumptions. I have one request for you. Please consider that rational people can (and do) see things differently. If you already considered and agree with that point, then you may understand why the "logical fallacy link-fest" strikes some people as very unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head,"
Your "Sticking it to the man" and "David and Goliath" remarks sounded more like a great pitch for a movie, than a response to anything I (or anyone else) had said in this discussion. I never for once claimed there was a "David and Goliath" story or a battle between "good and evil" going on here. My point was (and still is) that someone researching the "Intellectual property" angle would want information on all the key parties, so as to make a balanced evaluation of the merits of their claims. Information relevant to those claims should not be omitted. That seems to me to be what NPOV is all about.
You apparently disagree with me, and that's fine, I can handle disagreement. However, the "David and Goliath" aspect (although fanciful and entertaining) seemed more like storytelling than discussion. In fact, I strongly disagree with the "Blackboard is evil" remarks, since they are a business and I expect them protect their investment using every lawful means available to them. The point is, my personal viewpoints (and yours) should not impede us from trying to view every article from "multiple viewpoints" so as to allow readers to formulate a "back-story" for themselves. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention."
This was another response to the Category:Logical fallacies link-fest ... and also to the fact that you never defined what you consider to be "trivial mention". I still think your definition may not be entirely consistent with (what I consider to be) a direct reading of WP:N.
This indeed may have sounded disparaging, I apologize for that. Please consider, however, that discussion is a two-way street. If there is a point you feel needs to be made multiple times, or by repeated links to a WP article, you might want to consider making it a footnote, and incorporate it by reference. Also it helps if you can define your understanding of key terms, instead of just repeating the terms, that also gets a bit tiresome. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to."
I suggested an option that might help "serious researchers" ... and you suggested that serious researchers don't start with WP. That may be true now, but frankly that is a response that lacks vision, and is (unfortunately) the very kind of attitude that leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.
This was not a personal attack, but rather a suggestion that I think more WP contributors should take to heart. If we (implicitly or expressly) downgrade the overall credibility of Wikipedia while simultaneously contributing to it ... then what the *bleep* are we doing here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone throughout this discussion has been disparaging and hostile, with thinly-veiled phrases that smell strongly of poisoning the well. I refer back to arguments on notability, sources, and the interpretation of policy; you pepper your responses with condescension. Even now, as you issue your list of ultimatums, your tone is sanctimonious and dripping with ridicule. You seem to be misinterpreting the fact that I disagree with you as the fact that I'm a small-minded child who couldn't possibly understand the big scary world of rhetoric and argument. It's to the point now where I'm not going to bother checking this page again until an admin makes his final decision. For me, putting up with your petty attacks isn't worth asserting my point of view. You've done a good job of being a dick. You'll likely interpret this as me running with my tail between my legs, frightened away by your superior intellect and command of language, but in fact, I'm just tired of you. Congratulations, sir. You've exhausted my patience to the point where I'd rather leave this to the rest of AfD votes than deal with you. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You provided specific text, I thank you for that, as it gives me a chance to respond directly. May I suggest that specifics are far more productive than generalizations [Note000]. I don't know you personally, and I have no idea of your preferences or your general communication style. What I interpret as an extremely careful attempt to avoid any hint of "personal insult" you might interpret as "being aloof and sanctimonious" ... do you see the difficulty here?
Reasonable people can (and do) interpret things differently. If misunderstandings can be discussed and avoided, that seems much better than assuming one party is always trying to "defeat" someone else. Not every tale is an epic "David vs Goliath" ... even David had his time of simply tending his sheep. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item2: It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that this remark has been shown to be incorrect; 2) provide reliable evidence in support of it, proving that all of the authors of the cited references are the "people who made it"; or 3) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that the remark is incorrect, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
You've drug this along from the very top of the thread, long after the argument has moved elsewhere. Yes, there are other articles about ATutor. But this is an irrelevant conclusion and empty victory, because it still doesn't address the core issues I've raised since the beginning. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's progress. I'm just attempting to enumerate all the issues here and check off which ones can be thrown out, and which still need to be addressed. The best way to "address core issues" is one at a time, no? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item3: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that more than zero of the cited references surpass the level of material indicated here; or 2) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that this is not a critical issue here, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
Your twisting of this statement into an indictment of all your sources is evidence of the venom with which you approach this discussion. I made that argument against your original claim of "65,000 examples of notability," the majority of which were violations of WP:SPS. Now you're setting it up as a straw man. This argument still applies where I originally made it, and that's the end of it. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my remark above about avoiding generalizations [Note000]. Like I said, I'm attempting nothing more than to see which items still need to be covered, and which do not. One at a time. So far, I have Item2 and Item3 as officially resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am not correct, please clarify. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item4: you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do.

Please explain: 1) How this does not refute your own earlier remark the "only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it" [see Item2 above]; 2) How the personal preferences of (ten) students has anything to do with WP:N, which states notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". (emphasis not in original). 3) How the opinion of "some" (ten) students justifies the conclusion: "alternative to Blackboard that students don't like". If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that this point is not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
Your first is an irrelevant conclusion, responded to above. Your second is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the argument, taking out of context to prevent rhetorical stasis. The personal preferences of ten students are the basis of the paper you site, and the argument is an indictment of the source, not of the article's notability. Bad sources bestow bad notability, and insignificant sources bestow no notability at all. Which I've been saying four about three rounds now. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "Bad sources bestow bad notability" ... unless I am mistaken, we both agree that WP:SPS has now been dealt with and is no longer a concern (Item3). Is there some other definition of "Bad sources" you are referring to here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item5: (Regarding the Sharon Clark cite [22]) Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs ... their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability

Please explain why all of the following do not indicate notability:
Which of these is not notable? The fact that it helps disabled learners? The fact that it is the only software title in this space that is cited as meeting "their" criteria? The fact that "their" criteria are derived from ASTD, an international orgnanization with tens of thousands of active members who specialize in precisely this subject area?
If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that your summary of the Sharon Clark cite is insufficient, and therefore inadequate basis for discrediting the cite itself, or for deleting ATutor.
Because arguing that it's a useful program is not the same as aruging its a notable program. I've got a nifty little device in my dorm room that makes ironing military creases a breeze. It's useful, and plenty of people have asked me to make one for them. But it's not notable. And that's why the indictment of the source was made. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point about the ironing device. If you had: reliable sources; published by laundry appliances experts; and your device was specifically mentioned; and your device was specifically evaluated against criteria devised by a 60 year old international standards body; and your device was the only device cited as passing all the evaluation criteria (as compared to other devices both on the market and off the market); and those criteria were the only such standards established for people with physical disabilities ... are you saying it would still not be notable? If not, can you please describe what else would be needed to make such a device notable? (remember: notability is distinct from "fame" "importance" and "popularity"). dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item6: Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention.

You have yet to define your interpretation of "trivial mention". This is especially troubling since your summary of the citations (Clark for just one glaring example) suggests you are using a definition that is both: 1) unsupported by WP:N; and 2) based on a superficial reading of the references themselves.[6] Please either: 1) specifically define your reliance on "trivial mention"; or 2) otherwise explain why this assertion has merit under a direct reading of WP:N. If you do not comply with this request I will assume you have no clearly-specified definition for this standard, and therefore consider it solely a matter of your personal opinion.dr.ef.tymac 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that explores the structure of learning software and the interaction of "learning units" with students while using ATutor as the medium for that analysis, the merit is for structures of learning software, not for ATutor. If a report is written on a new synthetic rubber that makes superior tires, and the author tested the tires on his home-made go-kart, the notability is directed towards the tires, not the home-made go-kart. I can't make it any simpler than that. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and conclusion[edit]

Here's where I think your reading of the references may be a bit off the mark, and this is a good place to summarize and conclude. Using your "go-kart" analogy, ATutor would be the synthetic rubber *not* the go-kart. If you read the references carefully, you will notice that (in more than one instance) the research is predicated on finding a flexible tool that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of different contexts, just like the "rubber" in your analogy.
For example, in one instance, the "rubber meets the road" in the context of learning environments for goal-based learning among students [2] (see specifically, pages 496 through 498 describing the use of ATutor). In another instance, the "rubber" is adapted to develop a b-learning system for professional development among teachers at the Graduate School of Education of Bragança [23]. These two examples are different categories of use and they entail entirely different research methodologies and different objectives.
Moreover, when someone uses a "new synthetic rubber" on a go-kart, or someone else uses it for a safety helmet, and they publish their results, which are they more likely to explain in exhausting detail, the rubber itself? or the performance characteristics of the go-kart, helmet, or whatever other invention they were trying to perfect? Isn't it reasonable to expect they will only mention the rubber "in passing"? Isn't it reasonable to expect that the person who uses the rubber is not going to be particularly concerned with documenting details about it, just as long as it meets their immediate need? Indeed, if *anyone* is going to go into great detail about the rubber ... wouldn't it be "the people who manufactured the rubber itself?"
My point should be pretty apparent. We've already established (per Item2) that ATutor has been mentioned in reliable sources by folks other than its original inventors. A careful reading of the references also reveals that ATutor has been used in different contexts, for different objectives. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor has been cited in reference to other related issues such as Intellectual property, open source software, accessibility for disabled users, and international standards for adaptive learning technology. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor is uniquely situated as being the only software of its kind cited for full accessibility. All of these should be more than enough to establish notability. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problems fixed . --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Delete. Apparently, no independent secondary sources discuss the subject with non-trivial depth. As the subject is software, the concern is that this is spam. Perhaps if someone could show that this subject is an important part of Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and needs to be split off due to article size issues, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain why the mention in the Looi cite[2] constitutes trivial depth? Also, are you saying that you've read all the references cited here, and all of the references returned by Google Scholar?
That source sounds to me like a primary source. It sounds like it is reporting facts. I’d ask to see a review of ATutor, giving commentary, saying it is good/bad/valuable/worthless. If there are reviews, then I expect to see them added to the article, with claims clearly referenced to them. A guide to using ATutor, or a summary of what it does, or a review of the class of software, is not good enough. That is primary information, which is good, but a good secondary source is needed. On the face of it, the article reads to me like a planted promotional piece, written by an advocate/author, sourced entirely from the publisher’s site. I see above that there may possibly be secondary sources. One I couldn’t get, a second I would have to pay for. I can follow your ref#5, and I find only three mentions in passing. None have been integrated into to the article. So I gave up. The article claims that “ATutor is now used around the world…” If the article provided independent verification of this claim, then I would be more impressed. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, can you please specify which source you mean when you say "that source sounds to me like a primary source." (e.g., the link or ISBN) so I can know we are talking about the same thing? Also, can you define what you mean by "primary information" I am assuming you mean "distributed by the developer of the software itself" (if that's exactly what you mean, no need to clarify, if not, please do). Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By primary, I meant the standard scholarly term primary source, which is in keeping with usage at WP:NOR. My problem was that, as per Consequentially, the references seemed to be only inconsequential mentions, reporting features of multiple software packages. I was also influenced by frustration with tedious arguments here, confusing referencing here, and completely inadequate referencing at the article itself. The article is now fixed. The referencing is now plenty good-enough. --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is it that Open Source software cited in numerous scholarly publications counts as "spam"? Isn't scholarly sources and Open Source what Wikipedia is all about? dr.ef.tymac 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous scholarly publications would be good. Add them to the article if they belong. Wikipedia is about anything that other people have already written about. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Instead of adding cites and references here, I've gone ahead and some to the article directly, now the article has some inline cites whereas before this AfD started, it had zero. This should help people who wish to fairly evaluate the issues here, but are too busy to read through all the discussion. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ Perhaps the best proof of this point is Napster. An article about a well-known software title that satisfies WP:N even though it is no longer used at all.
  2. ^ a b c Looi, Chee-Kit (2005). Artificial Intelligence in Education Supporting Learning Through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology. IOS Press. ISBN 1586035304.
  3. ^ Williams, Roy (2003). 2nd European Conference on E-Learning Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, 6-7 November 2003. Academic Conferences Limited. ISBN 0954457749.
  4. ^ Amant, Kirk (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 1591409993.
  5. ^ Li, Qing (2004). New Horizon In Web-based Learning. World Scientific. ISBN 9812560297.
  6. ^ For example, a footnote in WP:N shows how a biographical article on a political figure is not enough to establish notability of a jazz band WP:N#fn_1. The mention of the band is indicated as a "trivial mention". In contrast, all of the cites provided here relate directly to the subject matter of this article. The cites don't mention ATutor in the context of articles on totally different subjects (biographical articles or articles about musicians). It is directly mentioned (and even described as unique) by educators and evaluators who specialize in this area. Even in the instances where it is given a "one sentence mention" ... those articles relate ATutor directly to the subject matter of the entire article itself (i.e., Intellectual property rights, theories and methodologies in distance education, and compliance with standards for disabled learners).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --DarkFalls talk 06:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McSwiggen Village[edit]

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

The village itself is very briefly mentioned in Family Guy, and does not warrant its own article. Saget53 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrims Mennonite Church[edit]

Pilgrims Mennonite Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Nyttend 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, evidently WP:POINT nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.[edit]

Amarillo Design Bureau Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet notability guidelines Obewanz 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this entry asserts relevance under the Wikipedia Texas project - my response to that inclusion is as follows:

I don't know where to start on this issue, but this is absurd. You should not start a project on a state and then begin to list advertisements for companies that operate within the state. If the article was about a state department or similar entity then it would certainly be appropriate. Company listings are found in the phone book, both online and in print. Given the instistence on removal of certain other companies based on non-notability criteria, this article too should be deleted. Obewanz 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mr. Groggy Dice... If I am trying to understand the difference between the two and why certain articles remain when other articles are removed, is it not appropriate to question the actions and use the recent experience as a reference? Or should I merely keep everything in the abstract to keep from offending anyone?

Now that we are past that issue, please explain the difference between AFD and MFD? And since you so aptly noted that I might need help figuring out how to put it up on AFD, maybe you would be willing to assist. Also, could you please provide the link to WP:POINT so that I may examine your reference? Also, if information has been sitting in WP for quite awhile and not been reviewed, yet EXACTLY the same information is submitted recently and receives Speedy Deletion, shouldn't that indicate that someone needs to examine the existing entries to determine why they should stay versus the ones that no one will ever see because of Speedy Deletion?

This whole thing smacks of a political power-ride, if you ask me - which is completely and totally inappropriate in the context of an "Encyclopedia". If you are going to delete new entries based on a given criteria, then you should be prepared to evaluate existing entries based upon the same criteria. Then again, that would be the Non-PC - correct thing to do.

Just to add a little further information to your comment; I chose this entry because it was obvious to me that it was a marketing campaign. The information presented only tended to raise the self-importance of the game, the company, and it's owner(s). It does not present any information on how this game has affected gaming culture, provided anything notable to the gaming community, nor has it even incorporated information found outside of it's own published material. This seems to be clear to me given the fact that I have been pointed to WP:CORP for information regarding this controversy.

Basically, the process is similar to the one you already went through with MFD, just using afd instead of mfd on the templates. Directions are at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. However, I hope you reconsider. SFB is one of the oldest and longest-running wargame series, and your nomination of ADB is likely to be seen as WP:POINT sour grapes over your own company's article getting deleted. It will just alienate people further. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobby Blackwolf Show[edit]

The Bobby Blackwolf Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:WEB. Doesn't contain any reliable independent sources. Me5000 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inforonment[edit]

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

Portmanteau of 'information' and 'environment'. Uncited, no verifiable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NEO. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 16:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The song itself doesn't meet any of the proposed standards for songs under WP:MUSIC, but it having charted in the Netherlands may make a DRV of the artist's article more persuasive - doesn't save the song article, however. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Let Go (Linda Kiraly song)[edit]

Can't Let Go (Linda Kiraly song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable future single, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Artist article has already been deleted as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Kiraly. Prod was removed without explanation by an anon IP with no other edits. --Finngall talk 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. Thanks. --Finngall talk 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding valet[edit]

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

This article seems to be at best a neologism and at worst a hoax. When PRODded with request for verification, it was edited with a link that does not seem to include the term. Moonriddengirl 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfy so that creator can merge contents into the book author's biography.. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Aestheticus[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits. Realkyhick 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Agreement reached between nominator and original author to merge portions of this article with that of the book's author. Additional sourced provided since nomination solve the sources issue as well. Request that this discussion be closed with result of Merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1. "Offers a wealth of original and critical thinking." American Anthropologist
2. "Homo Aestheticus calls for a counterrevolution in our thinking about art. It is timely, provocative, and immensely valuable." Philosophy and Literature
3. "A wide-ranging essay on the place of art in human evolution and in the future, at once learned and spirited" Howard Gardner, the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He also holds positions as Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Senior Director of Harvard Project Zero. In 2004 he was named an Honorary Professor at East China Normal University in Shanghai. Among numerous honors, Gardner received a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1981 and in 2000 he received a Fellowship from the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. In 2005, he was selected by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines as one of 100 most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has received honorary degrees from twenty-one colleges and universities, including institutions in Ireland, Italy, Israel, and Chile. The author of over twenty books translated into twenty-six languages, and several hundred articles, Gardner is best known in educational circles for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments.

Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone is silly enough to write an article about me, then you can argue my notability all night long. Heck, I'd probably speedy-delete myself. But this isn't about me, or even you personally, although you seem to be trying to make it personal if the message you left on my talk page is any indication. It all boils down to the fact that 1) Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews or personal essays, but an encyclopedia where subjects are presented with as much source material to verify as possible; and 2) the notability of the book itself, given the source citations (or lack thereof) presented in the article. Realkyhick 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you now have is NOT a book review. NOR is it a personal essay, any more than ANY other existing entry in Wikipedia is a personal essay. Every sentence in the article is verifyible by anyone who cares to look at the book: every one of them is a verifiable fact, not an opinion or a theory or original research. When I say "she said 'X'" I may have paraphrased it, but that she said 'X' in as many words is a FACT, and I have not only documented EVERY SENTENCE in the article by page number, but I have told you that I had ELLEN'S confirmation that my article is an accurate description of her book. No reasonable reader would need the exalted journals I mentioned to say Ellen is a significant anthropologist, or that her main contribution is notable, particularly since - again as I have already told you - she is ALREADY in Wikipedia, including mention of her book Homo Aestheticus, and of 'making special' as her most notable contribution. You and anyone else could check that beyond ANY doubt whatsoever should that be your real concern. And I don't think that Howard Gardner saying it's a good book adds anything to what I wrote, which is far more specific - if his quote DOES add anything I didn't cover, please tell me what this is, and if you are right, I will add it. If, though, you are worried that I might have made up these quotes, then take a look at the back of the dust jacket of 'Art and Intimacy', also by Ellen Dissanayake, and published by the University of Washington in 2000. You will find them all there, back of the dust jacket. In terms of page number, publication, and date of my references, that, I think satisfies the last item on the exclusion list you seem to be working through. Unless of course, you think that the University of Washington is not a worthy source? If so, then please say so and I will take it up with them - I'm sure they would be interested to know your opinions. And on the personal issue, I have no problem with you, only with the strange way you are seeking to apply Wikipedia's rules in this particular case. Everything in the article is factual, everything is documented, everything is verifiable, and the subject of the article I have clearly documented as notable. I have now also documented where these additional quotes in praise of the book come from. If there are any OTHER reasons why you think Wikepedia readers should not know about the ideas presented in her book, please let us all know, otherwise I'd be obliged if you would openly withdraw your objections to it. Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So nice to see a closely reasoned argument from someone claiming the right to judge ideas. Thanks Nyttend. I wonder what would happen to justice if the prosecution did not need to present a case, and could instead convict based on their conscious or subconscious prejudice?--Wavecreststudios 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Second, a bit of research establishes that this book is notable with-in its field. Here is a limited list of scholarly articles that quote Ms. Dissanayake's text. (I found these using Project Muse, the online journal database. It should be noted that project muse archives a limited number of journals, and it is likely further articles quoting the book have appeared.)
The Chaucer Review 39.3 (2005) 225-233
Philosophy of Music Education Review 11.1 (2003) 23-44
Criticism 47.4 (2007) 421-450
Journal of American Folklore 116.462 (2003) 444-464
Leonardo - Volume 38, Number 3, June 2005, pp. 239-244
Journal of the History of Ideas 64.4 (2003) 581-597
The Journal of Aesthetic Education 41.1 (2007) 90-104
Philosophy and Literature 23.2 ( 1999) 393-413
Philosophy and Literature 25.2 (2001) 251-277
The Journal of Aesthetic Education 39.2 (2005) 36-57
-Also, you can read a review of the book in question here. The text was first printed in Philosophy and Literature 18 (1994).
-My vote is merge: Though I believe this is book is notable, I am voting that the material in the current Homo Aestheticus article be rewritten to include sources and merged with the article on its Ellen Dissanayake. My limited research showed that a number of authors had written books or articles discussing the concept of a Homo Aestheticus. The homo aestheticus article should discuss the term in general not as it is used in one book. Fixer1234 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is fine with me. I'm not sure if I would have to check and report on all the literature for the merge to take place (I really don't have time for so large an enterprise), or whether it would be enough to merge the existing article and list the other references mentioned above for people to follow up should they wish. My only purpose here was to see if it was possible to start using Wikipedia to pull together the existing strands of knowledge about Bioaesthetics as a framework for researchers, and I had not realised - if that is the case - that I would need to review the whole literature, or that Project Muse was available for me to do that. When I was asked for evidence of what I claimed in the article - and it IS a description, not a review - then I made the changes I thought had been requested. I expected to make changes, but I had thought people would give constructive criticism rather than try to squash the knowledge it contained. Anyway, I really appreciate the input and help. As Fixer1234 suspects, this was my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia - Ellen Dissanayake has a lot to say about my subject, so I wanted to start with her book - and I was totally astonished, dismayed and discouraged at the reaction I got.
But then when I noted from realkyhick's user page that he was a strong supporter of Pentecostal evangelism and the Assemblies of God, I jumped to the conclusion that he had some kind of search in operation to alert him to any new article relating to Evolution (how else, I thought, did he spot it so fast amongst all that must be going on - must have been spotted almost the second it went up) and that his motive was to suppress the ideas it contained. Evolution is at the core of this article and is a prime target for evangelist thinking, after all. And the speed with which the article was AfD-ed, not just queried, and what I saw as the intransigent position adopted and the apparent inability to respond to the points I made - this all added to my suspicions, but of course, that is all they are - suspicions. I don't know him, and I don't know how he found the article so fast, I don't know if that was the motive, and when challenged he certainly denied that it was. What I WOULD say, though, is that in good justice systems, if a judge is aware that he has a conflict of interest in trying a case, then he disqualifies himself from that case - or faces trouble if he doesn't. Similarly if a jury member has a vested interest, or for clear reasons is unlikely to be open to reason in a trial, the defence has the right to object to that juror. Why, I wonder, is there no such protocol in Wikipedia? Are we not open to wholesale censorship from any and every vested interest or fundamentalist group with enough organisation and clout? Until Fixer1234's input I was in despair of the standards I saw on Wikipedia, the apparent inability to present a coherent case or to assist in the salvage of the article, and about to tell everyone what I thought of their professionalism, and retire from Wikipedia for good, advising everyone I know in my field not to waste their time with the website. I really think editors need to have a set of professional standards they should abide by. That's obvious, isn't it? --Wavecreststudios 12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wavecreststudios: There is a new page patrol on Wikipedia, which allows editors to see a list of recently created pages. This may be how Realkyhick found the article - it's a good way for new articles to be checked and classified. kateshortforbob 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which, as any cursory glance at my edit history would show, is exactly how I found the article. I spend a great deal of time (more than I should) on new page patrol. There are a number of editors and administrators that can attest to this. Furthermore, I take great offense at Wavecreststudios an his continuing accusations that I am on some sort of crusade on behalf of the church I belong to. I consider this to be a personal attack, which is a strong violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:PA). I do not go surfing around Wikipedia, seeking to eliminate any view with which I or my church disagree. Again, even the most cursory glance at my user contributions page would reveal that my only agenda is to keep Wikipedia free of articles which clearly do not belong there, regardless of ideology. I am not a juror who should be summarily cast aside because the defendant doesn't like him. I brought the charge, for lack of a better term. I strongly stand by my original reason for nominating this article for deletion: "This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits." The original author's insistence on making this a personal issue goes against the very principle of "professional standards" that he seeks to have Wikipedia impose. I will add that his overly combative, exceedingly defensive attitude expressed here, and the snarky remarks he has made to other editors in this discussion, will not stand him in good stead with anyone at all — that's not Wikipedia policy, but pure human nature. As for greatly condensing the content in this article and merging it into the article of the book's author, that seems to be quite reasonable, and I would not oppose this outcome at all. Realkyhick 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The whole point of new page patrol is to eliminate poorly written, non referenced or not notable articles as soon as possible. That is the easiest way to find them. I do not understand why people continually post articles that do not cite references and then complain when they are deleted so quickly. Do the research construct, the article in sandbox then post it when it is complete. This would solve these types of issues. @ Wavecreststudios The attacks on Realkyhick are uncalled for. If you look at his history you can see that he edits and deletes articles as they come down the pipe and not by using some Evangelical Wikipedia Search Engine guiding his edits. Helmsb 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is why was this article marked for deletion within five minutes of its appearance? As someone totally new to Wikipedia I could have been asked to remove the two value judgements in the article, which would have changed it from a book review into a summary, and summaries, since they add no new information, do not fall within Wikipedia's description of original research, and it would then not have needed to be deleted. Result? Article saved. Regarding the references, it would also have been possible to mark it as requiring references and soliciting people to add them - as, for example, was done on the article "Essays", which has not been marked for removal, by you or anyone else. The question here is why you and the others who leapt into your footsteps, did not choose to do that? This was your first response to a new arriver to Wikipedia, someone attempting to make a useful contribution to his academic field, and to Wikipedia in general. Your first response to me was highly combative, and I have simply defended myself against what I see as a series of destructive criticisms aimed at removal of useful (and existing) information to people in my field. If you would like to explain why you marked this article for removal within five minutes of its appearance instead of attempting to save it, then I am sure we will all be interested to know. As for whether defending myself from destructive, faulty and unreasoned criticism will stand me 'in good stead' with other editors, I am sure they will all make up their own minds. Fixer1234 took a constructive approach, and I am endebted to him for that. The article is better for his intervention, and future articles from me, if I think it is worthwhile trying in future, will be better too. If I alienate combative editors, though, who seek to destroy first contributions that are worthy of being saved, then so be it. If the worst that happens is that they don't help me, then I haven't lost much, have I? Regarding your suggestion of merging the article, I have no problem with that, as I have said, but I would like you to explain your reasons for wanting it 'greatly condensed', and would like to know exactly which features of the article you would like removed. --201.93.232.219 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I have already listed why it was marked for deletion within five minutes. We don't make a distinction as to whether an article that qualifies for speedy deletion comes from an inexperienced user or a veteran. The call is made based on the article, not the author. Our so-called combative response was in large part based on your own reactions. Now on to how to fix the article: 1) Merge it into a new section of the author's article. 2) Cut each of the sub-sections down to about half their current lengths. I'll leave you to decide what, since you're much more familiar with the subject. 3) Keep all the references, although it would help greatly if you could link them to an online site where they can be found, for verification purposes. (I know that sometimes the smaller journals don't have web sites, so that may not be possible; if not, just leave it as is.) You might even want to include a quote or two from some of those sources to boost the assertion of notability, and make the section more interesting in general. If you're willing to do that, then we would turn this article into a "redirect," which means that someone who types "Homo Aestheticus" into the Search box would be sent to the author's article. Realkyhick 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on the merge this weekend, when I get back from a trip. And I'm quite happy for it to be a redirect as you suggest. Will prune it as far as I can, but it may not be to half. Other, possibly, than that, we have a consensus. --201.93.232.219 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sounds good. As you may have seen at the top of the discussion, I've requested that this be closed with a consensus for merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Read the article again - it is purely a summary and therefore not covered by this definition. Or to say it another way "The purpose of original research is to produce new knowledge" There is no new knowledge in this article, it consists of a summary of the book, nothing else. Therefore it is NOT original research.
--201.93.232.219 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cl dav public school[edit]

Cl dav public school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability and no context. Keb25 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera South[edit]

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

New, not-yet notable organization - previously deleted[24], and recreated by User:Smitheys1 who appears to be org's general director AUTiger » talk 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cat=M

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; default to keep. — Coren (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis[edit]

Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. Also, most of the content of this list is not veriafiable and/or overly vague. Mrs. Kennedy is notable, but the cultural depictions are not. Tomj 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Central High School[edit]

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

School fails WP:ORG due to lack of substantial independent coverage. The article has existed since August 2006, has seen a lot of "funny" unsourced content, and survived a PROD, but notability is still not established. Sources given are not independent, or not reliable (one seems to be a private page). So, I suppose, notability will never be established. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I found it. Here's your proof of notability, brought to you by The International Herald Tribune here. At the very least, the Associated Press article ran on the newspaper's Web site, but it seems to indicate it also ran in the newspaper itself. Together with the description/excerpts of articles behind the subscription/archive walls, notability is demonstrated and is airtight under anyone's definition of WP:N.Noroton 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opernturm[edit]

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

Non-notable skyscraper that is still under construction. speedy tag was removed four times by author, they stated they wouldn't remove it again, after which it was removed by an anon. Improbcat 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag was repeatedly removed by the creator of the article, then after the creator said they would no longer remove it, it was removed by an anon account which only edited that article (making me strongly suspect the creator had logged out then continued to remove tags and edit their article). The speedy deletion tag specifically says for the creator to not remove the tag. Thus the sending to AfD. Improbcat 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gray[edit]

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

Aricle was previously deleted under an expired PROD claiming subject did not meet WP:BIO and was recreated by same user. Subject still does not meet WP:BIO. -- Merope 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense. Will also salt. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Walker[edit]

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

The CSD nonsense tag keeps getting deleted by the creator, and if this carries on the page will never get deleted. Pages exactly this have been deleted before [check the page's deletion history, about 5/6 times!]. RichardΩ612 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edumate[edit]

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

No independent sources are given for this software; it fails WP:CORP. Some users expressed contrary opinions on the talk page (although their arguments do not sound convincing to me), so I'm sending it here rather than to PROD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was There is no consensus here for deletion. This does not preclude of course; merging, cleaning up, sourcing, and or redirecting.. Navou banter 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of inventions shown on American Inventor[edit]

List of inventions shown on American Inventor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of the items on the page are notable for their own articles. Grouping a bunch of NN items together does not IMHO suddenly make them notable. The main American Inventor page already lists the finalists for each season, and IMHO that is enough. TexasAndroid 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, simply a content fork from the main article. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur filmography[edit]

Tupac Shakur filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obsolete page that does not add much to what Tupac Shakur#Filmography already has. This is not extensive enough to warrant its own article, like say Robert De Niro filmography. A very similiar afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent filmography, resulted in a delete. Spellcast 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and don't forget the redirect, Tupac Shakur Filmography. Spellcast 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to merge this. The table in the main article is the standard format for filmographies. The "description" row explains what the film is about and that should simply be kept in the film page. Spellcast 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cash[edit]

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

Article about a musician that was originally tagged as speedy until an independent editor removed the tag. Assertion of notability or not, I believe the subject does not meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. CIreland 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Madison[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kelly Madison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Nomination withdrawn, per AnonEMouse. Epbr123 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how does she pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:V or WP:N? If you had read the previous nomination, you'd have noticed that I was actually quite involved with it. My arguments from that afd are still valid, and the WP:PORNBIO criteria have been modified since then. Epbr123 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A column in Juggs is not mainstream coverage. The coverage in Adult Industry News were press releases by her company and therefore not independant sources. Epbr123 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't part of the WP:PORNBIO criteria then, and still isn't. Juggs is barely notable, let alone its columnists. Epbr123 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to do rather better than just claim she isn't, although the fact that you have a large "Articles I Have Deleted" section on your user page almost exclusively devoted to porn stars could certainly lead someone to draw conclusions. In any event, with nearly 270,000 Google hits and over seven hundred unique hits (by contrast, "United States" has only nine hundred), Madison overwhelmingly satisfies WP:BIO's criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Chalk me up for a Strong Keep.  RGTraynor  18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already countered every argument here asserting her notability. To counter your's, WP:PORNBIO states "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)". Next. Epbr123 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't "countered" a thing. "No, that source doesn't count" or "No, she isn't notable" are assertions, not evidence.  RGTraynor  20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all as promo-material. Pascal.Tesson 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Chicken Wing Hunt[edit]

Great Chicken Wing Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Chicken wing hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matt Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These three articles have been created about a search for great chicken wings that will apparently be the subject of a documentary. The external links suggest that this is at best a local event and doesn't rise to the level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps if the documentary is made and released to the public, there will be some notability then. But as of now, WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Deli nk 12:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No context or source is provided, so there's no assurance that this isn't junk content, and there's too little to bother with merging. Cool Hand Luke 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dristikon[edit]

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

Non-notable event of an institution. Keb25 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Screen Network Productions[edit]

Big Screen Network Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising Joedoedoe 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changelings in popular culture[edit]

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

"Hey look, it changes shape!" Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. All important aspects are already covered by the main article. Eyrian 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have attempted to begin the process of re-integrating the most salient material into the article in chief. The instant text here should be moved to a subpage of the talk page per Wikipedia:Subpages for further revision and reference. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are some conflicting sources but in analyzing them, it seems apparent that he was an artist from the former USSR, wounded in battle a couple of times and lost his family in the Holocaust, but what distinguishes him (and notably absent from his biography although the sources are there) is his arts career. He exhibited at the National Gallery of Moscow, possibly but probably not at the NY Met or Tate (a possible confusion between where he exhibited and where he was a member of the gallery's society, but perhaps a temporary exhibition may have included his works, but all this is unsourced). Given that, and the divergent opinions expressed below, there is no consensus to delete this article. Carlossuarez46 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hendel Lieberman[edit]

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

While this person may have been very righteous in his own right, it is hard to fathom why there should be a "biography" about him on Wikikipedia. He is neither a famous personality nor a famous artist as the article tendentiously claims. Violates WP:NN and does not meet the standards for WP:BIO. IZAK 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Loughborough Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not even a school, it's a non notable organizaiton in the school, apparently written by the students themselbes, with few good references. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention a host of othe acheivents to unique and numorous to mention here.Spanmandoo 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]
  1. ^ LBoroSU | Home Page
  2. ^ https://www.lcr1350.co.uk
  3. ^ BUSA Action - BUSA
  4. ^ http://www.heepi.org.uk/green%20gown%202006-7/times%20higher%20ad.pdf
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Bar_None
  6. ^ Students’ Unions receive Sound Impact Awards for being green | New Consumer
  7. ^ The National Student Survey
  8. ^ Flix: Loughborough Students Cinema :: Information
  • I didn't include those pages because I thought they were student unions, but rather because they were organizations associated with colleges that demonstrated notability. Student Unions as a whole really aren't showing that much wider notability to me. Mention in the article on the university and college? Sure, go ahead, that's reasonably valid. Articles on their own? I'm still quite highly doubtful. And this applies to colleges in the UK, Australia, the US, Canada, and anywhere else. Especially when silly stuff like owning a building is used to justify inclusion. Owning a building may matter if it's covered in other sources, like say [27] Rice University getting a bit of ownership of Yankee Stadium, but I've seen nothing to indicate that's the case here. And you may not have noticed, but there's a LOT of student-related organizations with questionable articles on Wikipedia. I've looked through Category:Student societies by country, and I'm highly doubtful about the vast majority of them. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, by the way, I'm not limiting my concerns just to Student unions, but any college-affiliated organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we just have different opinions. I looked at the UK, Australia and New Zealand categories and I saw a lot of articles that to me are clearly about notable organisations. Whether they demonstrate it in the article is another matter, but to me they clearly could. There are a minority that may not be notable and I have nominated one to AfD. Since the majority of us are or have been students, we often have false modesty and down grade the notability of university organisations and people, while we have no problem about some one who played 5 games of professional football. However this general discussion really should be somewhere else. --Bduke 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know about you, but for me, it has nothing to do with modesty or my personal feelings about the organizations. And I do have problems with some of the standards for pro-sports, though I think the comparable level in these cases is more like having the guy who drives the team bus with an article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 While I might have closed this as no consensus, the article contains some good references. Obviously OR should be removed if possible, but that can be dealt with separately by editing. Assertions that all articles of the form "_ in popular culture" by nature violate Wikipedia policy have been discounted as there is no consensus that that is the case. Pharmboy makes a good point about possible renaming. JoshuaZ 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix in popular culture[edit]

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

Long list of trivial references. The referenced examples of antiquity have nothing but the fact that they are mentioned. No further understanding or analysis, all of which is contained in phoenix's already excellent sections on the myth and usage. Delete as an unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO). Eyrian 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 16:23:35

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

The result was delete, promo. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizdom Web[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 20:13:11

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fort Benning. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless Fort Benning[edit]

God Bless Fort Benning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local event. A redirect to Fort Benning and a note in that article would probably be acceptable. -- RHaworth 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro. Michael Dimond[edit]

Bro. Michael Dimond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod contested for no reason (at least no reason given) I prod'd because I find no notability listed in the article. Millions of people have "founded" websites. Myself - I have about 5 of them. But I know I am notable for that. If this particular website is notable, and by inference it's founder, no one has said so in the article, which is where it should be said. Information on why someone is notable should not be inferred but shared with everyone in the article, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Postcard Cathy 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:SNOW and well done to Edison for his improvements. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panty raid[edit]

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

This article has never had any reliable sources. Most of the content is a "popular culture" section, most of which appears to be original research. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. If at some point it's no longer a WP:CRYSTAL violation and there's more meat on the bones than it's planned for (some unnamed date in) 2008, it may be appropriate but now it's pure speculation Carlossuarez46 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fflam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fflam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disclaimer: I nominated this article for deletion last time, too. Telsa (talk)

What you're looking at is the update from July (when they said the weather forecast was too bad, so they were postponing.) They have released the cancellation announcement, but they haven't updated their website. The Fflam website has claimed "upcoming", "to be announced", "real soon now", "no, don't cancel, we're really happening", "we'll announce something about the camping soon", "next week", "by the end of the month", "as soon as we can confirm", "we can't tell you yet", "but it will be worth the wait" about practically everything to do with this festival since its inception: this ranges from who the bands will be, which bands have actually confirmed, whether there will be camping, where there will be camping, whether there will be day tickets, children's tickets, parking, or even refunds ever since the thing was announced. I don't think that website remotely qualifies as a reliable source, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used as free advertising.
I think this is a textbook example of why Wikipedia articles should describe only what's already happened and not what is claimed to happen; and of why sources other than the publicists should be preferred. Other sources do exist, incidentally: if you have some time to spare, you could browse the discussion off-site about it, which is 90-odd pages of "so, um, has anyone heard anything definite?" and "is this happening?" or go to the local paper website and type "Fflam" into the search engine. I suspect the inquest will run and run, but I still don't think that a festival which didn't happen is notable.
Telsa (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also on BBC News website from 3 August - see [29] – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need articles on music festivals that were supposed to happen, then were postponed, then were canceled, now might be rescheduled for next year? Seems like glaring speculation and completely non-notable.Falard 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Iljae[edit]

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

The current version of the article is unsupported by reliable Chinese historical sources (e.g., the Book of Han) and, frankly, is entirely fantastical. The current style of the article also violates WP:V and WP:MOS-ZH (and mildly violates WP:MOS-KO, as, based on both of those style manuals, the article should be named Jin Ridi) and is unsalvageable. (I also find it distressing that the user who created this article, Kprideboi (talk · contribs), has been similarly disregarding WP:V and WP:MOS-ZH on many articles that he has written lately, although this one is particularly egregious since this person was a clearly established Chinese historical personality on whom a fantastical account is being presented as being factual.) Moreover, the version of the events plainly also conflicts with the more reliable datings of both Gaya Confederacy and Silla, as given by those articles (and those dates are clealry not written by Chinese editors). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Amelie von Herzberg[edit]

M. Amelie von Herzberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of this person is not established by the article; googling his name only returns 2 hits, both to this article. EyeSereneTALK 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween II (Remake)[edit]

Halloween II (Remake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. See WP:CRYSTAL. There's next to nothing known about this film, save that some of the actors are signed on and that Rob Zombie isn't going to do it. That's hardly enough information to constitute an article, especially since they probably won't make one if the first one doesn't do too well. CyberGhostface 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning (film)[edit]

The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. See WP:CRYSTAL. No sources at all to suggest that this film is even being made. Is probably a mixture of wishful thinking and speculation. (Note: this is not to be confused with The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning which is a legit graphic novel) CyberGhostface 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing Off Clouds[edit]

Bouncing Off Clouds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article says it itself really. "It is considered to be the second single from her album American Doll Posse." - fails WP:CRYSTAL Giggy UCP 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royall VR Marketing[edit]

Royall VR Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable marketing company bobanny 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sienar Fleet Systems[edit]

Sienar Fleet Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar to this AfD: notable in fictional universe, but no real-world notability. Lacks citations, and appears (although hard to tell because of lack of citations) to repeat in-universe plot summary from the Star Wars expanded universe. More appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FICTION asks us to develop articles with an out-of-universe perspective, and WP:NOTABILITY demands that we only print things which have significance. This article does little to further either cause. Consequentially 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The French Connection (hockey)[edit]

The French Connection (hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article of a group of hockey players. The players have no significant notability aside from the fact that they were All-Stars/Hall of Famers. This notability isn't related to the fact that they actually played together; they would have same stats no matter if they played together or not. They just happened to play together. Should Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have a special article just about them together because they are two teammates who have had great success? Ksy92003(talk) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from the fact that they played together in the NHL? For the better part of a decade? To my mind all sports is a bunch of otherwise non-notable people who play together. Speciate 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the players aren't notable... okay, I did, but that's not how I meant it... I re-worded it above. Ksy92003(talk) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that this group of players was perceived as an entity by sports commentators at the time. People may turn to Wikipedia to decipher this oft-used term, which is difficult to research because of the loose association of the players through time and the confounding effects of the French Connection film. Speciate 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating a grounder[edit]

Eating a grounder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (and absolutely vile) sexual slang. Google yields five hits, two from Urban Dictionary, two from Answers.com, and one from what I think is a gay porn site. I'm afraid to open it and find out, but that doesn't change that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Consequentially 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True but I can't see 'eating a grounder' doing much for Wikipedia's reputation. Nick mallory 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An awesome one. Consequentially 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Erm, I was just looking up something work-related and must have clicked on "edit" by accident. Honest. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it, OK. Iain99 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. My argument was primarily the non-notability. When I said "I'm afraid to open it," I was referring to the gay porn site, not the article. Nomination for deletion without reading it? Pft. Consequentially 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always found electric kettles pretty hot... --Targeman 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A suicide's not really a claim to notability. Wizardman 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kleb Intermediate School[edit]

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

Another spam article about a non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vistas High School

I see the source that it happened, and it confirms that it is a possible weak keep--but I remain concerned that this is one relatively minor incident in a world of greater violence, and the rest of the article contains only directory information. I would recommend withdrawing the article, looking for additional content, and then re-inserting it. DGG (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete, default to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klein ISD Vistas High School[edit]

Klein ISD Vistas High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another spam non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be considered "revolutionary" if reliable sources think so, but as of now, no such sources are found Corpx 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it a school or a program? – Dreadstar † 15:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I can think of lots of non-notable things on which I could write a NPOV stub with references. --Fang Aili talk 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having multiple verifiable references is Wikipedia's definition of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability Truthanado 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read that link. Notability is much more complicated than a "definition". Even if we were to accept the theory that multiple verifiable references=notability, there is still only one independent reference in the article. --Fang Aili talk 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little more research turns up this umbrella organization: Klein Independent School District. – Dreadstar †
Good shout about the article name. The correct name, as can be seen here, is Vistas High School to which I have moved the page. TerriersFan 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking action on my observation, but I still don't think there is a "Vistas High School", here is a listing of their high schools, and the closet thing is the "Vistas High School Program". I will contact Vistas to clarify. I should know more by tomorrow. – Dreadstar † 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at that list, the Klein ISD covers a lot more than just a single, or even four high schools. A whole list of schools. – Dreadstar † 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, curious. OTOH if you go here and then follow the links on the left: Campuses->High Schools it lists five schools, the bottom one of which is called Vistas and leads to a website entitled Vistas High School. I await with interest the outcome of your enquiries :-) TerriersFan 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird, isn't it? For a high school to have the word "Program" as part of its name is unusual, (Vistas High School Program - 12550 Bammel N. Houston) then the address on Brammel seems to be a sort of hub for several different schools (Klein Iintermediate, Wunderlich Intermediate, Eiland Elementary, Eppa Island Elementary, Greenwood forest Elementary, Kaiser Elementary, Kienk Elementary, and Nitsch Elementary). I tried calling them today but they were already gone for the day. I'll try again tomorrow - I also sent an email. – Dreadstar † 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Intermediate School[edit]

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

Yet another school article without notability, and only spam. Jmlk17 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a comment about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific arguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would readily endorse any such proposal. I think it is bad form (and, though it's nice to assume good faith, probably WP:POINT-related) to attack most (all?) schools in a single targeted district at one time. As the unsigned comment above said, it doesn't give editors a fair chance to evaluate each individual school on its merits; it is comparable to the scenario of illicitly pushing an article through speedy deletion when it really belongs in regular deletion. --xDanielxTalk 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse the no consensus proposal. It definitely seems like almost every school in this district is currently being targeted and the allegation is either that the articles are spam or advertising, which seems like a cop-out and does not adhere to the assume good faith in my eyes. Why don't we give each article a chance to be improved before just deleting them?-MBK004 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Oak High School[edit]

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

Another spam article for a school. Jmlk17 06:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benignus Elementary School[edit]

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

Another example of a spam article, irrelevant and non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious--why do you think it should be kept? --Fang Aili talk 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because two wrongs make a right.--WaltCip 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hildebrandt Intermediate School[edit]

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

An article about a school that is barely even beyond a stub, with spam and OR. Jmlk17 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klein Independent School District with history left intact for anyone to merge any info to the District article that they think should go there. JoshuaZ 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strack Intermediate School[edit]

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

Spam article for a school. Jmlk17 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klein Independent School District. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doerre Intermediate School[edit]

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

Advertising for a school, even an intermediate one should not be spam like this. Jmlk17 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krimmel Intermediate School[edit]

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

Unopened school, full of spam and advertising. Jmlk17 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --Talk 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Collins High School[edit]

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

Blatant advertising and/or spam for a school. Jmlk17 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see blatant advertising, nor spam, I do see a user who is editing a lot of Klein Independent School District articles for some odd reason though..--Taruru 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. Also note that as per WP:DP it is appropriate to judge the potential state of the article, not the current state of the article; not conforming to certain formatting guidelines is a reason to improve those other articles, not delete them. --Talk 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, and would like to see this as official policy: "High Schools are automatically notable by the nature of what they are." Your linked article is spot on, plus there are several other issues that make high schools automatically notable, including the fact that it is the highest level of education achieved by the majority of the population, and how most people identify themselves via their high school graduating class (ie: I'm class of 83) even people who DIDN'T graduate. Not sure how to reopen the wp:schools and see if consensus would make this policy, but it would be worthwhile. Pharmboy 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schindewolf Intermediate School[edit]

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

A blatant advertisement for a school; unnecessary and obviously spam. Jmlk17 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bollinger[edit]

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

A non-verifiable biography about a photographer. A google search brings up a two or three personal websites containing portfolios. There are no reviews or criticisms from a third party, making it both non-notable and in violation of the guidelines for WP:BIO. Expletusnox 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sources found. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lepakko[edit]

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

Not notable club that used to exist in Finland. Tuf-Kat 04:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is that your argument for article deletion? The Merciful 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note (just in case): You're replying to the first AfD, made over two and a half years ago. JIP | Talk 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Didn't notice that. Makes me wonder why this article has been AfD twice, tough. It's not like the notability status has changed. Oh, well... :) The Merciful 10:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Google search produced for example this: [30]. Quote: As far as I know Lepakko was squatted in the early 80's and hosted many of the most legendary punk shows in Helsinki. The Merciful 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The place could be compared to, say CBGB, in realtion to Finnish culture. All this is really common knowledge in Finnish rock/punk/underground/etc. scene. All this is quite verifiable (tough most of the material in of course in Finnish). Digging trough YLE's archives should yeld plenty of material.
This nomination is obiviously pased on nominator's ignorance on the subject, not on lack of notability of the subject. If people think the article is of insufficient quality, then it should be tagged for expansion, not for deletion. The Merciful 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSIV[edit]

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

All links are red links; purposeless dab page. Delete Giggy Talk | Review 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it possible to re-write this article? It is because a google search shows up quite a few reliable hits for this subject. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To aid closing admin I have struck through your earlier vote. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City and Guilds College Union[edit]

City and Guilds College Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Chichester. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chichester Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:
University of Chichester Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. In aprticular, this article has nearly no association of notability other than a listing of student run bars. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they should have. Very, very little variation in the nominations, and nearly all the responses seem universally applicable. MrZaiustalk 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

t/c) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Bradford. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. A mention in a 3 paragraph BBC piece is not sufficient. Recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bradford Union[edit]

University of Bradford Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also exactly the time in the academic cycle when students will be looking at prospective universities prior to clearing and the start of a new year. The majority of Category:English_students'_unions would also fall under these. UBU is unusual in the non-hierarchical structure, and organisation of the AA, join one join all, don't know if that makes it notable or not. (Yes, it's my old uni, I'm biased) --Nate1481( t/c) 09:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Nate1481( t/c) 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as there's not enough cohesion in the student unions to merit grouping. It would actually be much harder to have a viable discussion on the subject if multiple unions were put together. It's better to consider the unions on their own merits, if there are any. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should look for those sources, that would be more convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you ask the closing admin if they close as delete for the reasons for their decision, or possibly taking your suggestion to the village pump and seeing if you can make it into a policy. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. For one thing, I don't think the category is likely to be deleted at this time, for another, the existence of a category or even other articles is not always indicative of the inclusion of an article. Or exclusion for that matter. It's rarely (though not always) a bad idea to refer to other articles in an AFD discussion. Usually the best way to support an article is by letting it stand on its own merits. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barts and The London Students' Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barts and The London Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born anchors[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of evidence of notability from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Claim of an album seems to prevent CSD A7, but the album appears self-published and/or not on a major/prominent indie label. --Kinu t/c 05:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barnett (radio)[edit]

Andy Barnett (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finishing incomplete nom made by User:71.215.195.150 , I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and tag for references. Snowball. Non admin closure. Giggy Talk | Review 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Grow[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Henry_Grow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally unsourced. Possible original research or plagiarism. A Google search turns up that this guy lived and died on the stated dates, and that he helped build the building it says he built, but that's about all I can find. Only 90 hits on "Henry Grow" 1891, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Reswobslc 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination because I found the sources myself (with the help of the Google book link). The text appears to be adapted from the source I added - with it being dated 1886, the possibility of plagiarism is moot. Reswobslc 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic zip[edit]

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

Initially nominated for speedy deletion, then converted to PROD due to article not fitting a narrow definition of WP:CSD#A7. Editor has objected to deletion via PROD path, which triggers nomination at AFD. This is a non-notable piece of software; it is one of hundreds of applications with similar functionality, and the article text states that this particular version is under-featured relative to other versions from other developers. No assertion of notability has been put forth except "It is created to make browsing zipped entries easier". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to J.K. Rowling. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rowling Arantes[edit]

Jessica Rowling Arantes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

J.K. Rowling's 14-year-old daughter. She hasn't done anything to be notable in her own right. NawlinWiki 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by argument[edit]

Drive-by argument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Consult the Google and you'll get 18,500 hits, the first page of which are MySpace pages and user-contribution sites like YouTube or BlogSpot. Consequentially 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disco sexy[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this is. Maybe a dicdef, maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax? All I know is that Goggle doesn't know what is either. It's the title of a song, and a descriptor on a costume? Non-notable. Consequentially 04:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom Hello 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

At 641 KB, this is the longest article on the English Wikipedia (the next largest being less than two-thirds the size) and it does nothing that a category would not do. We have Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives and I can not imagine a situation why anyone would need to have only the "former" members, and if they did, why they wouldn't be able to use the existing category and just click to see whether the member is still in Congress. Furthermore, it has already been split up into shorter articles for A-E, F-L, M-P, Q-T, and U-Z. ←BenB4 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is already split into smaller lists, this page could be turned into a set-index page, with links to the other pages. That's an editorial decision, and does not require a formal deletion debate. Shalom Hello 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to !vote keep then? — brighterorange (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure, but maybe the nominator is suggesting we delete List of former members of the United States House of Representatives because it is so long, and keep the pages that break it up (A-E, etc.) In that case, I suggest we redirect List of former members of the United States House of Representatives to A-E. The entire list by itself is too long--it just broke my browser. --Fang Aili talk 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Agree with creating a nav page, per User:Brighterorange. --Fang Aili talk 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Grind (coffeeshop)[edit]

The Daily Grind (coffeeshop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable coffee house franchise. The Google gives 51,400 hits but a high percentage of them are irrelevant to the coffee chain. What pages are about coffee shops (that may or may not be in this chain, it's difficult to tell) are self-promotion pages by the individual coffee shop or unrelated articles that make use of the popular phrase. Consequentially 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Engle[edit]

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

This person is very thin on notability. He is an electrical engineer, has authored some professional papers, been active in some professional organizations, and has lectured widely. The only reference is his own website. Let the community decide. ●DanMS • Talk 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Trippy[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber. Article lacks secondary sources, and assertions of notability fail to hold up. Improvement templates disregarded and deleted. Subject seems to have a following on YouTube and may warrant an article in the future, but not quite yet. Ichormosquito 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition Systems[edit]

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

While this subject may be notable, this reads like spam or a puff piece out of an article directory. It was edited by one user and the system raises WP:COI concerns. Crystallina 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD:G3 (deliberate hoax). Stifle (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable Honor Medal of The Many Arms Of Vishnu[edit]

Honorable Honor Medal of The Many Arms Of Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article sounds entirely like a hoax. Could not find any notable G-hits for "Banghra Manjai" or "Sajur Minjapiriyamir" --Uthbrian (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that you mention this, I believe we have a new record for the longest-standing hoax ever (it beat the previous record by a couple of weeks already). Wait 4 more days and we'll have an exactly 2-year-long hoax. Yay! :D --Targeman 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Camp USA[edit]

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

I believe that the article fails to establish its subject's notability. All the sources dealing with the subject of the article itself are links to the organization's web-page, I was unable to turn up news coverage specific to this group. Douglasmtaylor T/C 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball keep, non admin closure. Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. -- saberwyn 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think it could be argued that the article does not meet notability the primary notability guideline - no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (Wikipedia:Notability), (I don't think Harry Potter Lexicon is considered a reliable secondary source). Since the equivalent article for non-canonical spells was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter) seemed like this one should also be up for discussion. Guest9999 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, what exactly would you expect to find in third-party sources? A confirmation that what is written in Harry Potter is actually written there? I think a page number and the ISBN code of the book where each spell is mentioned are more than sufficient. --Targeman 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I can agree with. Although most etymologies are transparent to anyone who knows Latin, many of them remain dubiously justified in the article. Unless the author of the series has confirmed the etymologies, they should be deleted from the article as OR.--Targeman 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology is actually something easy to source. All you'd need is a Latin dictionary. FrozenPurpleCube 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would then still be original research unless one can source the author confirming the etymologies given are correct, i.e. those are indeed where she got the idea for the chosen phase from. -- KTC 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links don't really show much, just that the names of a few spells are emntioned in some news articles. Should the page then just be a list of 6 spell names? [[Guest9999 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • The links should appeal to common sense, if nothing else. Many of these spells have currency in popular culture or the mainstream media. I could see an article for each spell being a problem; but what we have instead is a useful, benign, and encyclopedic index for terms, many of which are notable in themselves, that originate from an exceptionally notable work of fiction. Ichormosquito 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would you be satisfied if editors reference some of the many secondary Harry Potter works that list and explain spells, such as The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? Ichormosquito 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably add that I haven't read any of those, I'm only making an educated guess as to their contents. Ichormosquito 05:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as unsourvced and possibly PoV. However, I will restore and userfy to anyone who asks and expressesd the intent to source this. A similar list with sources demonstrzting which films actually were top-grossing, and at least sourcing multiple favorable reveiws for "critically aclaimed" films might well be acceptable. Anyone who wants to use this as the basis for that is welcome to do so. DES (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of top Tollywood films[edit]

List of top Tollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly violates WP:NOT as being 'original research'; this was the assertion of the editor who nominated this article for speedy deletion using Template:db with the following accompanying reason "serves no real purpose except being a 'list' - nothing more. Most of the content looks like Original Research (no sources)". I bring this here as it is inappropriate to delete under speedy criteria and I express no opinion about its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I created a redirect from List of Tollywood films to List of Telugu-language films. Also two more articles List of top Tamil-language films and List of top Bollywood films might be of interest here. - TwoOars 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be found for top grossing films, but where can we set the line? At what point are films considered top-grossing? And what about the critically acclaimed films? How do we define them? - TwoOars 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Cicon[edit]

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

We are cautioned by notability guidelines to consider the long-term notability of a subject before justifying an article on a given subject, especially in regards to living persons. This sentiment is echoed by the "not news" guideline, and represents a belief that an action that generates a small flurry of activity in news is not automatically notable because of that flurry.

Mr. Cicon is the reason why this policy exists. Being a finalist for the Doritos Super Bowl ad, by itself, isn't an achievement that stands the test of time. While the winner might justify an article considering the national visibility of his work, finalists are the "almosts but not quites." The articles do mention Cicon, but they're focus is on the contest and its effect on advertising and the SuperBowl -- not his ad specifically.

No one here can argue that Mr. Cicon is going to go down in history for his contribution to the ad campaign. His five minutes were up as soon as the Super Bowl was over. We're not in the business of chronicling every would-be winner for every ad campaign gambit. Consequentially 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good job to those who found the sources. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network[edit]

Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted in this vanity entry for a non-notable group claiming to be "committed to educating and facilitating communication about destructive mind control". Take away the self-congratulatory puff-piece press-release material and there's no article left. No references, no notability, article even admits that they've kept a "low profile" since 1995. wikipediatrix 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only gets 212 Google hits. The rest are duplicates and not unique, and they're largely spam, blogs, amateur anti-Scientology sites and Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a question of settings, but I consistently get 17,700 hits when I click on my link and 212 when I click on yours. It's the same query! Weird... :-(??? --Targeman 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to click through the listings until you reach the end. In all Google searches, the unique hits peter out long before reaching the officially stated amount of hits. Unique hits are what matter, because it's the nature of blogs and many other sites that a story is self-linked to on a sidebar, causing one page on one site to generate hundreds of "hits" by itself. wikipediatrix 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK :-) You wouldn't believe how many WTF moments I used to have when I'd arrive at the end of the list sooner than I expected. Thanks for explaining one of the deepest mysteries of the universe. ;-) --Targeman 03:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually 774 unique hits, and many of them are not about the same organization as this one. wikipediatrix 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My old high school marching band got a 'strong mention' in the New York Times and several other newspapers in cities where we visited, but that doesn't make my old high school marching band notable for a Wikipedia article. Anyone can start any kind of club or group and garner some mentions in major media if they send out enough press releases. I see no evidence that Factnet is a "real" nonprofit organization any more than half of Scientology's own pretend groups. Though they claim to be a non-profit organization and are asking for donations, I see no official statement of their 501(c)(3) status, which is legally required for real nonprofits. wikipediatrix 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by official statement? Guidestar lists FACTNet: "Contributions are deductible, as provided by law. A Form 990 is available for this organization." (Guidestar now requires registration for further information.) AndroidCat 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, nonprofit status of any flavor does not necessarily connote automatic notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it did. wikipediatrix questioned that they were an actual non-profit group and I responded. Besides, the current number of added refs put them over the notability line already. AndroidCat 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So noted on the links. Thanks for the pointer. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stifle per A7. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foundry Field Recordings[edit]

Foundry Field Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Me5000 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information virus[edit]

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

This appears to be a personal essay and falls under WP:NOT→publisher of original thought. The article was originally inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (non-notable website) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chicago Sports Fan Message Board[edit]

Chicago Sports Fan Message Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page says it is no longer an active message board. Probably was not notable in the first place. End of page is just pathetic. Speciate 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, no notability shown; and A1, very brief article with minimal context. One line article about a novelist with a single book. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Horsfall[edit]

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

One book, with an Amazon rank of 1,069,000. Completely unable to find any other information about the author. ELIMINATORJR 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - keep. There are also some important questions raised here which should be answered. Best to err on side of caution. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Whitney[edit]

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

Non-notable player, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Kinston eagle 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl Whitney

Carl Whitney (born September 7, 1913 - died July, 1986) was a Negro League baseball Player.

In 1942, Whitney played as a reserve outfielder for the Bill "Bojangles" Robinson.

He is interred in the Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri."

There just doesn't seem like enough to justify an article. It does, however, raise a good question best discussed elsewhere: What is the notability of the Negro League? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidatio (talk • contribs)

Thanks for catching the sig, Jaranda! Sidatio 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 39#Notability of Negro leagues players
I've taken the liberty of opening that discussion at WP Baseball - it seemed the most appropriate place. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on the issue there? (It's at the bottom of the page - I can't seem to get the link to work properly. :-p) We should probably leave the AfD to the specific subject of Mr. Whitney if it can be helped. Sidatio 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Galarraga[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madahoochi[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable jam band. Being named "best jam band" by a local paper isn't really enough to meet WP:BAND. IrishGuy talk 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7). No prejudice to re-creation, but certainly no notability asserted here. ELIMINATORJR 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storey[edit]

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

Non-notable motivational speaker. This article reads like it was written by him or his PR man. No independent sources, no verification. Contested prod. Realkyhick 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, numerous questions of notability, and hinting at notability doesn't do it. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cap'n Jaspers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cap'n Jaspers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a local restaurant with nothing to establish or even assert notability. Totally unsourced, and this appears to be a single establishment and not a chain. Opted not to speedy since it has been here before. Coredesat 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete While it asserts notability, it fails to reference these assertations. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wintermute (band)[edit]

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

Recreated speedy. No doubt this band are on way to notability, but they're not there yet. Played a few gigs, won a competition to play at the Leeds/Reading Festival, but none of this hits WP:BAND. Feel free to disagree! ELIMINATORJR 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Looks improvable, please source. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Force[edit]

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

I'm a fan of this myself, but all it really consists of is plot summaries and unencyclopedic lists. — Malcolm (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Paskin[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian - it seems as if this guy's only claim to fame is that he played the 2005 World Series of Poker and appeared on a couple of the episodes on ESPN. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Sorry, but while the subject of the article is interesting, the article is not compelling enough nor notable enough for Encyclopedia inclusion. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain Davis[edit]

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

While he has been in the news today, in two to three weeks he'll be forgotten about until such time as he moves from the 9 year old camp at United to the reserves or the full team. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This person fails the notability requirements for football players on wikipedia. While it's an extraordinary news feature, wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a collection of current event news articles. Batman2005 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE - If panos and juan carlos chera dont get a article, then neither does this guy. Portillo 08:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete (fails WP:RS, WP:AUTO, passes WP:SNOW) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Masse[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jamie Masse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

College political activist of purely local notability; presumably WP:AUTO. He previously posted a POV essay on Canadian health care at the same title, which is why there's a prior nomination, but since that was an essay and this is an article about him, this isn't a G4. Delete. Bearcat 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave hickman[edit]

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

Local-only DJ, suspect notability Will (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Will (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy al bengston[edit]

Billy al bengston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

lving person; unsourced;, suspect notability Will (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding more sources, please do not delete this page without letting me know how to fix it first. Patriciafauregallery 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, WP:BIO issues and consensus (see discussion this page) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson[edit]

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy Delete! Oh. My. God. Full of points of view, article has one source-and Oprah interview from years ago. This fails WP:N, suerly any worthy infomation (if there is any) can be merged with Michael Jackson? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, if "extensive media coverage" were enough to justify such an article, then we could easily make a case for Physical appearance of Tammy Faye Messner, Physical appearance of Kirstie Alley, Physical appearance of Mickey Rourke, Physical appearance of Madonna, Physical appearance of Mike Tyson, Physical appearance of Britney Spears, etc., etc. Gossip doesn't equal news, and neither equal encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The physical appearance of Michael Jackson is far more notable than the physical appearance of these other subjects: it receives much more coverage, yes, even than these people. The difference with those people is those are passing appearances, and Michael Jackson's has been of note for years. Besides, I believe your argument is, exactly WP:WAX. The Evil Spartan 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's notable, but saying doesn't make it so. And WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. My deletion criteria is that it's a non-notable subject proven by its lack of reliable sources, an inherent WP:BLP violation, and probably a POV/content fork as well. wikipediatrix 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. What? No offense, but those two sound like the same thing. And, are you really claiming there are no reliable sources on this issue? I find 198 google news hits right now alone, and 33,900 articles in the google news archive. Even if only 1/3 of those were on topic, are you still going to claim that 10000 articles from sources like the Washington Post, BBC, ABC news, etc. (the list goes on) leaves a lack of reliable sources? I can't fathom why you're trying to use this argument. 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Not going to argue with you anymore. Anyone who peruses those Google news hits you mention can decide for themselves the usefulness of them in a properly encyclopedic context. wikipediatrix 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is not a policy, it's just an essay, so I don't know why everyone is arguing about it. Useight 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pål Johan Karlsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pål Johan Karlsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Broken nomination by Tony Sandel citing: "nominate for deletion. not notable. autobiography" in the edit summary [40]. I am inclined to agree, as I did in the previous nomination. No substantial improvements have been made since the last AfD that closed as no consensus. IronGargoyle 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold[edit]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I just don't see Wikipedia needing a list like this.--SeizureDog 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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