< February 21	February 23 >

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

The result was speedy keep due to withdrawn nomination - see the history. --Core desat 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Robbins[edit]

Non-notable performer. Not on imdb SERSeanCrane 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:55Z

Hoang Long[edit]

Unverified location, just a small village mentioned in the article in the 'External Link' part Saigon punkid 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Physical locations are notable no matter the size. --Charlene 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. External link is actually a reference which proves the village exists, so it fulfills WP:V just fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geographical location, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noöne proposed deleting Kurów; and this village is no worse Al-Bargit 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a village, people! —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even miniscule geographic locations can be noteworthy! —xanderer 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All cities, towns, and villages are notable regardless of their size or location. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MarlaB 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Denny 05:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real village. --Oakshade 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:56Z

Paracelsus Island[edit]

Paracelsus Island does not exist, see Paracel Islands Saigon punkid 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate article. --Polaron | Talk 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No major Google results for the "title -wikipedia"... it comes up with 2 Answers.com pages, an unrelated page trying to sell me a book on American capitalism, and a blank (except for headings and ads) page from "Encyclopedia Beta". Google Earth and Google Maps have no results. MSN Encarta Atlas comes up with no result. National Geographic's atlas and NationalGeographic.com have no results. I was originally going to say "redirect as possible search term", but I am now confident that this island does not exist. -- saberwyn 09:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paracel Islands —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paracel Islands has the correct name and more information. A redirect wouldn't be useful, per Saberwyn. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicated stub. Redirect may be done at editorial discretion. Wooyi 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a moon crater and Berlin U-Bahn station apparently named for the 16th century chemist Paracelsus. Is it possible these islands were originally named then shortened? I could not find evidence to support my theory so for now I abstain. MarlaB 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Duplicate article. - Denny 05:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Paracelsus had nothing in common with the islands. Pavel Vozenilek 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per Pavel Vozenilek. Carlossuarez46 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW. Page userfied. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bruno Zorn[edit]

Artist/Music teacher with no third party sources to verify supposed notability. SERSeanCrane 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources per nom, and fails ghits [1] with quotes[2].--John Lake 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are provided. Try searching just for "Arthur Zorn" and you can see that he is indeed what the article says he is, but notability is not established. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician. Wooyi 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO --Nevhood 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. Clearly not suitable for namespace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:58Z

Aquaria[edit]

Non-notable band with non-notable members. Article does not mention any reason why this band is notable, except the fact it exists. — Kieff | Talk 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsigned band. --MacRusgail 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert or prove notability.--John Lake 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It asserts notability via the record label they are on. —siro χ o 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. References to support and assert notability must be provided for inclusion. --Haemo 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. They have a release on a large Brazilian metal label, and are recording a second. Hesitate to delete for fear of introducing systemic bias. —siro χ o 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate seeing articles like this go, but I couldn't find anything other than one of their band members being part of The Supremacy. Doesn't meet WP:BAND unfortunately :( Changing to Keep, per the new information below. I think that plus the band member from The Supremacy = passing WP:BAND-K@ngi e ^meep! 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after all. I fear systemic bias here; this Google search gives several independent album reviews in multiple languages [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]. I'm far far away from this market and music, so I can't judge on prominence of those sites, but they look fairly good. As Siroxo said, the record label is fairly large. I'd give them benefit of the doubt. Duja► 09:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language barrier makes it harder for me to accurately determine how notable they are, but as Duja shows, there seems to be a subtantial amount of information on them. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Al-Bargit 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aquaria, an unrelated game is slated to come out this spring. If this article is kept, it may have to be moved in the future, or a disambiguation page made. -Aknorals 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legit band with release on legit record label. That's enough for me. —xanderer 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are on Scarecrow Records, who lists Edguy, Dark Tranquillity, and Sentenced as a few other bands on its roster. I suggest cleaning up Aquaria's article and making their notability more clear. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets music qualifications and notability. - Denny 05:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z

Tyler MacNiven[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - even setting aside the notability that I believe is inherent in winning The Amazing Race, MacNiven is notable for his college admission campaign, for which a number of sources are given in the article. "Cruft" is not a reason for deletion. Otto4711 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see how either of these are notable. Must we list the winner of every national lottery, or a person who has run a minor political campaign? --MacRusgail 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. plenty of things have been deleted for being cruft of one kind or another. Please check the records.[reply]
  - MacRusgail, if the subject passes WP:N (and in the case of a human subject, WP:BIO suffices) then yes, we must not delete the article. The primary criterion being the existence of "multiple, independent, nontrivial sources". In this case, it is clearly a keep. (edit: also please reread WP:ILIKEIT for why 'cruft' is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - there is one simple reason most of these folk are not notable. No one will remember them in a decade. --MacRusgail 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep - Which is EXACTLY why we put him in an encyclopedia: so that this notable person will not be lost from human knowledge. "Cruft" is nothing more than a disparaging term for "detail". Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. --Richard Daly 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One could argue that his admission campaign, his filmmaking career, and his TAR performance each make him notable by themselves. Combined, this one is a no-brainer. In the interest of disclosure, I am the main author of this article. --Maxamegalon2000 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep His funny little college campain and very minor (uncredited) appearence in a move are NOT notable and do nothing to help keep the article. Winning The Amazing Race is the only notable thing he has done and the only reason i'm voting to keep. TJ Spyke 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, let's not forget the other film he produced, directed, and appeared in. --Maxamegalon2000 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which appears to be a non-notable documentary. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being nominated for deletion (regardless of the outcome of this AFD). TJ Spyke 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning the Amazing Race is probably enough, in and of itself. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boilerplate vendetta against reality TV contestants and winners. Not being remembered by you in ten years is not a criteria in WP:NOTABILITY. --Canley 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Change to Weak keep as this person is a filmmaker too. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article about a filmaker, this is definitely notable, although the introduction of the article could be better, its still has a place here.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple mentions in reputable verifiable sources listed and he did win a million dollars on prime time TV show which is notable. Warfieldian 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple non-trivial sources. ConDem^Talk 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stanford University Admission Campaign alone makes him noteworthy. —xanderer 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Reality tv cruft - not notable!" is the worst argument for deletion I've read so far. The subject is notable as per the multiple non-trivial sources cited. (jarbarf) 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:BIO requirements. - Denny 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z

Sarah Reinertsen[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep multiple independent nontrivial sources —siro χ o 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This deletion crusade is getting tedious. And per Siroxo. --Limegreen 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick perusal of Siroxo's Google News link indicates that Sarah has multiple independent nontrivial sources related to her athletic career, making me question the amount of effort and research that went into the nominator's claim of "reality tv cruft". Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sixoro. ConDem^Talk 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ImpartialCelt 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reasons? -- TomXP411^[Talk]
Merge in to contestants for that season. No notability on her own, but the prosthetic limb thing should merit mention in the Amazing Race article. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo and because as always "cruft" is not a valid deletion criterion. Otto4711 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There might be sources for the detail of the article, but as it stands there's not much to justify notability. Also, anyone who actually looked this article up would already know everything in it, so its not exactly a useful addition to Wikipedia as it stands. There's no reason to delete it, but let's try adding to it so it actually benefits the project. Jeendan 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge as per TomXP411 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We're getting a lot of Reality TV contestant pages lately. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. Adambro 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good article, meets the guidelines and the google UK search results showed loads of results, about 50,000, therefore because of this and the WP:BIO, it is notable and should be kept.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google shows there's plenty of sources available. Just because someone was a contestant on a reality show doesn't mean they can't be notable on their own. Nominator provided no sources to back up their reasoning. Per WP:BIO and perhaps even sports specific guidelines this should have its own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article and delete the main article. And who the heck wrote, "she missed the bike leg cutoff time" — bad joke. Noroton 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable enough for WP:BIO with multiple verifiable sources of info. I added some material to article. Warfieldian 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the announced non-trivial sources are added into the article instead of being announced Alf photoman 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So let me get this straight: Being the first amputee to complete the Ironman doesn't make you noteworthy??? But being an obscure Pokémon character or a minor character from a video game is? (See, we all have our biases.) —xanderer 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many things make you notable (though I tend to agree with you on the Pokemon), but we need sources and references, especially when we are talking about living persons Alf photoman 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If no merge, Delete. Not notable. TV guide and MySpace are not encyclopaedic. - WeniWidiWiki 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Siroxo, Maxamegalon2000, and others. Meets notability criteria, and plenty of sources available. Needs cleanup is not a reason for deletion. schi ^talk 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it stood was pathetic, but has improved beyond all recognition since I put a merge tag on the article, and also since the AfD debate began. There is sufficient assertion/achievement for me to believe it worth preserving. The article still needs to be sourced, though, and there appear to be plenty of weblinks to choose from amongst all the GHits. Ohconfucius 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~*Merge into the main article please~~. MarlaB 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Have to change my vote. If these had been listed one at a time I probabaly would have bit. See my comments at Leonid the Magnificent.MarlaB 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is being nominated for deletion under false pretenses, multiple non-trivial sources exist which demonstrate notability. (jarbarf) 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bad nomination. Delete all AfD cruft instead. - Denny 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:00Z

Ron Young[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep multiple nontrivial sources. —siro χ o 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick perusal of Siroxo's Google News link indicates that Ron has multiple independent nontrivial sources related to his military career, making me question the amount of effort and research that went into the nominator's claim of "reality tv cruft". Maxamegalon2000 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable on his own, as far as I can tell. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable from his capture in Iraq, his Company's story ran a lot. Was on CNN as a "special contributor" 2 months after his release, talking about POW capture. CNN transcript. Please at least do proper google searches. ConDem^Talk 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chigaco Sun Times article about him working for CNN. ConDem^Talk 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable both as a POW and as an Amazing Race competitor. Article does need some sources, however. Otto4711 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A contestsant on a TV programme? not relevant and fails WP:NN.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the multiple independent reliable sources that attest to his notability indicate to you that he fails WP:N how exactly? Otto4711 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on the multiple sources on his military career. Just because he was on a reality TV show doesn't mean he can't be notable for anything else. Nomination not rooted in policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a contestant in itself just doesn't hack it, nobody's going to care as the show recedes into the past. His other activities haven't been notable enough either. Noroton 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reality TV aside, Young and his fellow POW from the 4/23/2003 Longbow crash were rescued at the same time as those from the captured 507th Maintenance Company convoy. The POW rescue was a HUGE news story for weeks. No one would argue that others from the same group of captives (particularly Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson) are non-notable. Why would Young be? —xanderer 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Technical Merge add anything relevant to American P.O.W.s in 2003 Iraq War. Not notable for being on a gameshow. - WeniWidiWiki 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Horrible nomination, the nominator is just trying to prove a point by AFDing all relating show contestants. Like it or not, millions of people watch reality shows such as these, and as far as I know 'The Amazing Race' ranks very highly in searches on Wikipedia, meaning many people are interested in it. Not only is he notable for The Amazing Race, he's also notable for being a POW. Enough said ;) --IvanKnight69 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Is notable and within policy. Prester John 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article is well sourced with multiple nontrivial sources. Ron Young is a notable person who was made famous for being a POW in the Iraqi war and then a Amazing race contestant. -- Esemono 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Kandice Pelletier[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Pelletier is notable not only for appearing in two editions of The Amazing Race but as a state title holder in the Miss America pageant network. "Cruft" is not a criterion for deletion. Otto4711 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Miss America state titleholder Miss New York 2005 and contestant at Miss America 2006. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - how can appearing twice in a minor reality tv show be considered "notable"? --MacRusgail 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - She is notable outside the show. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - what has she done other than appear on tv and strut a stage? --MacRusgail 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - She has won a state-level beauty pageant, represented her state for an entire year as Miss New York, and has competed in the Miss America pageant. Beauty pageant titleholders who have held state titles and competed in Miss America, Miss USA or their Teen counterparts are generally considered notable. Add to this her participation on the Amazing Race, and she quite clearly meets the criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead for an example of a reality tv contestant who didn't even quite win her state title but was considered notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - none of this makes her internationally notable. She will be forgotten within the decade. At best her bio should be merged into the main article IMHO. --MacRusgail 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment searching the news archive without the terms "amazing" "race" in itself turns up eighteen sources.[7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        
        People don't need to be internationally notable - just nationally. If they had to be, most people from developing countries wouldn't even get in. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to argue for including most verifiable stuff, but not bios. We have far to many, we can't police them, and they are so unremarkable that no-one is watching, and they end up upsetting the subject at no gain to creating a great encyclopedia. There are 51 'Miss x state's created every year - that's hundreds of gorgeous non-entities in the US alone. Nothing else here is notable - put her on a list somewhere, and delete the article.--Doc^g 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wow, what is going on here... please do your research before nominating. multiple independent nontrivial sources. —siroχo 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have read the links. Nomination retained. --MacRusgail 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PageantUpdater. Maxamegalon2000 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PageantUpdater and Otto4711. Notability is established by the multiple, independent, non-trivial references. And since when is "cruft" a reason to delete?! All "cruft" means is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTKNOWIT. For most people, microbiology, astronomy, and quantum physics articles can be considered "cruft" because they know little to nothing about the subjects. -- Black Falcon 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not a case of "I don't like it", so much as "I've never heard of them", and probably in a few years' time never will again. The names and personalities mean absolutely nothing to me. --MacRusgail 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence Black Falcon's second link to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Please familiarize yourself with the sites that so many editors have linked throughout your user talk page, and the AFD pages. —siro χ o 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets guidelines at WP:BIO and has done more of note than merely participate as a reality show contestant. I see no reason why winning a notable state-wide pageant is not a notable acheivement. Agent 86 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Docg --ImpartialCelt 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PageantUpdater, to whom I'll defer where significance of beauty pageants is concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article subject is notable in at least 2 areas, pageantry and reality television. As regards the nominator’s comments on this page: Notability is not defined as "people that the nominator has heard of". There are certainly tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bios in this encyclopedia that millions of people have never heard of. Ask a typical 50 year old woman if she has heard of the thousands of sportsmen in the encyclopedia. Ask a typical 20 something male if he has heard of the authors of the 18th century. Ask anyone in Europe if they have heard of every state congressperson in the United States. The guideline for notability is outlined here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Non-trivial sources! ConDem^Talk 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly meeting WP:BIO and sourcing requirements. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not constitute a serious subject, which would be all right with me if she was at least an enduring subject, but there's no reason at all to believe she'll be of enduring interest even a few years from now. Noroton 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see local beauty pageant winners as notable. The Amazing Race is on CBS so I discount their reports on contestants as cross-promotional, not non-trivial. I'm left with the Georgia State Assembly resolution congratulating her, something they've routinely done every year with every such winner. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not just a local beauty pageant titleholder but a state titleholder who has competed at the national Miss America pageant. There are numerous sources documenting her - some even before she won her state title - [8] [9] [10] [11] . What more do you need? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned it up above but just so this stands out: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead for an AFD nom on a reality tv contestant who didn't even win a state title but was kept at AFD. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where in the criterion for notability does it say someone has to be internationally famous for them to be notable? let's follow the criteria as written, per WP Bio winning a notable contest, being a ranking contestant in a notable national contest and appearing on television all could make her notable in and of themselves, taken together she is clearly notable. These types of articles I do think point to a problem with over-inclusiveness in WP:BIO, something I'd certainly be up for helping with, but I still think they should be followed until superceeded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and recommend speedy close the nominator has listed multiple AfD saying "Reality TV cruft not notable!" Poor reasoning and I would suspect bad faith nominations. Wooyi 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per Wooyi. I'm hearing axe-grinding! —xanderer 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think wikipedia benefits from inclusion rather than exclusion. The more information included the better (within reason, of course). You just can't pretend to know what a wikipedia user will find useful. I can envision someone writing a column about the Reality TV craze 10 years from now finding this information very useful. Plus her entry will already be half-done when she marries an aging governor in fifteen years. xanderer 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep clearly meets WP:BIO and is notable outside show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State holder of a Miss America title indicates notablity outside any reality TV show. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State holder of a Miss America title! Donaldd23 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Alison Irwin[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also a contestant on Big Brother & Big Brother All Stars -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how is this notable? --MacRusgail 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I am questioning the motive behind the AfD's - is this user trying to prove a point, or do they just not like reality TV? Nonetheless, article seems to meet criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not believe these people to be notable, at least not in the long term. --MacRusgail 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Please see WP:N and WP:BIO as to what/who is notable. -- Black Falcon 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep source... —siro χ o 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:N. -- Black Falcon 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article discloses no acheivement of note other than to lose in various game shows. Agent 86 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not a merit award given for achievement. hateless 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86 --ImpartialCelt 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo's search. ConDem^Talk 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A TV actor who has appeared on TV many times. definitely one to keep.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to believe she'll be of any interest to the public in a few years. Unless she keeps on appearing on reality shows and losing. If that happens, I'd put her back myself. Noroton 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't seem to indicate multiple, non-trivial independent published reports. Mere appearance on shows isn't notable enough for me. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has been in three reality seasons on two shows.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend speedy close this nominator inserted tons of AfD with all the same cruft comment, suspected bad faith nom. Wooyi 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you've been on three network TV shows, you're noteworthy—Benjamin Franklin never did and he has an article. In all seriousness, I agree these are bad faith nominations. xanderer 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on TV doesn't make one notable. - WeniWidiWiki 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Care to elaborate on why you think that? TV is an important medium these days, more people watched The Amazing Race than watched all cable news networks put together. I'm sure most people would consider being on TV to make you notable. She's far more 'notable' than most a lot of obscure politicians, scientists, artists, etc that wikipedia has articles on.
Keep per Xanderer. It disappoints me greatly that these type of disruptive nominations for deletion are permitted. (jarbarf) 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Fred Holliday[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third time that this article has come to AFD. It was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek and Drew Riker and then again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Alessi. A merger to Amazing Race 6 contestants was suggested a week ago. Uncle G 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, top 3 sources all independent an nontrivial —siroχo 01:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be fine merging this and Kendra Bentley to Kendra Bentley and Freddy Holliday. —siro χ o 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as winner of The Amazing Race. "Cruft" is not a legitimate criterion for deletion. Otto4711 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying Wikipedia:Notability; notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". The fact that the subject of this article has been the subject of multiple, independent works does indeed make him notable. Kyra_~(talk) 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The winner of a The Amazing Race? i dont think this could be deleted as its definitiely notable.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who's going to care a few years from now? Think about it, would you want 700 articles on 1950s and 1960s and 1970s game-show contestant winners on Wikipedia? Why would anyone want to read about him years from now? What's the point? Noroton 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think it right to continue trying to delete against repeated firm consensus. DGG 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Warm bodies who appear on television number in the thousands every year and are quickly forgotten. - WeniWidiWiki 01:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Kendra Bentley[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! Plus does anyone have such a name, outside novels?! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Please see Freddy Holliday vfd. These two could be merged to, for example Kendra Bentley and Freddy Holliday but they are definitely N. —siro χ o 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; seems to be marginally notable, and not liking the name is not a valid reason to delete the article – Qxz 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as the winner of The Amazing Race. Otto4711 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying Wikipedia:Notability; a quick search turns up nontrivial, independent sources in the top three hits. Kyra_~(talk) 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about the winner who won with that Frd Holliday person, its notability is strong, I wouldn't say its just a cruft with respect to the nominator.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject has no enduring interest and will be forgotten about within a couple of years (unless she does something else notable, and we have no reason to believe she will). Stamp it out now. Noroton 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any winner of The Amazing Race is at least as notable as a main character of a season of a TV show, since that's effectively what they are, and all the finalists are as notable as a major character would be if this were fiction. MacRusgail, like some other people, I'm uncomfortable with this entire series of nominations... I hate to accuse any serious editor of any kind of bad faith in things like this, but this feels like an attempt at making a WP:POINT, especially given the canvassing for votes you've done. On the other hand, I notice that you have in some of these discussions brought up the question of these people's international fame, and I wonder if you just are of the belief that national notability does not confer notability for the Wikipedia (which I'd strongly disagree with). Or, similarly, perhaps it's a case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, since you're not from the U.S. -- I'm sure plenty of people here might be inclined to nominate Jade Goody, for example, but I'm guessing you have a better concept of her notability as opposed to that of the reality contestants you've nominated. I picked this one of the many nominated articles to say this just because, while I'm all in favor of saying funny things in AfD discussions, in this case the comment about the name just reinforced my feeling that you were making these nominations as some sort of crusade. Pinball22 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Pinball22—it's inappropriate to disparage people's names. Harry Lipschitz 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for temporal lack of notability. - WeniWidiWiki 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The winner of a large season-long TV show is notable due to the celebrity staus such a victory provides. Quoth WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." This person appeared multiple times (in every episode I would guess, considering that he won) on a well-known TV production (The Amazing Race), and the contestants are the main people in the show.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She was a notable contestant - and winning contestant - in a TV show that is watching by millions in the US and abroad. Arguably, far more people will have heard of Kendra than have heard of many of the various obscure policitans / scientists that wikipedia has articles on. --IvanKnight69 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Tyler Denk[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! Plus does anyone have such a name, outside novels?! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the fourth time that this article has come to AFD. It was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman, and then again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Denk, and then yet again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Alessi. Merger into Amazing Race 10 contestants was suggested a week ago, is a pretty obvious step considering the duplication between this article and James Branaman and the ease with which the information in both would fit into the contestants article, and could have just been done instead of bringing this to AFD yet again. Uncle G 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- *Merge and Redirect to the appropriate Television show article. Same with the rest of the noms. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article sourced, this actor has appeared on multiple shows, so a merge is not appropriate. —siro χ o 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a winner of The Amazing Race. "Cruft" is not a legitmate reason for deletion. Otto4711 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source here. Close to the line, but I say keep. ConDem^Talk 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep surely, being a winner of The Amazing Race and all of the sources above-60.230.134.36 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-that's my comment above, heheh-K@ngi e ^meep! 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per posters above. An Amazing Race winner who has appeared on other programs is certainly notable enough for his own article on Wikipedia. Fipe 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability outlines above. Additionally, I don't think making fun of the subject's name is proper deletion criteria nor is it very civil. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How many times does an article come up for deletion before it has immunity? Hey, I made a Reality TV pun! —xanderer 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of temporal or relative notability. - WeniWidiWiki 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep many wikipedians seem to be hostile to the idea of some reality show contestants / actors / fictional characters having their own articles, however, in this case, as this show is watched by millions across the globe, arguablly far more people will have heard of Tyler, and be more interested in him than of the many obscure politicans / scientists / philiosphers wikipedia features artciles on. Some people may not like that, but that's the way it is I'm afraid. --IvanKnight69 11:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per just above everyone else, possibly censure nominator if this type of non-constructive disruption continues. (jarbarf) 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:02Z

James Branaman[edit]

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the Myspace link, but otherwise seems notable unto itself. Where's the lack thereof? Hasn't been explained. --Dennisthe2 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time that this article has come to AFD. It was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman and then again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Alessi. Merger into Amazing Race 10 contestants was suggested a week ago, is a pretty obvious step considering the duplication between this article and Tyler Denk and the ease with which the information in both would fit into the contestants article, and could have just been done instead of bringing this to AFD yet again. Uncle G 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redir into Tyler Denk. His notability is borderline, but a merge may be acceptable if he never so much as appears on late night infomercials again (: —siro χ o 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tyler Denk, per Siroxo. --ImpartialCelt 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a winner of The Amazing Race. "Cruft" is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Otto4711 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tyler Denk and/or Amazing Race 10 contestants. There isn't an enormous amount of precedent for TAR winners not immediately notable outside TAR being kept - it only seems to be Freddy and Kendra at the moment. Tyler is being kept on the strength of his win and his CSI appearance, but James is not notable for anything else AFAIK. Fipe 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for keeping articles on the winners of Survivor (TV series) regardless of whether they do anything else of note after their win. Hell, there's even precedent for keeping the runner up and some Survivor fans advocate keeping everyone in the top four. I don't watch Survivor but it seems to me that if winning a contest of sitting on an island for a month without pissing off enough people to vote you out is notable, then winning a 40,000+ mile race around the world is notable too. (and yes I know I'm simplifying Survivor). Otto4711 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've even seen agreement that a sixth place finisher in Canadian Idol is notable enough to keep on WIkipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reason to believe he'll be of interest to the public in a couple of years. Serious subjects belong in Wikipedia, and even unserious subjects of enduring interest, and he doesn't make the cut. Noroton 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Siroxo. ConDem^Talk 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are bad faith nominations. Plus "cruft" is a goofy-sounding word. —xanderer 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of temporal or relative notability. Absolutely pathetic how low the bar for notability is for some people who live vicariously on television. - WeniWidiWiki 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:03Z

Leonid the Magnificent[edit]

Reality tv cruft. Not notable, and loser. The fact s/he has been turned down so often should be taken into account MacRusgail 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has the sources. Please recall WP:NPOV as well, we cannot neglect subjects that are "losers" or "turned down...often". —siroχo 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - unsigned bands are frequently turned down, and are selected for deletion. Like this person. --MacRusgail 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an unsigned band is notable, they will be kept. See KOOPA for an example. It is not the subject matter, but rather the notability that we must evaluate. To do this we use WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BAND, etc. —siro χ o 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MacRuswail. --ImpartialCelt 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Siroxo. It doesn't matter if they're a loser, or if they've been turned down often. If it has the sources, it should be kept and this seems to have the sources-K@ngi e ^meep! 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It does have two sources, but one of them ~~(which is unsuitable for Wikipedia because you have to subscribe)~~ just seems to mention him in passing, and the pages i found when i googled him seem to do the same. But i expect a few good sources could be found.ConDem^Talk 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The subscription doesn't mean it isn't a source, it just makes it harder for everyone to read. —siroχo 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, my mistake, suitable for a source, unsuitable as an external link. ConDem^Talk 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just like pointless informatino like.. "he has been trying" and it is referenced so thats good! but the general Notability of the article is not very high and it fails WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough, no reason to believe anyone will want to read about this subject five or 10 years from now, or even a year from now. Entertainers really ought to be more successful to get a Wikipedia article. Noroton 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator just congested the AfD page with all his cruft allegations, suspected bad faith nom. Wooyi 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article does have sources, and this person does seem possbily notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone with "the" as a middle name warrants an entry. (See John the Baptist and Winnie the Pooh.) —xanderer 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Vlad the Impaler Suriel1981 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, and temporal irrelevancy. - WeniWidiWiki 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wanabee drag queen for having tried unsuccessfully for six years. You have to kiss loads of frogs before you find your prince, honey ;-). The 2 references posted are either "trivial" in the case of the NBC article, and "show marketing" in the case of "Trades", therefore, subject would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all of them. I am not a big fan of tv, reality or otherwise, but that's not the point here. I thought about asking for merge then realized some of my favorite characters in the fiction genre warrant their own entries at Wiki. Perhaps a decade from now will be the time to reanalyze these tv personality entries. Right now, precisely because I am not a fan this entry at Wiki enables me to educate myself quick and neat with a reliable source that's not full of hype and babble. MarlaB 10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed in multiple non-trivial sources, active entertainer. Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:04Z

Rappin' Granny[edit]

Reality tv cruft. She lost, not notable. MacRusgail 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far from reality TV cruft, she has appeared in 18 television series during a career lasting over 10 years. She also appears to be a regular on Everybody Hates Chris. Maxamegalon2000 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep no valid reason for deletion as notability is provided in article —siroχo 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Failure on talent contest and bit parts = notability?! --MacRusgail 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is, you've made so many bad nominations that nobody is listening at this point. ObiterDicta 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would list them in opposite order, but yes, that seems to be my position, though I would be reluctant to refer to appearing on but not winning a television talent contest as "failure". In fact, I would rephrase "failure on talent contest and bit parts" as "finalist on nationwide televised talent contest and television character actress." --Maxamegalon2000 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Her roles appear to be extremely minor, e.g. one of five "tea ladies" on the Lady Killers remake, and listed 28th on the cast listing of the film on the IMDB list [12]. Occasional roles on Everybody hates Chris neglible too. --MacRusgail 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article does not "establish her notability" since it does not contain any reliable sources. Google News and Google News Archives suggest she's borderline notable, at best. ObiterDicta 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn --ImpartialCelt 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby, pass the burden of proof of non notability to you —siro χ o 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Possibly notable as finalist on the show, especially becuase she's an actress as well. ConDem^Talk 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of this article is not high, infact i dont even think there is any there at all, if there was a wikipedia article for every single entrant or contestnat on singing programmes, wikioedia would have about an extra 100,000 articles, what makes this so special with the utmost respect to the author and editors?Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 11:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby, pass the burden of proof of non notability to you —siro χ o 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, sources have been added to the article. —siro χ o 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per Siroxo's link. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tellyaddict & MacRusgail. Losing contestant, bit part player cruft. D Mac Con Uladh 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another reason why "notability" is a flawed guideline, subjective, and should not be used for determining whether an article should stay on wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of shows she has had appearances on seems to confirm her notability. I also have my doubts about the motives of the nominator. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Real entertainer, solid resumé —xanderer 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not encyclopaedic, not remembered in six months. - WeniWidiWiki 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, You have no way to assert that she will not be remembered in six months. You have no way of knowing what tv shows or movies she will be cast in. Decisions to remove people from wikipedia should not be based on conjecture. DanielZimmerman 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:05Z

Salisbury Road (Haringey)[edit]

Non-notable minor residential side street of no encyclopedic value. Saikokira 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Maxamegalon2000. ConDem^Talk 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of any notability. Adambro 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. MarlaB 10:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason to delete any location that is factually existing in geography completely. Merge. - Denny 06:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leyton. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:06Z

Oliver Close[edit]

Non-notable housing estate. There are some brief references to it on housing-related websites, but nothing specifically about Oliver Close Saikokira 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two things interest me, a) the number of blocks of flats, which is reasonable, and b) the claims about its crime rate/poverty. If its crime rate/poverty is so bad, then it is notable, IMO. But I have googled the item, and found it hard to dredge through the articles concerning places of the same name. --MacRusgail 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those unreferenced claims refer to the crime rate/poverty of the estate before its redevelopment started in the early 1990s though. Saikokira 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be anything notable about this community. PCock 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article Leyton. MarlaB 10:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than any similar development, so fails on notability, and also on references. WMMartin 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:06Z

Gosport Road estate[edit]

Non-notable housing estate in east London Saikokira 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ImpartialCelt 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable housing establishment, reads like a directory or advertisement. --Nevhood 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article Walthamstow. MarlaB 10:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nonination--Sefringle 06:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Roadshow[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable e-zine/newsletter for magicians. Saikokira 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice entry is available in several different languages, which is interesting. --MacRusgail 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail N. The language links point to things like "magician" and "prestidigitation" equivalents. —siro χ o 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm Siroxo is right about the interwiki links and I will remove them after commenting below. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing as I started Magic WikiProject I feel I have to comment on this. I found no evidence the editor (Rick Carruth) is known for anything besides the magazine, and without some notability for the editor, I can't see why an ezine with a limited readership should be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abracadabra per WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenative keep Can someone ensure that this is ran through Lexus-Nexus before any admin closes/deletes *OR* keeps? I've heard of this but can't confirm it's notability--but I think it's been around a long time. Magicians are a small community so it could easily be notable in their own media/journalism circles, which would satisfy 'multiple non-trivial sources' for their industry. - Denny 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Viridae ^Talk 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books by Nick Shane[edit]

Promotional for books by Nick Shane; article about the author has been deleted several months ago as self-promotion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oy vey. JuJube 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles themselves are pretty much carbon copies of one another. Sigh. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reeks of self-promotion. Cue the Strings 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already stated. --pIrish 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good book, worth reading, needs an entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.100.158 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Great entry and important player in dating —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul1999 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete copy and paste articles (about a book selling only 12,000 copies and which score no relevant hits on worldcat) which may strongly violate WP:SPAM and WP:COI. All articles are created by single purpose account Npbs101. Ohconfucius 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet criterian for books/fiction. - Denny 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A description of the book, no reason for deleting it.--Orthologist 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Viridae ^Talk 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Holmes[edit]

Prod was removed without any comment by anon. Non notable, unsourced, content looks like a resume, googled first link was MySpace. John Lake 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable conflict of interest, the article was only recently taken out of the first person. Unless some source asserting some kind of academic notability this article should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and what's with the "phallic" skateboard designs? Surely a joke. --MacRusgail 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this edit by the major contributor[13], I reverted it for vandalism.--John Lake 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no sources or assertion of significance – Qxz 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, violates WP:BIO. --Nevhood 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the bio doesn't even state what college he works at , he is at at Warren Wilson college, an interesting non-conventional small Presbyterian Church-related North Carolina 4-yr college. It's not a university, and although he is chair of the Biology Department, they don't use academic ranks, I think his academic level would be Assistant or Associate Professor. Not notable, however.DGG 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —xanderer 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio unless majorly rewritten. He may be a notable academic — Google scholar finds some well-cited papers — but copying his web page is not the way to write a good article about him. —David Eppstein 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The copyvio issues are improved. But I think I was mistaken in thinking the JC Holmes ghits are his — I was confused by their being on parasitology by someone named J. Holmes. The Warren Wilson Holmes lists his initials as J.A. The first hits to J.A. Holmes are six and eight hits down, with 44 and 42 cites. Still respectable but not as good. I guess Jeff Holmes isn't even the most notable parasitologist named J. Holmes? —David Eppstein 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've touched up the article to avoid the copyvio issues David Eppstein correctly pointed out, and note that there is a Holmes JC from the "Department of Biology, The Rice Institute, Houston, Texas, USA" according to PubMed [14]; that could provide further proof this gent is notable, or mean we can discount the gscholar results. I am hesitant to conclude that his current position means he is not notable, as it is possible that he took this position in spite of academic advantage available at another institution. John Vandenberg 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my meaning.I meant that a 4yr schools faculty are not necessarily required to publish much, and, unlike a research university, his research quality cannot be assumed from the nature of the institution. I've known many 4yr college people who have published quite a lot. But in his case he doesnt seem to have done so. DGG 05:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I didnt mean to imply that you meant otherwise :-). It was just that when I searched for him as "Holmes JC", he seemed above par for 4yr college people so I had starting assuming there was more to the story; as David Eppstein has now pointed out, he is "Holmes JA", and when using that search criteria, he doesnt appear worth the effort. John Vandenberg 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can provide some nice reliable sources. John Vandenberg 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 insulin. I read the AFD discussion before looking at the article, and decided that it would depend if what was there was a stub or not. As it's a four line stub, I'll redirect it (without removing the history) - any information not already in insulin can be merged in by anyone. Proto ► 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actrapid[edit]

This article contains only a brief definition of the term in question, is unsourced, and could be considered only useful as an advertisement for a particular brand name of insulin, which may or may not still be in use. However, User:DragonflySixtyseven says the drug was apparently widely used in its day, and people apparently search for it on Google, so I would be willing to consider that it just needs to be rewritten. Carolfrog 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not sure how notable an insulin brand can be, even if it's more notable than other brands of insulin. ConDem^Talk 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to insulin, unless it can be expanded significantly – Qxz 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to insulin as Qxz suggests GB 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from the New Zealand Ministry of Health. You can see other references at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14310202&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum I think enough has been written about Actrapid to make it notable, but as a layperson I don't think I can easily write an article explaining how it differs from other formulations of insulin. --Eastmain 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I think that any prescription drug will have been the subject of several articles in peer-reviewed journals and be notable on that basis. Even medications that are no longer in use are notable on the basis that they were notable once. --Eastmain 06:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the info in the sources can be used to expend the article, I would say keep, otherwise a redirect is appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept the argument that all prescription drugs are notable; however, the brand names of those drugs don't necessarily need their own pages, unless they refer to a specific formulation of a drug that has no generic name. My feeling at the moment is that redirecting this page to insulin (much as Advil is redirected to ibuprofen) would be appropriate. I tried to figure out if there was a more specific type of insulin (for which a page might exist) that we could redirect it to, but I can't even figure out reliably what type of insulin Actrapid is. Carolfrog 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonic (Music)[edit]

contested speedy for NN, unreferenced music group delete Cornell Rockey 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip grant[edit]

Nonsense/vanity page/no refs killing sparrows 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Biography with notability of the subject not asserted. WjBscribe 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:07Z

Project Galileo[edit]

This is an article about a UK school's astronomy project. No assertion is made as to why this project is notable (despite the article having existed for over a year). The article is not supported by any references.

It should be noted however that the article was previously nominated for deletion here and the result was keep. Nonetheless I feel it fails WP:N and WP:V. WjBscribe 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the project in itself is by far vaster than your average high school project, my problem is that I see no external reference and therefore notability is rightly questioned. I would proceed with an unreferenced tag and if no sources are added ~~than~~ and then proceed to deletion. Alf photoman 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources, and rewritten the text to turn some unattributed PR copy into a quote. I note there will be a rather complicated disam page to write, as there are some much larger projects known by this name and similar names. DGG 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —xanderer 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most such projects, the scope of this one suggests notability. I'm not happy about the quality of the references, but expect that they can be found, so I'd like to give this one the benefit of the doubt for now. Tag for References/Cleanup. WMMartin 13:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per revisions/notability. - Denny 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:08Z

Churchill County High School[edit]

This just another unnotable public high school --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ImpartialCelt 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN high school, fails even WP:SCHOOL's low standard as the article basically just says the school exists. TJ Spyke 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any claim of notability here. Out! --Brianyoumans 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I see a serious lack of content. I concur with TJ. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary onto the Fallon page. — RJH (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have started a rewrite of the article. This is a school that has a high profile in the local community, a long history, and with notable features, and the way forward is to further develop the article, as is the way with all stubs, not to kill it off. TerriersFan 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. There's a bunch of little stuff, but (IMO) no one big thing that pushes it over the notability threshold. The closest is that award, but that makes the teacher notable, not the school. --UsaSatsui 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first in the state in the academic league is about as good as it gets. Also, teachers do not win awards in isolation and such awards inevitably highlight the school. TerriersFan 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but I just disagree. --UsaSatsui 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retool and Keep This is a good school, and has several qualities that make it notable: the award, the Bethany girl, and that it has been around over 90 years. Also, there are many other articles about high schools, even ones in Nevada, that don't have as much notability: Arbor View High School, Carson High School (Carson City, Nevada), Bonanza High School, Ed W. Clark High School, North Country Union High School, etc. The article itself does need work: some more facts would be great. Keep the article, but rework and improve it. Bmrbarre 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because other schools are included doesn't mean this one should be, even if it is arguably more notable. School articles crop up like mayflies around here, and there's a huge hullabaloo about what makes a school notable...the kinks aren't worked out yet. --UsaSatsui 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. "[A]nother unnotable public high school" is a bad justification for nomination. I don't see why there shouldn't be an article for every public school eventually. Admittedly, the article is weak, but that certainly isn't justification for deletion. —xanderer 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good enough notability claims for me in the rewrite, WP:SCHOOL is only proposed anyway. BryanG^(talk) 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it has been around since 1916 I would like to see more of it's history in rewrite. MarlaB 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor supported by the references. Being founded in 1916 doesn't exactly make the school old - unless my mathematics fails me that's less than a century - and anyway age per se isn't notable. The good teacher may ( or may not ) be notable, but the school doesn't automatically acquire notability by contagion. Doing well in a sports or academic league doesn't automatically convey notability, since the results could be simply due to random events: if we saw consistent evidence of the inculcation of ( say ) great academic prowess or softball skills this would be notable, but right now there's nothing to say that these events are due to the school doing something out of the ordinary. The closed circuit TV system and drug abuse are, sadly, entirely un-notable within the public school system. WMMartin 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable - WP:SCHOOL is not policy, and in this case an active editor has been improving the article to establish notability to a level that will meet most deletionist requirements. AntiVan 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No concerns are presented that would not be better solved by merging. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one as an example of what a school article should be, two sources cited are secondary and substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school is notable, has lots of references LordHarris 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public high schools are inherently worthy of Wikipedia articles, and this article is well-referenced. --El on ka 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was this is silly. The process has been irreparably tainted. However I do think this guy was significant in his field. I recommend giving the article a bit of time to mature and revisiting this issue later if we must. Friday (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shannon[edit]

Non-notable bio. Wikipedia is not a memorial. While Mr. Shannon may have been known within a small community for his newsletter/website, there are no actual independent, reliable sources about him as a subject, as required by WP:BIO-- just articles about Compaq/HP that he had written. --Leflyman^Talk 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note that Leflyman has vandalized the original page; and furthermore vandalized the new Shannon Knows DEC page listing by replacing the content with a redirect to the Terry Shannon page marked for deletion...Talk about self-serving!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk •contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment While it's obviously not a good idea to start messing with pages related to ones you've AfD'd, the nom was probably too kind with the Shannon Knows DEC page, which being simply a collection of links was a candidate for speedy deletion under A3 rather than redirection. This would all be a lot easier if someone could just source this article. Shannon appears to return a few Ghits, trouble is I can't find anything major that satisfies WP:BIO. If he's that notable, it shouldn't be that difficult, surely. EliminatorJR 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please check to discount the numerous comments spurred on by Mike Magee in The Inquirer who wrote, "You can say many things about Wikipedia too, one being the fact that its editors are notable for sticking their own heads up their bums instead of looking for a light switch."--Leflyman^Talk 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please check that the comments in favour of deletion are also not SPA or sock puppets. e.g. Daniel_J._Leivick has been a Wikipedian for 2 weeks less than info@kafalas.com --Amaccormack 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: WP:SOCK states that "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate." It is clearly not the case that all readers of the Inquirer are likely to have known views and/or bias on this topic, merely that the Editor of the Inquirer has such a bias. To make that assumption would assume a single-mindedness of purpose and thought surely beyond a group of millions of individuals! I would submit a mis-use of the SPA tag, as per WP:SPA - "Users are cautioned to assume good faith". Pinkboy 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkboy's observations are circular, because the subject of the article (Terry Shannon, was often quoted in TheInquirer.Net publication. Discpad 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
Delete per nom. One ghit for "Terry Shannon" "Digital Review" -wikipedia. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Terry was a commercially successful author in several magazines and, for a while, the authority on rumours about Digital Equipment Corporation. -- Atlant 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the external links on the article is even about Shannon at all, and it's a memorial page. FALSE Another contains a message board post by Shannon, a third merely contains a link to the first, and the last one doesn't contain Shannon's name anywhere. These are not sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution. Google doesn't turn up anything more useful. Clearly, this man was not as notable as you claim. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see... Shannon authored a book that sold 100,00 copies in the first printing alone. Discpad 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
- In fact, I have gone ahead and removed the three completely irrelevant links from the article, leaving the memorial page, which, while clearly not a reliable source, seems to be the most significant page about this man outside of Wikipedia. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must not have seen these I guess. networkworld.com, Introduction to Vax/Vms (Paperback)
Additional comment - I think it's relevant to this AfD to point out that Atlant has admitted to counting Terry Shannon among his or her "extended friends". This may or may not be a Conflict of interest, but could illuminate this user's motives for opposing deletion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; What is the point of an encyclopedia if it is not a source of obscure information..? How can you judge content on the basis of whether it is notable or not? Notable to whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.152.2 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC).— 140.203.152.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oppose; Terry Shannon was huge when DEC was huge. It is true you can't find links to his works because the rags he wrote for are out of business. davebarnes— davebarnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose; Mr. Shannon was a noted journailst and DIGITAL analyst, with DEC and then successor Compaq purchasing company-wide subscriptions to his newsletter. The quality of his analysis, though, irritated Hewlett-Packard (the successor to Compaq), which actively attempted to thwart his writings. Discpad 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
Oppose;[[15]] He was a well respected tech journalist. Misguided opinions don't mean it should be deleted. Guess what [16] is only known 'within a small community'.
OpposeBrightc 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)— Brightc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oppose; After the Digital/Compaq merger into HP Terry Shannon actively reported on and tracked the developments in the expanded Hewlett-Packard Company. As an executive for HP I regularly interacted with Mr. Shannon on technology reviews and briefings on new product introductions. Though he was perceived often as a gadfly rather than a traditional, "buttoned up" journalist, his unfiltered commentary was useful in blowing the cobwebs out of big corporations. That was his significant contribution and Mr. Shannon's entry in Wikipedia should continue to exist as a key example of a non-traditional journalist working the IT trade press.— 15.246.143.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep/Oppose Deletion per sane comments.--213.46.128.161 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per previous Oppose comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fel64 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose; Not being a notable person is an individual opinion and not a proper justification for deletion. — 217.196.248.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, actually, it is. Please read up on WP:BIO HackJandy 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability (in the Wikipedia world) is not subjective. It is clearly laid out in WP:BIO. This clearly person does not meet these criteria. Despite the objections of his friends if you really want to keep this article then you will find some sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, being the author of an authoratative book that sold 100,000 copies is not "notable?" Mr. Shannon was certainly notable in both the IT industry and IT publishing industries. Discpad 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
Delete per nom. The Inquirer has gone out of its way to post an article on this in hopes that his entry won't be deleted, which is my guess as to the flood of "oppose" threads without much backing. Maybe they should make a memorial webpage on their server instead. HackJandy 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Leflyman does not mention Shannon authored Introduction to VAX/VMS through Professional Press in May 1985 (ISBN:096147291X). The 2nd edition was published by CBM Books in October 1987 (ISBN:0961472944)

[17]. Furthermore, Leflyman states false information because Terry Shannon was profiled in NetworkWorld Magazine— Preceding unsigned comment added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 February 2007

Comment: This is the second (or third or however) repeat "Oppose" comment from Discpad/Dan --Leflyman^Talk 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion; Terry Shannon's site http://www.shannonknowshpc.com had a huge impact on me when I was tasked with programming on Tru64 UNIX a.k.a. Digital UNIX. It made me appreciate DEC and the alpha chip as well as the best UNIX ever written. While politicians might be remembered for more than a 100 years, Shannon was well loved by people in the computing field and I consider him worth remembering over politicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.232.182.41 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC). — 208.232.182.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is getting a little out of hand. When I say notable I mean it in the Wikipedia sense. Please see WP:BIO and provide sources that meet WP:RS. We can't have an article sourced entirely from the subjects own writing and the memories of his friends.--Daniel J. Leivick 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per WP:BIO The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.— 62.49.123.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Shannon was not personally known to me, but his journalism was an important part of the industry I worked in for many years. If you can't find any hits on google this this says more about the duration and scope of the Web than about Shannon's significance at that time and in that industry (I was there, then, and I trust my own memories even though I can't substantiate them with web pages). --Zooko O'Whielacronx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.97.232.97 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC). — 209.97.232.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oppose As per WP:BIO, The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Shannon was considered an authorative expert on HP and the high performance computing field, spoke at many conferences, and has been quoted as an authority in the articles of other established journalists on many occasions. See Techweb, OSNews, ITNews, HP Decus NZ. Pinkboy 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per WP:BIO's central notability criteria requiring multiple (meaning more than one) newspaper (or similar) articles primarily concerned with the person. Additionally, when reading news about information provided by Mr. Shannon, it was clear that he had an amazing insight and credibility. Deleting this entry is senseless. Yonzie.
Oppose Shannon was regularly quoted in The Register [18], published a book that went to 5 editions, was used for quotes in HP's press releases [19][20], was a director of major HP User Group Encompass [21] and seems to have been active a great deal in pre-web days (for which there are obviously no links). Also thanked in the credits for a comprehensive history of the DEC Alpha. --Amaccormack 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:BIO is met in this case. The original nom could be applied to many other notable individuals; for example, Albert Einstein was only notable in the field of science. Shannon was known more in the print media than on the Internet; remember, the 'net isn't the only source of information. I also concur with the other oppose comments. --Joe Sewell 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup with additonal references. The individual is a technology author, and has at least one reliable source (Network World article), so it likely to be able to meet WP:RS, and WP:V -- Whpq 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per WP:BIO, Shannon may not have been Bill Gates, but he was, at the time, a widely read, highly influential journalist and author. Granted, most of his contributions to technology journalism occurred when our over-zealous AfD experts were in diapers -- but his inclusion in Wikipedia is well within the established guidelines for notability. His publications are mostly pre-Web -- but the same could be said of Shakespeare. (Edited later to add): And just to give an idea of the perspective of Lefly, the main instigator of this deletion campaign, take a look at his own articles: numerous paeans to obscure rock bands no one's ever heard of, flop TV shows from 15 years ago, and totally inconsequential arts nonprofits. Compared to those subjects, Terry Shannon merits an encyclopedia of his own, never mind one page! User:info@kafalas.com

Lets try and discuss the merits of this article rather then attacking everyone who disagrees with you, it will not get you very far in an AfD. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per WP:BIO, Let me add that Terry made a "difference" with a large number of us in the computing world, especially when DEC's star was shinning. That makes him notable to me. And to many others who may or may not read this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.62.139 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose The WP:BIO guidelines are met by his "Introduction to Vax/Vms" book, required reading for all VAX administrators and is not only currently listed on Amazon.com but it is also required reading in several CompSci courses for 2007 [22] and [23]. Additionally, in the WP:BIO guidelines it is clearly stated that there is no firm policy regarding this topic. The intent of the notability guidelines is to keep vanity pages from filling Wiki. It is clear that his contributions to the fields of computing, reporting, and publishing over more than two decades rise above the level of a vanity page. User:TOJMatt 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Terry Shannon may not have been a household word, but if Wikipedia's editors should delete Shannon's entry, they should also delete commercial advertising entries for the Brit sandwich shop chain, Pret a Manger, as well as others like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.41.252 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete unless sourced for WP:BIO. To the above user - please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mind you, I've noticed the criticism (since reverted) that this user added to Pret a Manger so perhaps they've just had a bad sandwich. EliminatorJR 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are almost no sources. We must have sources. Period. -Amarkov moo! 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Amarkov: The sources have been removed by one or more vandals. For a complete list, please see this Permalink to verify the veracity of this vandalism claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - To those who are new here - Welcome. To those who have supplied sources - Thanks. To those who are new to the wikipedia deletion process, please be aware that a nomination for deletion is not a call to arms to delete an article but instaed is the beginning of a process intended to improve wikipedia's handling of a page of claims about a subject. The result varies among: redirect to another article, merge content into another article, improve the article, or sometimes to delete the article if no other choice makes sense. This process is working well here. Thanks again to everyone for helping. WAS 4.250 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - User:Leflyman is abusing his powers as stated previously and is condeming the whole of people editing as sockpuppets. I for one find this highly offensive and call for action.— 70.49.180.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment You can hardly blame him. At least two-thirds of the "Oppose" votes are from new accounts or anonymous IPs. If it's not sockpuppetry, it's certainly canvassing. The fact that most entries say "Oppose" rather than the usual "Keep" is notable.EliminatorJR 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I see that the guidlines themselves are the subject of dissent so some care should be used in trying to apply them in sitautions like this. I note under special cases The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. In my own experience as a DEC customer dating from the 60s I have to say that was the case for Terry. He was a very important piece of the DEC user culture for many years, giving us all a look inside DEC that was otherwise not available to most of us and that allowing us to make better decisions. As to citations and the like, we should keep in mind that much of what he did was under a pseudonym. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.166.40 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose deletion I agree this article requires a complete rewrite. However, Terry Shannon was not "non notable". He was a legend in the DEC VAX/VMS world, and was generally seen as the industry source for insider knowledge of DEC, then Compaq, and later HP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.69.224 (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:08Z

Modus Operandi (film)[edit]

Non-notable film, could not find on imdb SERSeanCrane 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found – Qxz 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and unsourced. John Reaves (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Google search yielded no relevant results. No evidence it exists and the tag line makes it sound like a hoax. Also delete the related Mark Borchardt. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources provided and none findable via google. -- Whpq 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Article is so vague it reads like a proposal or concept, not a finished film. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Without any sources I really can't suggest keeping it. (Third3rdIII 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:09Z

Adam Pettet[edit]

Lack of notability, references or updates Ozgod 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. See, I can say that, because I wasn't the nominator. ;) Feeeshboy 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very limited Google hits. Has obviously published poetry but "New Decadence movement" is next to nil on Google. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any sources to establish notability per WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:10Z

Adam Siegel[edit]

Lack of notability, references and updates. Ozgod 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as Excel (band) is notable enough to have its own article. Article needs references, but there doesn't seem to be any potential dispute about the content (again, provided that the band is notable). Feeeshboy 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is either keep or not. Notable today is notable tomorrow, even if only a handful of people remember Alf photoman 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially a list of bands he's in or has been in, information that could be easily be found in the band articles. John Reaves (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if you want to find out which bands he's been in. You'd search by his name, right? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It may be lacking references now, but seeing as he's part of a notable band that's probably easy to remedy for the Cleanup TaskForce project. At the very least this should be redirected to the most relevant band. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a founding member of Excel and a member of Infectious Grooves he's notable, althought he article needs work: discography, better bio, more links and references. Freshacconci 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of Infectious Grooves is enough to establish notability. Granted, the article is way below Wikipedia standards, but subject is certainly notable enough for an entry. —xanderer 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I added a few simple references myself after a few seconds on Google, and I'm sure more can be had. Kafziel ^Talk 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shaheen[edit]

Lack of notability, references and updates. Ozgod 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete... you have something against people called "Adam" today? :) – Qxz 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most Bio's fail WP:BIO for notibility. Looks like he is starting from A, could be a loooong list.--Dacium 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's produced some notable shows and is president of a notable studio. Just tag with ((unref)) or at the most merge. John Reaves (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, presidents of notable studios are notable themselves and a lack of sources can be remedied. I see no valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. We are dealing with a living person and therefore all assertions must be proven Alf photoman 16:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf photoman comment. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I see no reason why sources will not be found. Did the nom try?DGG 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. President of Cuppa Coffee Studio makes him the Steven Spielberg of the rugrat set. —xanderer 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf photoman unless sourced by end of AFD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Viridae ^Talk 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.2.2.2[edit]

An article on an IP address that happens to be the current home of a DNS server operated by a notable company. Notability is not associative and I'm doubly sure that's the case here - there is nothing special about this server itself; all this article says is that this DNS server acts like any other out there. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with nominator - delete. --Ozgod 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual IP addresses are not notable, unless we want 4,294,967,296 articles – Qxz 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is a notable meme. swain 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What meme? Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Descendall 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article asserts that this particular IP is notable because it is commonly used to check for an active Internet connection. It's a bit difficult to find a quality reference for that, but some googling shows promise. I've added the two strongest ones I could find thus far: a handout apparently from the Bill Gates Foundation here and the fact that a known virus uses it. I also found this PDF, but it's unclear what publication that's from (same site as the aforementioned handout). -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Commonly used to check for an active Internet connection" is definitely not the case everywhere; I get the following output:

C:\>ping 4.2.2.2

Pinging 4.2.2.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 4.2.2.2:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

- My point is: Other countries/networks/regions will have their own super-fast DNS servers that the local network gurus swear by. If we're going to have an article on all of these, we're going to end up with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles which say nothing much more than "1.2.3.4 is a fast DNS server". Being a fast server is not an assertion of notability, even if your only job is to serve DNS to millions of people. Awyong J. M. Salleh 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That handout demonstrates nothing. 4.2.2.2 is used as an example therein, nothing more. Another example in that handout is 64.64.120.40. They are both only examples. You'll find that the difficulty that you have experienced in sourcing the statement that 4.2.2.2 is primarily used to check Internet connections is directly caused by the fact that that statement is false. ☺ Uncle G 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two borderline-trivial mentions do not establish whether this IP address is in common use among IT professionals. Besides, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no non-trivial articles about this IP address. There are probably many other IP addresses with more google juice than this one. Some of the facts asserted in the article seem to be WP:OR, speculation, and personal opinion that isn't supported by the cited references. Also, being used as a test by a non-notable virus can not make the IP notable. If some non-trivial evidence can be found that 4.2.2.2 is common amongst computer support professionals, maybe it could be a sub-section of the ping article. If there is an article about the trivial virus, then maybe 4.2.2.2 should be a sub-section therein. --JJLatWiki 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangentially related comment: In my experience the bad guys' IPs - open proxies, spammers, etc - get the most Ghits. Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My point exactly. So if this IP stays, so shouldn't any about an open proxy, open smtp relay, or spammer? --JJLatWiki 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article should by all means be deleted, but I have to say that last week I would have KILLED to know about this server. It would be nice if this information could stay in Wikipedia somewhere. I looked into adding it to the DNS article, but there really isn't a place for it, there. --Mdwyer 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Weak Keep" and "by all means be deleted"? --JJLatWiki 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah. By all rules this should be deleted. However, I want to throw in a WP:ILIKEIT. That is, for the good of Wikipedia, it should be deleted. But for the good of its users it should be kept. How's that for a waffle! --Mdwyer 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Best waffle I've seen since hiking through Belgium, and way better than IHOP. --JJLatWiki 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and nn vanity. D Mac Con Uladh 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single DNS is not notable absent much better sourcing.-- danntm ^T _C 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey cool, I use that IP--I mean, delete. I've used that one before on a computer, friends gave me it for it's speed. Notable for me, not for Wikipedia. Delete. - Denny 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because otherwise I would have had no idea what 4.2.2.2 was for. I googled it and this was the only useful link. 25th February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.92.110 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The first page of results is filled with irrelevant mentions of 4.2.2.2 as section number in reports, etc. Try 4.2.2.2 dns for a more relevant search. (Yes, that means even if this article is deleted you can always find the same info elsewhere.) Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to ping. If more "notable" ping targets come up then there could eventually be an article on them, but for now just add a section to Ping. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:14Z
- Comment It seems more notable as a DNS target than as a ping target. How about merge with Domain Name Service as I sort of suggested above? Mdwyer 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge with Domain Name Service is a good solution also. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 23:00Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:N. Kafziel ^Talk 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei's Library[edit]

Non-notable wiki that fails WP:WEB - has no coverage from independent reliable sources. Google gets 6 unique hits for "Sensei's Library" (in quotes). [24] Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it's large and active, it doesn't seem to be making a good show of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Go in general doesn't have much English language coverage. Sensei's Library is one of the most useful English Go resources out there and every Go player I talk to knows about the wiki. --Dookama 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some sources are provided. Does not meet WP:N. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google lists 3,800 inbound links.[25] The article obviously needs improvement, but subject is clearly well regarded, and improvement is preferable to deletion. --Richard Daly 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki admins censor contributors and contributions based on self-admitted personal dislikes. --User:Frank de Groot 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:14Z

Adam van Dommele[edit]

Lack of notability, references and updates Ozgod 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Exactly how is a player in a australian A-League soccer club not notable? Please do some checking on Google before nominating an article for deletion. A lack of references is only a valid reason for deletion if such references cannot be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per above Jcuk 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag with request for expansion. –xanderer 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability established by external links, although the article could use some expansion and proper citation. Kafziel ^Talk 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam de la Pena[edit]

Lack of notability Ozgod 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. BTW, Ozgod, you can't vote "Delete as per nom" - you are the nom. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Adam de la Pena definitely notable, he wrote and co-starred with Gary Busey in I'm With Busey and created Minoriteam. I'm in England and I know who he is. Even Variety and the New York Times have written about him and his work. Saikokira 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His lack of notability - major works, awards, press, etc. - are not present in his article. If you can manifest any references and resources substantiating his notability, please add them to the article. --Ozgod 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I can manifest any references? I have already manifested them. I provided you with links to articles in Variety and the New York Times in my previous comment, they only took me 30 seconds to find on Google. I've added them to the article for you anyway. Saikokira 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and add sources to the article. Ozgod, please try to fix issues yourself before nominating article for deletion. A lack of references is only a problem if they can't be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, unsourced assertions about a living person, if sourced by end of this AfD change to KEEP Alf photoman 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:15Z

Konjaku Shin National School of Karate[edit]

Does not seems to be a notable association Alex Bakharev 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no assertion of importance or significance – Qxz 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted. -Seinfreak37 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I had originally proposed this for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Konjaku Shin is another article on the SAME school which I have redirected to this one, and which should also be deleted if this one is deleted. Dave Kershaw is a vanity bio (again, WP:CSD#A7) on the school's instructor, which was speedy deleted and recreated within hours. The number of articles created about this school and individuals involved with it, all linking to the school's web page, shows that they are part of a concerted spamming effort (WP:CSD#G11). PubliusFL 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication at all why this is potentially notable. The school's website is a veritable showcase of its notability, or should I say absence thereof: The website press gallery appears to have a comprehensive collection of press articles, all of which appear to be attributable to the local rag, the Grimsby Telegraph, and some even include telephone contacts for the school at the bottom of the article. There is absolutely no trace of any national press coverage, despite being called "National School of Karate". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Kershaw. Ohconfucius 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last AfD was three days ago and the consensus was to keep. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Walk Networking[edit]

This is the 2nd AfD. THe first was below for conflict of interest. During this nomination it was apparent that sources do not claim notibility or verifability. The article has a number of extra readings which are all mainly internal references. The 3 external sources to no assert notibility in any way.

The first source claims to be for the sentance "Many of the Great Walk Networking participants had been involved with other organisations that were formed prior to 1988 to address significant threats to Western Australian forests: the Campaign to Save Native Forests (CSNF) and South West Forest Defence Foundation (SWFDF)" but the source makes no mention of Great Walk Network participants being involved. The 2nd source is a passing mention in a list of hundreds of other non profit organisations who support land conservation. The 3rd reference is merely an ABN listing, for which there are millions in australia.

The article therefore does not have verifability (in reguard to claims on the number of walkers and significance of the club) and has shown nothing to indicate it is notable for WP:ORG standards, thus DeleteDacium 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: tending to speedy keep since nominator is in blatant disregard of consensus at the previous AfD which closed just three days ago. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Reynes[edit]

Bio/resume for a wing commander (I assume of the USAF). Has been speedily deleted once under this title. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 04:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio from http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7920 – Qxz 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. 1ne 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of diss songs[edit]

I am actually neutral on this. It just had a template suggesting deletion, with no discussion (the equivalent of a time bomb). I think it deserves a fair trial before judgement is made, which is why I removed the old Proposed Deletion one and put in an AfD one. So, order in the court! Tom Danson 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A good and very helpful list of songs. I see no reason to get rid of it, "Diss Songs" is the correct term. If it isn't then someone can come up with something new to use as the title if it means that much. -- MAKAVELI x87x 09:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well composed list, quite accurate actually! I'm just not sure if "diss songs" is the appropriate title. --Nevhood 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well listed. However, it should be possibly looked through well, since some don't look "correct". --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Diss song" is a well defined term and this list is very helpful. However, make sure no non-hip-hop songs are on it (I had to remove "You're So Vain" and "Sweet Home Alabama" a couple of months ago). JuJube 07:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If "Diss song" is a well-defined term, can you provide some externally verifiable third-party sources for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes over at the Diss song article? -- saberwyn 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the criteria needs to be tightened up, ie, only notable records (ie, records that have been written about by independent sources) and major label releases should be in there. And of course, records that dis a vague, unnamed person or group should be disqualified, which probably comprises of 40% of all hip-hop tracks. hateless 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. None of the entries in this list show any sources stating that the song is a "diss song". I agree with hateless that the criteria needs tightening and independant sourcing, but think that leaving this list around unsourced is worse than starting with a clean slate, clear inclusion criteria, and sourcing for all entries. -- saberwyn 09:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this is not just a directory or catalog. Do we really need a list of every song that falls within a particular genre? I think not. Agent 86 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every song is based on the editor's personal opinion and original research. There are no citations for the term "diss song" which seems to belong in urbandictionary.com. The list is just a list of loosely associated songs with no assertion of notability for themselves. And they, nor the term, are no more significant than the call-out songs and insult songs sung since way before hiphop was a musical art form. The diss song article (if it stays after some sourcing) should list only a few of the most influential, and best examples of the style. But someone who cares about the term should look into the history beyond the hiphop version. --JJLatWiki 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the article's scope has currently exceeded the scope of diss song as defined in the article, and the song lacks sources which indicate that the specific song is a diss song.-- danntm ^T _C 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this is a text book example of indiscriminate information - a long list of unsourced material with little or no criteria for listing. There are absolutely no citations, making the entire thing a work of original research. If for some reason, this list is kept, then it must be slashed apart, and any song without a reliable source that categorically states that the song is indeed a "diss song against <blah>" must be removed. And that just doesn't mean "notable records" - that means that each song needs a solid reference that it belongs on this list in particular. I think you'll find when that cleanup happens, you'll end up with a trivial list with a tenth of the content it has now. If that. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lose it with fire—not a single citation from a reliable source; little more than a magnet for original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep "Diss song" is a well defined term, though I disagree with JuJube: The diss song is not limited to hip-hop. fhb3 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)fhb3[reply]
- I say again, if "Diss song" is a well-defined term, would you be so kind as to provide some externally verifiable third-party sources for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes over at the Diss song article? It could really use it. -- saberwyn 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep It's a comprehensive list and I feel we would loose a lot by starting from scratch. Diss songs are normally documented in the media so finding sources for many shouldn't be that difficult. In my eyes it needs some specific criteria, time, effort and a notice or two to encourage the right kind of edits. The masses are more inclined to elaborate on what already exsists than to start from scratch in my opinion, hence why great articles often don't start out great. -- GQsm ^{Talk | c} 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep same as above 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but have some stricter criteria. For example, does a diss song towards Bush ("Mosh" by Eminem) count as a diss song? I guess so, but if that's the case shouldn't the criteria be more solid.--Urthogie 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lymphoma as plausible search term; merge left to editors' discretion - I suspect, from the single edit that inserted the whole of the article in one go, that it may be a copyvio, but Google does not confirm it. It may have been taken from a printed source. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphoma in Children[edit]

This article should be merged into lymphoma, then deleted, or just deleted because it is already redundant. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It has relevant information, it's longer than the actual article on Lymphoma! --Nevhood 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. AFD is not a replacement for ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)) tags. Neier 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. After material is merged either a redirect needs to be placed or a history merge needs to occur to ensure the edit history of the article is maintained for the GFDL. AFD is not the proper venue for this. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:20Z

Adam Wise[edit]

Lack of notability. Ozgod 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's some pretty important positions in there, but it reads like a cut and paste from an official bio. With some fleshing out and basic research, this could be a worthwhile article. If it survives the AfD I'll see what can be added. Jeendan 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jeendan. This should have been tagged with ((unref)) and/or ((notability)) before coming here. Sources will not be hard to find. John Vandenberg 06:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep no problem about N, he's been Equerry to Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, & Aide-de-Camp to The Queen. Sourcing will be easy enough. DGG 07:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Kolindigo 07:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Private secretary to two princes is notable. -- Necrothesp 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unsourced assertions about living people. If Sourced and referenced by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf photoman 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is well-established, and quality of an article is not a criteria for deletion. I wish folks would stop nominating articles because they're weak—It's not a valid reason for deletion. Perhaps a more liberal use of Wikipedia:Requests for expansion should be encouraged. —xanderer 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would cut the work here by about one-thirdDGG 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:17Z

Adam Williamson[edit]

Lack of notability Ozgod 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, the player's notability has not been established in this article. --Nevhood 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Players in major league soccer teams are notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. MLS is the top level of the game in the US; players there are notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm and BPMullins. Label this a stub, and suddenly it's not as vulnerable. —xanderer
Keep - Major legue sports player. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This could have been speedied, since no valid reason was given for deletion and no other editors agreed with the nomination. Kafziel ^Talk 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Williams[edit]

Lack of notability. Ozgod 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His IMDB profile lists over 90 credits over the course of 4 decades. You'll have to provide evidence to show these roles are non-speaking or otherwise minor if he's to be called non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in this case just saying not-notable in the nomination is not enough due to the amount of films this actor was involved in. On the other hand, this article lacks sources and references, a reason enough to take a closer look. Alf photoman 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional entertainer, considerable resume. Noability is not an issue, quality of entry is. Recommend Wikipedia:Requests for expansion tag. —xanderer 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced statements entail removal of the statements, not deletion of the entire article. Notability is established. Kafziel ^Talk 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danniebelle Hall[edit]

per WP:COI, author is artist's daughter. Also, no references and only 20,000 hits on google. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination Yonatan (contribs/talk) 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and cleanup. Passes WP:BAND, so COI is not a valid deletion reason. I added one AllMusic.com reference to her page. Neier 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a speedy keep would imply a nomination not in good faith, but the article did not have any independent sources. As they exist (e.g. [26][27]) it is keep. --Tikiwont 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, assertions about a living person lacking sources and references. If sources and references are added by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs some concrete references and some more neutral wording but otherwise it seems notable. I think the reference to the author's web site constitutes original research. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:17Z

MARKSMAN ENTERTAINMENT[edit]

non-notable corp, article by its founder with conflict of interest Dicklyon 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE TYPING like this all the TIME must be DIFFICULT. JuJube 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the article is not rewritten by the end of this AFD, for COI. hateless 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also ALL THOSE CAPITALS ARE MAKING MY EYES GO FUNNY! Jules1975 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, conflict of interest – Qxz 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per WP:COI, WP:MOS and for failure to understand the CAPS LOCK key, (it really isn't CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL,) -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CAPS-LOCK DELETE per nom. Awyong J. M. Salleh 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and WP:MOS. ALL THE CAPS ARE MAKING ME DIZZY! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and bite. Apart from the above, for this (a follow-up to this comment). --Ouro (blah blah) 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PR puff. And CAPS LOCK fatigue. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Darrenhusted 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Catholic High School PJ, Malaysia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:19Z

Catholic High School Football Club[edit]

non-notable and disparaging Feeeshboy 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant; should be named if they are an acclaimed club Early123 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and disparaging. Could be speedy -Seinfreak37 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School football club? On Wikipedia?Al-Bargit 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Catholic High School PJ, Malaysia - I have already carried out the merge. TerriersFan 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Catholic High School PJ, Malaysia - more information is needed. Wikifand 11:32
Delete per precedent on student clubs. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader[edit]

Delete No official announcement has been made for this film, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rockstar915 05:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As far as I can tell from a Google search, we're about a film too early to warrant having this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly redirect to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader pending a real movie announcement. FrozenPurpleCube 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for now, to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Seems to be more efficient than a full delete as a possible search term, and if/when reliable information becomes available about the movie, it can always be added. Until then, Wikipedia is not for crystal ballery. Kyra_~(talk) 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no such film has been announced. Possibly redirect to the book per Kyra. TJ Spyke 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal content, minimal context, and no sources provided (which is understandable, at this point there's no information to source!) Delete-Redirect or simply Redirect to the book as possible search term, break out again when/if externally verifiable information can be used to create an article. -- saberwyn 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Abu Ghraib prison. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:19Z

Adel Nakhla[edit]

Although person is related to a notable event, their life itself is not notable except for their involvement as a participant Abu Ghraib prison event. While the Abu Ghraib prison event is a very notable event, Adel Nakhla was simply questioned about their involvement in the event and their statement they released. They would be better as having been qouted in the main article of Abu Ghraib prison rather than having their own article. Ozgod 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abu Ghraib prison and merge any useful information – Qxz 10:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Qxz. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Qxz Alf photoman 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Qxz. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Wiggin[edit]

Article reads more as a resume than an article of notability. No list of major works, any press or awards. Ozgod 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of independent non-trivial sources establishing notability Alf photoman 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Tulabharam[edit]

This article has been tagged for over a year as failing to distinguish between an article about religious belief or an article about plays or movies about the person, and tagged for failing to provide context to interpret the contents. It is written in a POV form and lacks references, and smacks of being copied and pasted. It has had no improvement in a year. Inkpaduta 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Satyabhama#Tulabharam (albeit an article with similar problems). --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rewriting this is useless - might as well write from scratch. I'd rather have zero information than this. - NYC JD make a motion 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's had a year, so it's clear this isn't about to be improved any time soon. fraggle 09:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources or references since June 2006. No serious edits since June 2006. Evidently a living person so there is no choice Alf photoman 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete per WP:SNOW. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:19Z

1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress[edit]

non notable symbolic "memorial" to Congress asking it to declare the 14th amendment invalid; I see no sign that it received great or lasting notice, except from a small fringe element of conspiracy theorist types (other than several such websites, it gets very few Google hits.) The dispute over the legitimacy of the amendment is covered in the 14th amendment article in some detail. And, of course, the article has been the site of long-running edit wars. Brianyoumans 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of this information, if WP:attributed, be a useful addition to articles on the 14th and 15th Amendments of the American constitution? -- saberwyn 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. per nom. (I'm not sure what "long-running edit wars" there've been). There appears to be little chance this article could be more than a stub. The matter might merit a sentence in the relevant amendment articles, per saberwyn. -Will Beback · † · 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- long-running may have been an exaggeration. There has certainly been some back and forth between the special-interest-accounts who created and built the page, and some folks like Famspear and Zantastik below that have tried to clean it up.--Brianyoumans 04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a minor incident that most likely will never expand beyond a stub. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was trying to prod this article just a few days ago, but now I find it to be a rather interesting and worthwhile article on a notable subject. The article is all verifiable in a reliable source at this point and has become much more stable in the last 24-48 hours. I believe it is notable because it is unique--it is uncommon, to say the least, for a state legislature to urge the federal government to repudiate two constitutional amendments (especially ones that had been around for nearly 100 years). This being the case, a simple Google search is not adequate to test notability. Given the context of the civil rights movement's beginnings in the 50s (including the then rather recently decided Brown v. Board of Education), it is indeed remarkable that the Georgia legislature was making a (symbolic) attempt to excise the equal protection clause from the Constitution and even remove the right of African-Americans to vote. I do not believe an adequate ground for deletion based on sound policy/guidelines has been presented thus far, thus I respectfully dissent from those who have commented. If deleted, I hope it will be mentioned in relevant amendment articles per the above. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has gone from being a long, painful, monumental train wreck consisting almost entirely of fringe, unverifiable, non-neutral, completely erroneous original research to what it now is: a short article that at least has the possibility of development. Assuming that the 1957 Georgia resolution is real (and it appears to be so at this point), I second editor Jersyko's comment that it is "remarkable that the Georgia legislature was making a (symbolic) attempt to excise the equal protection clause from the Constitution and even remove the right of African-Americans to vote." Let's give Wikipedia editors a chance and some time to develop this into something better. Yours, Famspear 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article, hitherto dominated by conspiracy theorists and fringe forum posters, can become something quite valuable. It is truly rare for a U.S. state legislature to attempt to repudiate two constitutional amendments (one of which was passed to allow African-Americans to vote). This sort of measure is of much interest to historians of the period, as it is a good example of massive resistance to the U.S. Civil Rights movement. A trip to the microfilm department of a good university library will certainly turn up a plethora of newspaper articles on the measure, both critical and supportive. I'd wager that there are some good law review articles on this matter as well. So I must respectfully disagree with the delete votes on two counts: this topic is certainly notable, both by its rarity and importance as part of massive resistance. Secondly, provided we go offline in our search for sources, we shouldn't have much trouble finding them. (Looking offline, looking in older sources is something we need to do much more of anyway).--Zantastik talk 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly agree that this is historical, and it is part of the history of the resistance to the civil rights movement, but the question is, was it a small part or a large one? I'm not sure anyone took this that seriously at the time, let alone now. Unless this got a lot of attention in 1957, I suspect it is too trivial for its own article. --Brianyoumans 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~Keep--reexaming what should be the main articles, they are quite weak & it might be better to build up from articles like this. --Actually, merge into the larger articles, neither of which mention this resolution, though the one on the 14th does mention the controversy. It would just be a reference in larger article--the preset article has nothing much to say. see the larger article for context. Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Controversy over ratification DGG 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from "delete" above) - willing to give the article a chance to improve. -Will Beback · † · 06:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable (if stupid) historical event. - Denny 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable (far from "stupid") historical event in the form of a legislative (Georgia Code Annotated) act having passed all the required legal research guidelines before enactment by the State of Georgia, and which has not only been unrefuted for nearly 50 years but is supported by reliable press editorials in various newspapers (e.g., Chattanooga Free Press Editorial Section - March 8, 1995).Burk Hale 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been re-edited by the initial editor to further comply with Wikipedia standards and to focus on the notable points of the subject matter (considering that the actual text of the memorial is not allowed to be posted and thereby forces Wikipedia readers to seek external sources for a better understanding of the articles notable import).Burk Hale 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted the edits; they were poorly sourced and remarkably POV. Also, there is a prominent link to the source text (of which copyright is claimed) in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article shows the purported "copy-righted source" removed. No specific comments, giving standing to claims for POV, have been made on the discussion page. All edits are un-biased and well-sourced. This article is being remarkably scrutinized and abused no matter how well it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.Burk Hale 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did make specific claims regarding POV in the article. I find your removal of the POV tag to be in bad faith and your continued insistence that the article is being "abused" to be uncivil and a violation of WP:OWN. I have posted an RFC on the article to gauge community consensus on this issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:20Z

Adamo Ruggiero[edit]

Article does not meet the notability requirements for a WP:BIO. It reads more as a fan biography containing irrelevant information. Ozgod 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He had a lead role in the well-known children's television program Degrassi: The Next Generation. Any deficiencies in the style of the article can be fixed by editing instead of deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as lacking sources and as having little references Alf photoman 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Give it all sorts of cleanup tags, though; it needs a thorough scrubbing. GassyGuy 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Drabo[edit]

Nominated due to lack of notability, major works, awards, press, ectera. Page has not been furnished with new information and is an English translation of the French verison which is just as bare and minimal. Ozgod 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would not want to try to judge the N of a Malian filmmaker without participation from someone who knows the country and the field.DGG 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because I am unfamiliar with others to compare this one with, & wouldn't have known the right sources or how to evaluate them. Now that the sources are presented, keep.DGG 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why? "I'm from that country and I personally think that the subject is important." is not a notability argument. A notability argument involves finding and evaluating published works such as this biography (a translation of this biography) and this interview in Fespaco News. And Google has not ceased working. ☺
  There's also independent commentary and analysis of Taafe Fanga here, which can also be used to expand the article's coverage of Drabo's works. Uncle G 09:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because local sources (and if he's notable in one country, he's notable for Wikipedia) may not be available online or in English. He may have a dozen or more articles written about him in relevant North African or West African newspapers, but I'm guessing not one in a hundred is online. Combatting systemic bias means not judging notability by Google hits or by mentions in easily findable Western news sources alone, especially with respect to an individual from West Africa. --Charlene 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I would have understood Uncle Gs comment in the sense that in this case there are already sufficient english sources available online (some of which he actually listed) to help establishing notability or - if I misunderstood - this at least is what I conclude for myself (keep). --Tikiwont 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, then also delete Martin Scorsese and others who "only" took part in major international film festivals but didn't won nothin'. - Darwinek 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to avoid another nomination Alf photoman 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Preston[edit]

Fails to meet the notability requirements in WP:BIO Ozgod 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criterion A7 - no assertion of notability. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is easily established. Kafziel ^Talk 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers[edit]

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

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

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

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Jonas
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jonas

Unreferenced article on a band composed of 3 brothers (Kevin Nick and Joe, whose articles have been or are in the process of deletion. Appearances and rankings which might support a keep are completely unsourced. They were signed and were dropped by Columbia after 1 album (also nominated), and would venture they may not pass WP:MUSIC either. Ohconfucius 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I've cleaned up tons of vandalism on the related pages and nominated one of the brothers for AfD, after nominating both for prod. They aren't very notable, it isn't cited, and the only external links are myspace and the official webiste. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking sources make it necessary to delete articles about living people Alf photoman 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per general un-notability, lack of sources. Dan, the CowMan 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete just put a stub on it and have the citations needed tabs on the page and/or lock that page. Rollinman 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This band is currently on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, so I don't see why it should be deleted. You make not like them (I don't care for them much myself) but they are notable with some of the chart success they've had so far. ItalianGreyhound 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's great, but the article doesn't currently say that at all, just that they charted on Radio Disney. Also, the "Singles" currently lead to a disambiguation page and a song that they covered. Dan, the CowMan 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, clearly meets WP:MUSIC (Top 40 hit in US). Teemu08 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not meet any speedy keep criteria. GassyGuy 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Another Disney band selling well in the prepubescent crowd who nobody will remember in five years (months?) but they meet the notability guidelines. Give it all sorts of cleanup tags, though. GassyGuy 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources can be found. Acalamari 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite how bad the group is, they do warrant an article. BlueLotas 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if I'm not exactly fond of their music, even I've heard of them, and that's saying something for a pop band. On Yahoo! Music Videos (see LAUNCHcast), their video "Year 3000" is ranked number 64 at this time. That qualifies WP:MUSIC number 1, and if I'm not mistaken, didn't they record the theme to Disney Channel's American Dragon? (That's what the American Dragon page says at least...) That would qualify them for WP:MUSIC number 9. I just went to Billboard.com and saw them on the main page. According to the Billboard Artist Index, [28], they are #58 on the Hot 100, #31 on the Hot Digital Tracks chart, and #45 on the Pop 100. I would say that's pretty notable. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their music is often, and all bands/artists deserve a page anyway

17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)--Don't look here 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This band is still considered up and coming, thier music videos often play on the disney channel, and just because an article lacks sources does not mean it should be deleted. This article should have been tagged in the first place as needing sources. That should be done instead,Michael Cook 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Who deleted the talk page? That is not considered kosher.

Dan, the CowMan 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis band is still very new and people are just now starting to hear about them. This information is still relevent and resoursful, more information will be coming soon.Rinalisa94 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Old AfD asserted notability through Google hits, which is not a valid criterion. Setting aside the Google hits (mostly advertisements or passing mentions) I see no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:CORP. Kafziel ^Talk 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Lebovici[edit]

NN law firm, pure WP:COI ("Entered info on WSGL 4-5-2006; jlancaster, WSGL employee"). Inexplicably kept at prior AfD. - NYC JD make a motion 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN law firm (doesn't even claim notability). TJ Spyke 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it does CLAIM notability (although the claim is unsourced). TJ Spyke 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfD is here. Fg2 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yap LORAN-C transmitter[edit]

Yet another non-notable radio/TV mast, just like the dozens that have already been deleted. This one isn't even particularly large, and is one of the smallest on List of masts. Descendall 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unimportant – Qxz 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Current LORAN transmitters appear to be considered notable (and they would be for hobbyists, boaters, etc.) but a dismantled LORAN transmitter? --Charlene 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete but even for current ones, shouldnt they be grouped in more comprehensive articles for an area? They'd be just as useful.DGG 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Following the mass deletion of masts for which I have been deeply inplicated, I have been wanting to delete the whole lot of LORAN-C masts after merging them into the table in the LORAN-C article. Go ahead and delete anyway. I have the data on HDD and will update the table in due course. Ohconfucius 05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles on LORAN installations. This is not an article on a mast. It's an article on a transmitter. Fg2 07:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus of the first AFD was mostly based on giving time for the article to be cleaned up. Time's up. Yomangani ^talk 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireweed Democracy Project[edit]

Previously nominated on 11 April 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireweed Democracy Project

No indication that this meets the guidelines for web content. Current version appears to make not even lip service to our foundational policy of freedom from bias and lack of reliable sources means that it is in all likelyhood impossible to do so.

There are zero Google news hits for this and of the 74 unique Google hits I was unable to locate any non-trivial coverage of this. Blog mentions, listings, and several trivial mentions yes, but nothing like what would be required to write a verifiable article from non-primary sources. brenneman 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but no external sources are provided except their own website. Delete unless reliable third-party independent sources are added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete reads like advertising for their POV, including a list of the endorsers. DGG 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adela Micha[edit]

Article lacks any notability, biographical information, career notability (awards, press, major works, etc.) and functions more as an advertisement/resume. Ozgod 07:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Someone who has a television program named after them (a show on which they interview celebrities) is notable. All the problems you cited can be fixed by editing the article rather than deleting it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, lacking sources and references being an article about a living person is not acceptable by wiki standards. If sourced and referenced by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion proposal must be a joke, right? She has a larger audience / viewership in the United States than Canadian news shows. She certainly has a larger viewership than Béatrice Schönberg who does the French TV news and no one wants to delete her article. What about Daljit Dhaliwal, all she is a news presenter on BBC? Chivista 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lawson[edit]

This fellow, Nicholas Lawson, is completely non-notable. He has not done anything. He had a job working for the Royal Family, but hasn't seem to have distinguished himself in any way. I have requested input on notability for a month on the article and no one has responded. Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) standards. The previous article that was deleted under this name 14 April 2006, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Lawson was a different person. --Bejnar 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a personal secretary for Princess Anne? That doesn't make him notable. TJ Spyke 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Private secretary to the Princess Royal is notable. -- Necrothesp 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can either of you back up your statement? Regardless of your answer, I don't see reason for deletion. Anyone looking for him could quite easily be redirected to the Princess Anne article where he could be mentioned if it is decided he shouldn't have his own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How can one back up a statement of notability? Notability can't be proved. He is verifiable and will be mentioned in numerous articles as being private secretary to a senior member of the Royal Family. Beyond that, backing up is impossible. It has to be a matter of opinion. -- Necrothesp 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, articles about a evidently living person with assertions lacking sources and references are not acceptable by Wiki standards. If Sources and references are added by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yes it has no be sourced, but , given the topic, it obviously can. To see why the role is N, read the UK section of article on aide-de-camp. DGG 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read that and I still see no reason for notability for Nicholas Lawson. Job title alone might qualify one for a list, but not an article. What did he do that was notable? --Bejnar 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nomination. Nothing special or notable here. Turgidson 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO there are no sources and while trivial mentions would probably be easy to find, one with him as the primary subject (as called for by the guidelines) have not been shown to exist and I have no reason to believe they do. A google search, for instance, shows nothing about him besides wikipedia mirrors.[29] Eluchil404 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. A private secretary does not inherit that person's notability, regardless of who you are private secretary for. Nuttah68 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:00Z

Hitmann[edit]

Delete Biographical article of a non-notable internet artist BigTheBudo 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparent failure to meet the primary notability criterion. Additionally, the lack of sources also causes the article in its current form to fail the policy on attribution (WP:V+WP:NOR). Kyra_~(talk) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  - Delete Artist in question is not nearly notable enough to warrant his own article. There's plenty of other internet resources for information on such users. This is also clearly a vanity piece put together by a few of the artist's fans.KinnikumanZebra 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I see only one semi-resaonable keep opinion, that of Vsion. - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Singapore[edit]

Listcruft. Categories (i.e. Category:Shopping malls in Singapore) do pretty much the same thing, with less potential of listing non-notable malls. A similar article, List of shopping malls in Malaysia, was deleted for this reasoning. - Two hundred percent 08:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use a category, thereby avoiding the problem of excessive red links – Qxz 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also list of shopping malls in India which was nominated yesterday. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet List of shopping malls in Malaysia was deleted without issues raised of its merit or the use of lists. The article also remains locked from recreation. That's rather hypocritical. - Two hundred percent 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many shopping malls have been deleted as NN, and therefore a more useful grouping is the category of the N ones.DGG 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and precedent, unless made useful like List of largest shopping malls in the United States. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in India. utcursch | talk 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep malls are notable structures and centers for community activities.--Vsion 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the idea for the list to be expanded to somewhat like that in List of largest shopping malls in the United States may help keep the article, then that certainly can be done.--Huaiwei 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Instantnood 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument was made to sustain this vote. This debate is not a vote. - Two hundred percent 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Vsion 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An individual shopping mall may be notable, but having a list encourages the inclusion of non-notable ones. Moving to a category would reduce this problem. Matchups 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A category dosent neccesarily group them into geographic regions as this list does, however.--Huaiwei 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories are still equally capable of sorting shopping malls by geographic regions, as demonstared in Category:Buildings and structures in Malaysia by state and ~~more cats fromCategory:Categories by geographical location~~ Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state. If malls in Singapore are as notable as editors here claim, cats on specific regions should be acceptable. I'll stand corrected if such cats are deleted via CFD. - Two hundred percent 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have a List of shopping malls in the United States (as well as a List of largest shopping malls in the United States) and a List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom, we can also have a List of shopping malls in Singapore. Singaporean shopping centers are as notable as US or UK shopping centers. --Carioca 04:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have those articles, but that does not constitute precedent, as neither has been put to an AfD. Indeed, it has been suggested on the talk page of the former that it, like this one, should be deleted. Matchups 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The list currently includes 213 malls, 78% of which are redlined, and some of the rest (e.g., Mustafa Centre) do not appear notable. Matchups 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mustafa Centre happens to be a major shopping centre within a bustling ethnic enclave in Singapore [30], and was the first to introduce 24-hour shopping in the country. The article clearly states these, so please validify your non-notability assumptions.--Huaiwei 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From reading the article and looking at the picture, it appears to just be an ordinary collection of stores on a street. Perhaps it is notable; I was just going by what was in the article, which does not say that it was the first to introduce 24-hour shopping in the country (which might be notable), just the first in the neighborhood, which is not. -- Matchups 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Drascombe[edit]

The result was Withdrawn Honestly I didn't intend to stir up such a hornet's nest. —Dgies^t c 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stub with only one real revision in the edit history: A one line definition. There is a much better version of the article at User:Colinwatt/Sandbox which I wanted to move here to preserve its edit history. I had filed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, but one editor is opposing on procedural grounds that I should take to AfD. I cited WP:IAR but here we are. Please delete this stub so I can move in a real article. —Dgies^t c 08:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Your version is MUCH better Dgies. Harryboyles 09:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Wrong process, and raises no policy-actionable rationale for deletion under WP:DP. What I actually suggested three times on two pages (my talk page, and WP:RM where nominator tried improperly to speedy it as noncontroversial, even after it was controverted), was for nominator to take this to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and warned against going the AfD route. I don't like being misrepresented as supporting things I clearly oppose, thank you. There is no justifiable reason to destroy the edit history of the original stub, which was a good faith effort on another editor's part to create a meaningful stub, simply so that the author of the better article can falsely appear to be the first author to address the topic on WP. I can't see any policy-based reason that this stub should be successfully AfD'd just because someone would rather use this process to do a roundabout merge than use the proper one. WP:PM exists for a reason. The stub has certainly needed copyediting, and its author didn't understand what talk pages are for, but that's no reason to preted he/she doesn't exist. Oh! I take part of that back! I was the present nominator who has added signed comments to the article, not the original stub author! I have tried really hard to WP:AGF with this nominator, but am left with no conclusion to draw but that this is a self-serving vanity deletion - based on this twice-in-a-row refusal to use PM, on blatantly mischaracterizing me as advising this AfD, and on previous debate here and here in which the objections to nominator's trying to "take over" the article and obliterate its past history were never addressed, at all, and responded to with complaints that I was "making a big deal" out of something trivial. I even offered to immediately support a proposed merge. This outright usurpation request should be sent to WP:PM where it belongs. PS to Harryboyles: Which version is better has no relevance. Although of course the nominator's version surely is better, that's not what's at issue; I don't think anyone in their right mind would oppose a merge. The issue is these repeated attempts to bypass policy processes, not to mention fundamental misunderstanding of WP:IAR, demonstrating (see details at previous discussion links, particularly the 2nd one) an unusually high disregard for WP process and policy in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has nothing to do with deletion but with a desire for a WP:SPLICE of the revision history of a sandbox. Editors write articles in their sandboxes all the time and post when they have good content. The revision history of that endeavor is fairly irrelevant and is akin to writing the article offline, the only difference being that an edit history happens to be created for the former. Simply click edit in this article and post your much better material as an expansion. I suggest you then immediately post to T:TDYK.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farva'd[edit]

Page originally nominated for speedy deletion, but does not seem to meet speedy deletion criteria. Page describes a term that doesn't appear to widespread. WP:GOOG returns zero results related to the term. Super Sam ^{ultra quick reply} 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's now been blanked by its creator, which qualifies it for CSD G7 even if it didn't before. (Except someone reverted the blanking... why, I'm not sure) – Qxz 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harryboyles 09:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. 1ne 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot M. Bour[edit]

appears to be self written per user name of creator killing sparrows 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It may be autobiographical (which in itself is not a deletion criteria), but it deals mainly with facts relating to a notable person. The lack of references is the only reservation I have (hence the "weak" vote). LittleOldMe 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This guy appears sufficiently notable to have an article. Some references to confirm his involvement in the various films mentioned would be useful. Plus maybe it needs to be slightly more Npov? Jules1975 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I don't see any non-trivial external sources in the article, which automatically would make it qualify for deletion under WP:V. If sources are added by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to locate any media coverage on Mr. Bour, so I do not see that he meets WP:BIO. Lack of coverage plus the WP:COI issue make me support deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; AfD is the the place for deciding on merges. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming controversy[edit]

In the heated climate of global warming, rational editing is impossible. The article is untidy, occupied by highly partisan groups on both sides, impossible to edit sensibly and is bad for the reputation of Wikipedia and so unfortunately should be deleted. I can see why it is separate from global warming but it really belongs with thart article and should be merged but in the present climate that would be impossible. Mike 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Warming. POV fork. Kyaa the Catlord 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The other article is already far too long. I also don't really recognise the comment about "heated debate", Global Warming is way calmer than the hot spots in WP. Also I don't particularly recognise "two sides" in respect of the article. There are a few frustrated editors, that much is true. --BozMo talk 09:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One side is clearly the group of editors that revert or remove text they simply disagree with. It is a pattern for nearly 2 years and it destroys the credibility of Wikipedia in the meantime. In fact, one of them has had an arbitration ruling against them for that very abuse. 4 of the 'speedy keep' votes are of members of the one side abusing the system to protect their POV. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Info For an example of the problems of editing seeHockey stick controversy continued as Hockey stick controversy II if one sentence takes this time - what will an article take - I can't afford to waste it on such a trivial matter! Mike 09:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is "it's to hard for me, so let's give it up"?--Stephan Schulz
- Comment Your efforts in this area are appreciated. Don't give up, no one said consensus would be easy to achieve. Mishlai

Speedy keep under WP:SNOW. The article could be better, of course, but most articles could. The topic is notable. Global warming is overly long anyways (and a featured article). Moving this into global warming would violate WP:SUMMARY and decrease the quality of both articles. --Stephan Schulz 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SK too - this is an abuse of process - Mike seems to have got frustrated with the article, but thats no excuse for trying to remove it, the arguments will remain. If Mike has no time for this, let him go elsewhere William M. Connolley 10:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is no way this should be deleted - is this a bad faith nomination? -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I think the reputation of Wikipedia is more important than the existence of any page. There has been an ongoing dispute and all I can see is people at each other's throats. I have tried to help out as a neutral person on the Global warming controversy page, but it is beyond me. I have suggested a different split in the articles in a hopefully win-win scenario which would allow both sides to have their say with less conflict an ill fealing: Time to accept change this has gone off topic. There is clearly bullying going on: Fight this insidious Censorship. I can't think of any other way to cool the climate by a few degrees! Mike 10:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- I agree with Mike the article is currently of poor quality, and editing is as frustrating for the rest of us as it is for him. I suspect deleting or merging will likely just move those problems elsewhere. Moreover, the article does discuss an unavoidable and notable issue. I think the article needs some organized, focused housecleaning instead of deletion. --Nethgirb 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I care about process. The nomination is an abuse of the AfD process, IMO. DavidCBryant 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above. Vsmith 11:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep editors working on the article are conscious of the risk of a POV fork and striving to avoid that. Agree with above. Mishlai 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Controversy is not a valid reason for deletion; deleting this article - even as bad as it is now - or any other controversial article would lessen Wikipedia's value as an information resource. Krimpet 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is a constant edit war and it chases people away. The version that the administrators 'overseeing' the article continuously revert and delete for implies there is actually very little controversy. Read the talk page and you will see that there is clearly little "weight" due to one side of the controversy relegating the entire article to an encyclopedic equivalent of Flat-Earth Controversy. Much of the content is duplicating other articles. The function for the entire article is singulary: perpetuate edit wars for admins to exercise the influence. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Info Beginning of evidence collection of these abuses on the article can be found here. The way the article is being used (by 5 of the people voting on this page) clearly makes the case that the article was created as a POV fork. Reading the history of the page also shows that the admins will agree to a consensus and then revert the edits weeks later. Wikipedia's process may seem to be disrespected with the RfD, but Wikipedia's credibility is diminishing the longer the article exists. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete If Wikipedia had any value as an information resource, this article would not be aloud to get as bad as it is, but the majority of people don't want Controversy to be listed in the page about Global Warming Controversy. Much of the information in this article is listed with "yea but's" and even the opening paragraph has been constantly changed back to a version that states how little "controversy" there is. If that is the way it will be (as from what I can tell, there is a group of several users who have made this, among other "Environmental" pages a cause they are standing behind) then there is no reason for this page to exist. A "Global warming controversy" page should include as much "Controversy" as can be put into it, or should be deleted.--Zeeboid 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I fully support both comments above mine (Tony and Zeeboid) and make them mine also. I would although wait for the neutrality issue to be settled before deleting the article. But this cannot be stressed enough : A "Global warming controversy" page should include as much "Controversy" as can be put into it, or should be deleted. Right now, a group of editors, some of whom are admins with strong opinions about GW, is using this controversy article to promote GW theories that are already presented in many other articles about GW. An article about a controversy is neutral by focusing on the controversy, not on the majority opinion. There is much to say about the controversy surrounding GW and I would be sad to see this article disappear, as it (could) also contains valuable information. --Childhood's End 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have like for the RfD to have waited until the neutrality issue was closed, but I do think the logical step shortly afterwards would have been to delete the article as unnecessary and irrelevant since it portrays the topic as resolved, implies any controversy is overhyped and undersourced and thus equivalent to flat-earth types and the article functionally serves one purpose: to justify preventing the topic from being mentioned on any other global warming page. Kind of a reverse POV fork, to be quite honest. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'm new to this article and debate (to avoid any of the seeming straw man arguments above) but I've now read through the entire article and the majority of the links to talk page debates. As far as I can see this article is well-written, evidently notable, and extremely well cited (although the article needs to be edited to arrive at a uniform footnoting format, currently there are two overlapping numbering systems representing either true footnotes or external sources). As such, this article clearly passes wikipedia's standards to be kept, particularly since POV issues are generally not considered sufficient reason for an AfD nomination (please see here for that policy). I believe the only real AfD issue here is whether editor disagreement is sufficient reason to delete an article. As such, this is clearly a keep. There is no such thing as an article that is impossible to improve or maintain. -Markeer 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to come and help ensure that happens? But seriously, Markeer, I would be very interested to know how we can tackle this problem. To be honest it almost needs a full time editor to ensure the more resourced side doesn't just squash the other - this just isn't practical. I don't think it is possible to reprimand people for enthusiasm, nor is it easy to convince the scientists that evidence from a non-science article (of an opinion) is evidence. My recommendation would be to totally reorganise the pages to better demark the science articles from those that are a record of opinion so that it is better understood what constitutes "appropriate sources" .... then have an experienced editor to monitor the situation to ensure that science articles were based on scientific sources, and opinion articles didn't e.g. reject opinions simply because they aren't in scientific papers by climatoligists. Mike 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could say that better. In order to document a controversy which is now essentially between a mainstream science/climatologists on one side and various people including geologists/economists/politicians/"opinionists" and others, if the only evidence that is permitted is science evidence from respected climatologists, then obviously the article will not accurately capture the nature of the controversy. Mike 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time such a one sided argument between the experts and various people happened was with the Y2K bug. Unfortunately the experts won that one and made over $300,000,000,000 ($300 Billion) in doing so. -- Rameses 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even add the accountant-driven Enron scandal and the legal emergency that followed. Of course, from all the corporate governance laws that have been enacted in order to answer to the crisis, the accountants are now getting richer from it. --Childhood's End 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you both arguing that when a plurality of scientists believe something, it is therefore suspect? Because it strikes me that you're on shaky ground with that argument. :-) However, regardless of your point, it has nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted, only how or if it should be improved...which is of course the point I was making. This is not an AfD candidate article, this is a "Cleanup" or "has NPOV issues" article. Even Mike's reply to my "vote" was to suggest expert oversight or reorganization of the article instead of deletion, which of course highlights the inappropriate nature of this AfD nomination. Not liking the way an editors' debate or disagreeing with an article's thesis are NOT, emphatically NOT valid reasons for deletion according to wikipedia's guidelines. I voted Keep above having absolutely no opinion on the issues addressed in the article. MY issue is with this nomination, which in my opinion should never have been brought to AfD. Take it back to the talk page. -Markeer 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only suspect scientists' beliefs when politics are involved. --Childhood's End 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wait, I'm a computer expert, and I always thought the Y2K thing was bogus nonsense that would have no impact. I was correct. And for those of us who bothered to make their thoughts known, in the circles I was in, it was the prevailing opinion. But in general, that's not what was reported and not the experts quoted. (Kinda reminds me of Lindzen or most "man on the street" interviews.) Regardless, it was just my opinion, and there was no way to prove it -- but with time. Kinda like GW. Only time will tell. As such, since we'll all be very long dead before it gets proven, that provides the controversy on GW. With that in mind, how else would anyone think this page would be? I do agree mainly all the GW pages are in general controlled by those with an obvious POV that the evidence is clear. When others of a more um neutral stance on it make points that are against that view, they are looked at as being "on the other side" so it becomes very difficult to get anywhere. All that said, this article needs to stay, simply because it illustrates the lengths some will go to to keep their own ideas of what the truth is as being portrayed what the truth is. Sln3412 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you failed to mention that one side allows sources such as Mother Jones and ExxonSecrets while disallowing sources not in peer-reviewed journals regardless of the information being cited (opinion, summaries, etc). The discussion is obviously not encyclopedic in that there is really no debate at all on the topic. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony, when a few lines on the Hockey stick controversy are so heavily censored that one side will not permit it to say what the hockey stick controversy is, then it is obvious the page will never be worth having in Wikipedia. Most people are not employed to edit Wikipedia - it can't have permanent editors, without someone to enforce the normal give and take which builds good articles the page will never tell the reader what they need to read to understand the issue. There has got to be a point when Wikipedia admits it can't cover every article with a NPOV because too many people (including me) are here because they have an opinion - like Iraq, it is time to retreat! Mike 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This seems to me to be a "Oh, there's lots of controversy, so let's give up" AfD, which is NOT what AfD is for. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "lots of controversy so delete", it is "controversy is not valid so article is irrelevant/unnecessary". -- Tony of Race to the Right 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike, its not about a oversourced side Vs. another, its about people pushing their POV to keep the Controversy about the topic out of the Controversy page. Users in the same breath have removed links to sites they don't agree with saying the sites are biast, while defending sites like ExxonSecrets.org and Mother Jones. the whole point of a Global warming controversy page is for the Controversy however this controversy is being hidded with opening paragraphs citing "concesus" and pointing out how wrong the Controversy is.--Zeeboid 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the whole. The main issue with this article is neutrality. It will be solved by focusing on the controversy rather than on the validity of GW theories, which are quite adequately detailed in many other articles. --Childhood's End 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont see how it can possibly be considered WP:SNOW since there is significant evident opposition. There are other topics, such as some involving evolution, where a specific controversy page is used this way, to provide a place for all the opinions in a balanced way, and making it easier to have a NPOV main article. If it's not being edited in a balanced way, that should be addressed elsewhere. We can't say an important topic should not be covered because NPOV is hopeless--that's admitting the failure of the principle.DGG 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to WP:SNOW: Do you see a snowball's chance in hell that this will achive a consensus for deletion? If not, the clause applies....--Stephan Schulz 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the most important scientific debate of our time. And Wikipedia should avoid it? why?? if it is heated, then calm it down. We shouldn´t avoid debate - specially such an important one. There are more heated debates abour sports or celebrities, and these are far less important and far less encyclopedic than this one. David 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If only we could have the page edited by somebody with a neutral point of view. Oh, wait, nobody like that exists, since whatever they'd come up with would always be seen as biased, since some never like their conclusions or line of reasoning. What is it, 17" or 20'? Or -5"? Make the big bad USA pay for all the cleanup, while letting polution-laden countries like China and India off the hook. See? Controversy. For those of you that might be upset about what I'm saying, that proves my point. Sln3412 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Tony of race to the right needs to make a Request for Comment, if he feels one "side" of the controversy is trying to "win". When people feel strongly that they have the truth (rather than an opinion), it's hard for them to even acknowledge that other can disagree. Let's stop calling each other out on "violations" and just try to figure out how to describe each point in the controversy neutrally. So that each side will say, "Yep, that's what my side says."
- I would even suggest a "deal" where each side agrees not to write anything about their viewpoint but only to Wikipedia:Write for the enemy. I wish I could mediate here, but, darn it, I'm on one of the sides! ;-) --Uncle Ed 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A well written article on a notable subject with abundant references. Mostlyharmless 01:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I love the idea of a Wikipedia:Write for the enemy truce. I just re-read the whole page, and it has several good sections already. The NPOV comes through pretty well in these. The list of statements sampling claims by each side have similar numbers of entries, and the skeptics' claims cover a lot of what I've seen put forward for this side. I would like to see more history of the earlier stages. I'd have to go review some diffs to see what kind of edits have been facing reverts leading to so much frustration from Mike, ChildhoodsEnd, and Zeeboid. Birdbrainscan 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep i think Krimpet nailed it best. --Kim D. Petersen 06:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If we can work out the POV problems in Criticism of the Qur'an, it can certianly be worked out here.--Sefringle 06:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg custom firmware[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable and minor update to firmware by another maker. Philippe Beaudette 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I don't think "minor" correctly applies, it doesn't seem to have been discussed in reliable sources, like the comparable OpenWRT project has. JulesH 10:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i don't see the problem - "it doesn't seem to have been discussed in reliable sources' does not mean very much to me. Thedreamdied 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say redirect to the article about Oleg, except there doesn't seem to be one (Oleg is a disambiguation page listing only names} – Qxz 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge if Linux link added (and please add firmware to spellchecker). MarlaB 11:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen International (USA)[edit]

Article describing a non-notable pageant. The event is on a far lesser scale than Miss Teen USA and, I think, even Miss America's Outstanding Teen (although the latter is a new pageant, it's ties to the Miss America pageant make it more notable than most of its predecessors. Having titleholders that either previously held other titles or went on to win titles does not convey notability. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having contestants who have gone on to other pageants does indeed convey notability. This system is important to the history and development of those contestants. Deleting all information about this and the Miss International (usa) pageant would be a mistake and leave holes in the articles about those women. However, I would compromise for a merging of the two articles and an article on the international system as a whole. I do not know how to do that, though. Bebedebroadway 22:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided to establish notability. Having contestants who go on to participate in other, unrelated pageants doesn't make a contest notable. utcursch | talk 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain Cman 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm beginning to have concerns about the nominator's agenda. The nom's comments include "The event is on a far lesser scale than Miss Teen USA", but the same editor nominated Miss Teen USA for AfD. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Teen America). Why use an article as a basis for notability comparison and then nominate that same article for deletion? --Oakshade 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Okay, I see there's a difference between "Miss Teen USA" and "Miss Teen America" and the nom had nominated only the latter. --Oakshade 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Masterpedia 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep I wouldn't quite go as far as to say "nom withdrew", but the nominator certainly changed her mind here. Consensus is to keep anyway, particularly when one of the Deletes has "strong cleanup" as another option. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen America[edit]

Article describing a non-notable pageant. The event is not televised and is on a far lesser scale than Miss Teen USA and, I think, even Miss America's Outstanding Teen (although the latter is a new pageant, it's ties to the Miss America pageant make it more notable than most of its predecessors. Having titleholders that either previously held other titles or went on to win titles does not convey notability. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, expand & reference After looking on Factiva and seeing the links Oakshade has provided I will admit that the pageant is somewhat notable (although comparing "Miss Teen America"'s paltry 250ish hits on Factiva compared to "Miss Teen USA"'s 3400 kind of proves my point (especially considering it is likely that not all of those hits are actually directly related to the pageant because of the naming issue I highlighted below). However, I guess there is room to expand and improve the article so am changing my vote. One question... why does the article not list all the winners, as it appears the pageant was running from the 80s? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation on grounds that the current article doesn't say anything encyclopedic about the topic. There is essentially nothing salvageable in the current article, so deleting is appropriate. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up, delink winner names. Results 1 - 10 of about 18,300 for "Miss Teen America". (0.07 seconds) and there are three article in Google News. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem with Ghits is that often pageants are confused where they have similar sounding names. "Miss Teen America" is often used as a generic name for any teen pageant in America (it is most commonly mixed up with Miss America's Outstanding Teen)... if you checked out the GNews links... one relates to a 1970s spoof on a pageant titled "Miss Teen America", one is valid (about a state pageant for the Miss Teen America system calling for applicants) and the third incorrectly uses the Miss Teen America title when in fact they're talking about the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant. I would suggest you take a look at the first few pages on Google before you start suggesting that the number of ghits make this notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Strong Cleanup per Doug Bell. Maybe it's notable, maybe it's not, but the article doesn't cite whatever notability it may or may not have (unless one counts the one footnote that, somehow, doesn't actually link to a footnote). I'm willing to accept that this may be a known and influential pageant in the beauty pageant world, but it needs to be verified, not asserted. -Markeer 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numberous published works about either the Miss Teen America pageant or people who have the works written about them because they are Miss Teen America, and from extremely reliable souces too boot, like the Washington Post [31] [32]. Here are some others - [33] [34][35] We might not care for such a constest (I certainly don't), but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article on a notable subject. --Oakshade 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:17Z

Adam Joseph John Wilson[edit]

This player is not listed on gmfc.net (the official Greenock Morton website), none of the fellow 'Ton fans I've spoken to have heard of him, and I spoke to a Morton youth player who hasn't heard of him, either. If he does exist then it's on the very fringes of the club and as such he's not competed in the professional leagues, so he's non-notable in any case. Nach0king 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing nomination. No stance. -- saberwyn 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Either a hoax or very non-notable. Delete either way. Eluchil404 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; lack of sources indicating notability – Qxz 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely hoax, if not on the GMFC website then suggests extreme lack of notability even if this person does exist. Qwghlm 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we WP:AGF and assume this isn't a hoax, he is clearly not a recognised first team squad member as per the club's website, and at that level of football reserves/youths would not be considered notable..... ChrisTheDude 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of references proving his actual existance --Angelo 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete completely without prejudice as to creating a sourced article by this name or on this topic. --BigDT 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet (surname)[edit]

Proposed deletion because the article cannot represent all people with this name in all places, more likely one families geneology... Might be acceptable if heavily rewritten. HoratioVitero 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent original research. --Hyperbole 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of sources – Qxz 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. -- Necrothesp 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems to fit with most of our surname articles. DS 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not supposed to represent all people with the name, it's supposed to discuss the history of the name, which is perfectly encyclopedic. I'm sure sources can be found for this, so I would suggest pushing this to a relevant project for cleanup. It would be a shame to delete an article for a lack of sources if they can be found. We can always revisit deletion later if sources don't surface. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of sources and notability in current form. Agreed that might be acceptable with a massive overhaul. Suriel1981 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the history of each surname is encyclopedic, we'll be overrun with them -- worse yet, many surnames have different histories. Notable Sweets are already at Sweet. That ought to be enough. Carlossuarez46 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly written and unsourced, but yes the history of a surname is certainly encyclopedic, provided the article otherwise meets standards for verifiability. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HostAP. Anyone object? No? Excellent :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jouni Malinen[edit]

Not especially notable outside of developing open source drivers. Propose redirect to HostAP. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 22:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HostAP, non-notable (There, that wasn't hard. What took 10 days?) – Qxz 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The amount of discussion in non-controversial AFDs is a function of how high up in the log page it's listed. :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:23Z)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (defaults to keep). A potential rename is an editorial decision. --BigDT 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Greater Manchester North[edit]

Article merely consists of internal and external links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Croxley 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list It already is a list, really just needs a name change. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG as not independently notable local division of notable national organization. --Metropolitan90 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A consensus appears to have developed that the level below national in Scouting is an appropriate level for a WP article. Below that at District level or Troop/Group level is not appropriate. The level below national in the UK is the Scout County and this is what this article is about. We are slowly developing these articles and this one needs development. I will work on this one. --Bduke 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that such a consensus exists. I have seen various articles on individual troops come up for AfD and they have always been deleted, but I can't recall previous discussions about sub-national scouting groups. At any rate, it's not clear to me that Scouting in Greater Manchester North is different from Scouting in other parts of England other than the fact that it is in a different location. --Metropolitan90 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards#Local articles (Councils and smaller entities) which is the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting and it has not been challenged. Sure, that is about the US and US States are larger than UK Scout Counties, but it is intended to apply more widely. There is no larger entity than the County other than national in the UK. Some of the County Scout articles have grown into good valid articles. This one of course has not but in time is could well do. I agree about troops and I would also not support an article about a Scout District, but the Scout County is much larger than these. I still plan to work on it but have been tied up. --Bduke 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Jcuk 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am from the Greater Manchester North area, and lucky/unlucky enough to have gone to one of these organisations as a youth. However, Mr.Z-man raises an important point, that the article is in bad shape, and is currently acting as an internal and external link repository! Images of the neckerchief designs, former projects, division (pack?) badge motifs, history, numbers, etc etc really ought to be included, otherwise I see strong grounds to merge the North, East and West Greater Manchester Scouting pages into one article. I will currently abstain, with a view to adding a keep/delete comment depending upon any changes made. Jhamez84 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of counterparts of given names[edit]

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to multiple languages and their translations (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text that isn't self-referential or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It can be found at wikt:Appendix:Table of translations of given names

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The table-form itself is explanatory for the list. Complies with WP:LISTV. If Wikitionary can use it as well, this is good for that project, but irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- User:Docu

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list. -- Necrothesp 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL? Please address why it is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list has been getting quite messy and needs a huge overhaul. The list is a mess right now, and if there is no way to rectify this, then you should delete it. Also, it's redundant to keep it after transwikiing. --Sapphire Flame 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Read the notice on the page: "Being transwikied in no way affects the disposition of the article on Wikipedia". -- Necrothesp 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Khoi khoi 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that this is what Wikipedia is not, and this should be transwikied. Inheritantly problematic with OR, and not something which meets Wikipedia's foundation principles. Daniel.Bryant 10:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is what we have inter-language links for. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic; more useful than articles on dubious histories of some surnames that are now termed a "series". Carlossuarez46 07:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot Stickfigure Animator[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Awyong J. M. Salleh 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Delete. No independent sources or assertion of importance/significance – Qxz 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice should independent coverage arise. There's 497 unique Ghits[36], although most are download mirrors, that indicate that this is probably fairly widely used. Without WP:V/WP:RS coverage, however, it's no encyclopedia article. -- Scientizzle 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QXZ—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barfoos (talk • contribs).

Keep[edit]

Comment[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Hande[edit]

Artist and poet who fails WP:BIO. Article created by User:Bhaskarhande, so WP:COI too; and it's been tagged for notability since Jan. I've brought it to AFD in case it adds anything to discussion of Wikipedia:Notability (artists). Mereda 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the number of pubs lead towards notability, however number of redlinks that popped up throughout the article was surprising. Then "Maharashtra Prize" has surprisingly few ghits. More investigation required in light of COI. John Vandenberg 12:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, we need more information about the notability of the Maharashtra Prize before being able to make a informed decision. As far as I can gather it is an award from the Bombay Art Society and presented by the governor of Maharashtra annually. The point is that I have absolutely no idea what the entry and awarding criteria are. Alf photoman 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ in view of information given by utcursch Alf photoman 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has done international exhibitions and is author or co-author of several books. The mentioned award should also be investigated as annual awards by relevant art societies add to a person's notability. Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doing international art exhibitions and authoring three books doesn't make on notable -- what matters it the notability of works. The article, Bhaskar Hande's sites[37][38][39][40] or Google results don't establish the notability of the art works, the books or the project ("Your form is my creation"). The article doesn't mention what is "Maharashtra Prize"; even if we assume that it is same as the "Governer of Maharashtra Prize and medal" (which I doubt), it alone doesn't indicate notability -- the prize is one of the 18 prizes awarded by The Bombay Art Society every year. It is not a major award that makes one a deserving candidate for a Wikipedia article (although in addition with other sources, it would add to notability). The burden of establishing notablity, providing references lies on the creator of the article. The article has been tagged for long -- unless there are secondary, reliable sources, this should be deleted as a WP:COI case. utcursch | talk 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utcursch and others. It would help to know who published the 3 books - if a big publisher I might change my mind, or if press mentions were produced (harder in asia I know). Just to be clear, he seems definitely not notable as an artist, so we are talking about him as a poet only I think. Johnbod 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm also keen to work out who those publishers are, but it is of less relevance as it is his art that he is notable for, so I will first be tackling the list of exhibitions. John Vandenberg 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is as an Indian artist that he would be notable for; "Your Form is My Creation" is almost certainly not only a book -- it was a visual work, but I havent spent time to nail that one down yet. He has attended two respected Art academies (the redlinks I was initially worried about have been fixed). I have added more content & sources, including Bios which list all of the exhibitions. John Vandenberg 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for that extra info, which rather firms up my opinion for deletion. He has had, apparently, only one solo Exhibition, in Dortdrecht. "Respected art acamemies"s around the worls produce hundreds, if not thousands, of graduates every year, most of whom never become notable. A book/catalogue of his prints has been published by a gallery, and he has been on Dutch TV once. It's not enough. Johnbod 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has to contain validation of notability. At present it does not, and I don't think there is enough achievement to be able to find more information to do so. The Blackheath Gallery shows appear to feature him as one of several artists in a commercial gallery group show.[41] This establishes his credentials as a practicising professional perhaps, but not someone who in any way stands out from that level to achieve notability. Tyrenius 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after two days of searching for information and changing my mind twice due to conflicting information I will stay with delete. Mr. Hande can, at some point be a very notable artist but that would be challenging WP:Crystal Alf^Photoman 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:24Z

Shoe Bowl[edit]

non-notable local high-school level football scrimage. Agent 86 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep Certainly non-notable in the classical sense of the word, but the competition does get local coverage [42] [43]. And as hard to believe as this might be, it's actually shown on local TV. [44] That being said, the coverage that I could find through Google is pretty limited but I think it's safe to assume that some slightly more substantial coverage exists off-line. Perhaps not quite enough for meeting WP:N but I'd give the benefit of the doubt on this one. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've voted to keep other similar articles, but this contest is insufficiently notable: there is nothing to mark it out from its peers. WMMartin 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete' entirely NN Cornell Rockey 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WMMartin. MarlaB 11:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WMMartin. Suriel1981 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:24Z

Venture Technology Merchants, LLC[edit]

I cannot find anything to say this is notable, no references in article. Google search brings just over 100 results, mostly copies from the wikipedia article. Englishrose 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable independent sources. Shimeru 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - very short article without evidence of notability per WP:CORP; no evidence of multiple coverage by independent sources. Delete unless sources or links are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stripped of wikipedia and flir (investor relations site) entries, we are left with 15 unique but insignificant Ghits. Ohconfucius 06:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short article with little or no context (CSD A1) Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Elder Scrolls in lieu of deletion. If anyone is still interested in Transwikiing, please go ahead and use the history tool. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:27Z

The Elder Scrolls skills[edit]

Delete and/or Transwiki No known place to merge; I'm part of the ES project, and I hate to see such a page go, but this is gamecruft; belongs in a Wikia, rather than Wikipedia, with which, if all possible, I will gladly help with ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe UESPWiki could make use of it. Eluchil404 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge any relevant info to main article on The Elder Scrolls. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wiki I linked earlier uses the Creative Commons by-sa license rather than GFDL so a transwiki is probably no possible. Eluchil404
Comment: It is my understanding that GFDL content, (which includes Wikipedia,) can only be transwiki'd to wikis that use GFDL. UESPWiki uses CC-by-sa. (I am however open to correction/further clarification on this point, over at my Talk page) -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm amazed that didn't trigger an edit conflict... -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that transwikiing to UESP wiki is fairly useless since similar information is already available there. (information is mostly distributed throughout subpages) note that the only skills considered on this page are those in TES:Oblivion, so the information on this page or subpages is consistent with that on this page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the above being said, my vote is weak keep since I am not entirely sure this qualifies as useless gamecruft, but then again, i seem significantly more tolerant of cruft than other editors. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUN study[edit]

WP:COI: This article was created by a person affiliated with this study (see Bes-Rastrollo M, Pe´rez Valdivieso JR, Sa´nchez-Villegas A, Alonso A, Martı´nez-Gonza´ lez MA. Validacio´n del peso e ı´ndice de masa corporal auto-declarados de los participantes de una cohorte de graduados universitarios. Rev Esp Obes 2005;3:183–89), User:Jrpvaldi = Jose Ramon Perez Valdivieso. There are many important epidemiological studies in the world, and independent Wikipedia editors should be deciding which ones are notable and how to describe them. Macrakis 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modestly, my contribution to the SUN study was very little and this article is not an important one.--Jose Ramon Perez Valdivieso 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - leaving aside the COI issues (which I don't see as significant in this case), there are no third-party external sources to establish notability. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS--Sefringle 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The external sources can be founded in Pubmed. This study may be compared to Nurses' Health Study. It is of interest, and adds knowledge to Wikipedia. --Arturico 13:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence from Pubmed or SCI that this study is cited by other authors. Thanks. --Macrakis 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryony Seth[edit]

I've been contemplating nominating this article for a while now. Non-notable actress (in my opinion anyway), who so far in her career has only appeared in Hollyoaks: In the City. That said, the vast majority of the article is about the series, with only one line (the first one) out of the whole article concentrating on the actress herself. — FireFox 17:51, 16 February 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Nothing in the article indicates this person meets notability requirements or that her role in this single show is in any way significant or notable. No prejudice to any improvement, citation of sources, or further indication of notability being added to improve the article before the AfD process is completed, or recreation if this person goes on to become notable. Agent 86 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow Candle[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. They released only one album that was commercially unsuccessful. Nv8200p talk 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND; all external links are to sites affiliated with the band; no evidence of coverage by independent third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; Famous and influential prog-rock band. Has All Music Guide and LastFM entries. Songs have been covered by other famous bands. Commercial Success of Swaddling Songs at the time it was released is not a fair basis for deletion - we would not propose deletion of the article on Vincent Van Gough on the basis that his paintings didn't sell while he was alive. Google search for Mellow Candle reveals a large number of pages on the band, most of them not fan sites - and this despite the band being famous before the rise of the internet. Finally, the Wikipedia is quite often the first recourse people turn to when looking for information on (for example) a band they have just heard of. I did for this band and would have been extremely miffed had I found no artcile. A1octopus 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a highly notable (Celtic) folk-rock band, and their reputation has grown hugely over the years. Their main album is widely considered a classic by collectors and cognoscenti types. Up there with Pentangle, Fairport et al. I have another album by them (alternate versions etc) from a couple of years back - because people are interested in them! One of the singers went on to work with Mike Oldfield, I believe. There's a resurgence in interest in this music at the moment - due to today's 'wyrd folk' movement. 'The Unbroken Circle' website (about wyrd folk music and its history) calls the album "legendary". (Maybe someone who's au fait at editing wikipedia can put a URL link in to that site; this is my first post and I don't want to inadvertently mangle the main entry) Why isn't there an entry for 'The Trees' too..., another classic ;-) Do not delete the 'long tail' - especially when it's better than most of the, er, other bit of the graph. Does this kind of silly (potential) deletion of entries happen willy-nilly across wikipedia. That's a bit concerning... 194.66.90.23 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Matthew[reply]
Comment There is an entry for Trees under Trees (folk band)

I am the developer of the Unbroken Circle web site and one of the main writers on esoteric folk music. Mellow Candle are an increasingly important band whose acclaim far outsrips their sales. They pioneered a form of folk-rock that resonated with the new paganism that arose from th late 1950s onwards. Their ethereal sound has been adopted by dozens of artists. The members have gone on to solo careers and working with such as Mike Oldfield and Brian Eno. At present one member has a notable solo career and another is part of the leading avant-garde band 'Fovea Hex'. Their influence will continue to grow and removing the band from Wikipedia will limit coverage of folk music considerably.

Keep. One of the band members (Steve Borrill) was also a member of a notable band (Spirogyra (band)), and there are some reviews of their album.[45] [46] [47] It's enough to make a decent argument that they meet WP:MUSIC.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - doesn't pass primary notability criterion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:29Z

David Bradbury Haning[edit]

Non notable guy who posts screeds on polls. All info sourced to blogs only. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local personality. --Tainter 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific outsider literature practitioner of admittedly local renown. -Moorlock 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noteriety is local. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, the article needs to have removed some negative BSD material about his motivations.DGG 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local crackpot who flyposts his paranoid views all over San Francisco. There is a dearth of press articles about him. 16 unique Ghits are mainly photos put on flickr. Ohconfucius 06:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SF must have changed. Once upon a time the main thing you were sure to find in SF newspapers was stuff about people like him. DGG 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold cleworth[edit]

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, only sources seem to be the artist's personal art gallery web pages. Seinfreak37 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but all the references are to his own site; no evidence of coverage by independent sources as required by WP:BIO. Delete unless further external sources are added. Walton monarchist89 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator has had plenty of time to provide sources beyond the subject's personal webpage and nothing has been added. Fails WP:V. janejellyroll 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added material about an exhibit at Petersen Automotive Museum --Eastmain 03:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to references added by Eastmain. Alf photoman 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Wanted / Reef Blower / Tea at the Treedome[edit]

The article is basically a re-write of the script and could not be improved without significant re-writing. It contains no information as to the voice cast or creative people involved in the ep, nor does it cover the creative processes or ideas that went into it. thewinchester 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article is not a stub, it's not "poorly written" but it isn't the best written. it could do with some trimming, expansion and excising and it would be a decent episode article. There is a consensus episode articles are encyclopaedic (Wikipedia is also not paper remember), the article does not appear to be "indiscriminate information" and looks perfectly notable enough, I also advise tagging for ((cleanup)) and secondary sources. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a stub, but it is pretty poorly written. I'm also not sure how much of it would remain if unencyclopaedic plot outline were removed. GassyGuy 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article at the moment contains way too much plot outline and far too little commentary, particularly seeing as it was the first episode of a popular series: there ought to be a lot of commentary out there that could be cited. But a lot of the outline needs to be cut out; there's way too much of it, and it may not qualify as fair use. JulesH 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's already articles for each episode Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants), Reef Blower and Tea at the Treedome. --Caldorwards4 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Caldorwards4, individual episode pages are much more encyclopedic, maintainable, plus they have the advantage of already fitting within naming conventions. Invite the author to add any information that might have been missed into the other three articles. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we already have articles on each of the three segments. There are several other articles like this one; I have prodded them. AgentPeppermint 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a waste of space. Deb 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 claim it meets WP:CORP is not explained, and I can't see it from looking over the article. Proto ► 12:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroundReport[edit]

Non-notable news site per WP:WEB, with distinct lack of detailed coverage from other reliable sources. Google gets 50 unique hits for GroundReport 2006 "New York" [48], 8 unique hits for GroundReport "Linux Business" [49], and 10 unique hits for GroundReport "open source" Heise [50].

Note: This article was previously AfDed and speedy deleted as spam. This current version is not deleteable as repost because it has been substantially expanded. The problem with lack of reliable sources, however, remains. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at the sources. The first is in German, so I can't say anything about it. The second, from doshdosh.com, I'm not satisfied as to its nontrivial nature. The third is from the blog of the GroundReport founder, and can hardly be said to be independent. I can't find any better sources than these to establish notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Heise is the most respected technology publication in Germany and basic translation of the German Open Source Meets Business link shows it describes GroundReport's second prize award. Asterixie 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Note: Have also added an additional independent source from cyberjournalist. Asterixie 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CORP John Vandenberg 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to National Taiwan University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:30Z

International Chinese Language Program[edit]

smells like copyvio Ideogram 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Taiwan University. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Taiwan University per above. No evidence that it merits its own article. Walton monarchist89 10:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:31Z

Soap Opera actors[edit]

Delete inappropriately capitalized article that is redundant to other articles with soap opera cast lists. Wryspy 10:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Why not keep it? But we firstly have to define "Soap Opera".--Orthologist 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many soap opera character lists already exist for respective programmes. Ben 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary list per WP:LIST; would become ridiculously long if it were to include every single actor who ever appeared in a soap opera. Walton monarchist89 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted!!!! erm, Delete. Seriously, though, soap opera is a very vague genre and this list would probably become hopelessly long. --Sapphire Flame 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Soap opera is a well-defined genre of television program. Why would you call it vague? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nigh-unmaintainable indiscriminate list. Could number in the tens of thousands, taking into account all the soap operas that have existed since the format came into being. Otto4711 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some random selections appear to already be covered in categories about this. Unless the list can add something the cats don't have I see no reason for having them. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northtown Automotive Group[edit]

A small chain of auto dealerships confined to the Buffalo, New York, area. The article is not terribly spammy, but there's no sign that the subject meets WP:CORP. Prod was contested with no explanation beyond "They have nice cars!". ×Meegs 09:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds.martianlostinspace 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:CORP; no references to third-party independent sources. Links with charities are unverified. Walton monarchist89 10:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:31Z

Banana Roulette[edit]

Complete unsourced nonsense The article was speedily deleted once and then recreated (with the db tag and the "hang on" attached!) with a unsourced claim of significance. janejellyroll 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:SNOWBALL candidate if I ever saw it. The Kinslayer 11:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nonsense or vanity page or non-notable game or original research or Wikipedia is not for silly games involving fruit made up in school one day Jules1975 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the pretentious and wholly unjustified suggestion that this page requires deletion. Why is it that Banana Roulette can be frowned upon by the upper classes but that 'Chess' nonsense gets a free pass, hey? - BB4L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.235.27 (talk • contribs)
- Simple. Chess was not made up in school in one day.--UsaSatsui 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess nonsense as you call it has been the subject of multiple books and is proven to be played worldwide by millions of people. It exists, no such evidence exists for Banana Roulette. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, unverified, fails WP:NFT. However, it shouldn't technically be speedy deleted; it's not nonsense per se (hence not G1); it asserts notability without proving it (hence not A7) and it doesn't meet any other part of CSD. So it has to go through the full AfD; speedying it would be a violation of policy. Walton monarchist89 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to a simple Delete having read comments of Walton monarchist89 Jules1975 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non notable game -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOT Cornell Rockey 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Didn't you see the piece about the Great Banana Roulette Dispute on CNN last night? --UsaSatsui 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, maybe I'm too sarcastic this morning. Really, Delete. --UsaSatsui 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't turn up any evidence this actually exists which is the most important part of any article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep keep! I have been playing banana roulette for several years and believe that it is a completely valid subject for reference. Just because no books have been written about it does not mean that it is not a part of our proud british heritage!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.87.58 (talk • contribs)

Actually that's exactly what it means. The Kinslayer 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does Acutally mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.235.27 (talk • contribs)

It's like Banana Roulette, fictional bullshit. The Kinslayer 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and nominate for WP:BJAODN. Suriel1981 13:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire (computer game)[edit]

Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability, completely unsourced. The Kinslayer 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; does not cite third-party independent sources. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong do not delete. This game has its own community and it is being actively developed. It is prominent as the most openly developed free software MMORPG. It is difficult to see what is unsourced in this article - provided that all information is freely available at the project site and that the game itself is free and everyone can install it. The installation disks of some very popular GNU/Linux distributions (e.g. Debian) include Crossfire. --Zinoviev 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I should explain what I meant by "unsourced". WP:SOFTWARE dictates that "Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)". There's no evidence in the article of sources that are independent from the software or its creator. If you can find some magazine articles, news reports etc., that mention the software, then add them to the article and I will be happy to change my vote. Walton monarchist89 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong do not delete. This game is the biggest and oldest free software MMORPG alive, and not only is it currently very actively developed, but it also has spawned an entire generation of derivative games, such as Daimonin and cf+.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. BJ^Talk 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources[edit]

Crossfire was referenced and summarized in a Linux Journal (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3633) in October, 1999. Also additional review and summary sites can be found at: http://happypenguin.org/show?crossfire , http://freshmeat.net/projects/crossfire/ , http://www.gnomefiles.com/app.php/Crossfire
In an article describing what's an MMORPG on the Spill Group's website (http://www.spillgroup.com/news/2006/07/5972.html), the following reference is made to Crossfire: "Some of the best-established independent projects are AWplanet, Crossfire, Daimonin, RuneScape, Endless Online, Star Wars Combine, Eternal Lands, Dream Blue Online and Planeshift.", underlining the obvious importance of Crossfire (and Daimonin) in the realm of independent RPGs.
In an interview on RPG Codex, S.C.O.U.R.G.E. developer's Gabor says he "enjoyed" Crossfire, and compares the "headquarters" level to a Crossfire's town (http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=111)
In a linuxfr weblog entry, Olivier Migeot posted a news about the release of a new version of the game, giving a brief description of it and a positive evaluation of it (http://linuxfr.org/2002/01/05/6558.html).

Reply - These sources seem adequate, so if you add them to the article I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to demonstrate notability, above sources are passing mentions only or 'review' by allowing visitors to rank the game themselves - IE completely unusable. WP:SOFTWARE does cite Linux distributions as acceptable for WP articles, however this seems to have been disputed over for some time now and current discussion on the talk page makes it seem that this aspect of the proposed guideline has not got community support. Whether that really is the case or not, an aspect of a proposed guideline which is disputed is a pretty weak nail to hang an article on. I'd be happy to change to keep if some reviews or other reliable sources appeared (and would help use them as references, if needed?). QuagmireDog 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but still, since inclusion in the dists is so very vague as a yardstick of notability, what's a better alternative? Discussed in publications and having been included in a number of Linux dists for a long period of time and still, apparently, doing somewhat well? You know, the spirit of our notability criteria is not "has this thing been discussed in print?" It's "is this thing widely known?"... This thing, I'd say, is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game has a passing mention in the Linux Journal, and it really is a passing mention (part of which is also referencing Happy Penguin, itself simply confirming that CF actually exists). Every link listed (and that I've found googling) stack up to nothing more than "CF is a rogue-like MMORPG that exists". What we're left with is that:

CF may be well-known in the appropriate circles.
CF has been distributed and live for a number of years.
It may be the earliest example of its type.
Other games have been spawned from it.

None of which is going to provide sources to build an article, none of which strikes me as a case for keeping this 3 year old stub. If nothing good has been shaken out of the tree now, three years into its existence, then I'd say it was a good time to pull down the shutters. If Daimonin can be sourced, some info on CF could be included in a development section there. "CF exists" and "D evolved from CF", cited, would be enough to anchor it there. That'd pretty much say everything that's here anyway and hopefully get D's article rolling. QuagmireDog 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of the sources above, the only one that appears to be an independent WP:RS is the linux journal article, but it's not very substantial. Is there anything better? — brighterorange (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Better third party independent reliable sources needed if this article is to last. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, Crossfire is older than heaven (it has historical weight) and has been included in major Linux distributions for, ungh, just about as long as I can remember (which is to say, it was there when I started using Linux, circa 1996). My memory is a bit hazy there, but that's not the point - the point is that this is old and widely known. rank #8637 in Popcon isn't very awful either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being described by a Linux publication and being part of a Linux distribution is notable. It would help a lot of the "oldest" claim could be substantiated. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with Mgm above that being described in a Linux publication and being part of Linux distributions is notable. Also I'm unsure if this is sufficient to provide evidence of age, but here are some Mailing list archives (dating back to 1992) and historic version archive (files in one archive timestamped at February 1992). Would be good if someone can turn up some other things. --AlDragon 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and there was also (I think) a historic list of roguelikes (or a FAQ of roguelikes), where it was discussed as a possible idea on how to implement a multiplayer roguelike. I can't remember a whole lot though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. Needs more sources in the article, one mention in a Linux mag and being part of Linux distros is not enough. NicM 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Such as? --Zinoviev 10:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those demonstrating its notability. NicM 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - You didn't answer me. --Zinoviev 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I did. When the article includes sufficient sources to demonstrate its notability per WP:NOTABILITY, or even something towards WP:SOFTWARE. NicM 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        Isn't it clear enough what my question was or you intentionally don't want to understand it? “Such as?” means – “Please explain what is the meaning of sufficient sources according to you” (provided that according to you an article in Linux Journal and the inclusion of the game in Linux distributions for years is not enough). --Zinoviev 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't feel the need to retype WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOFTWARE here. NicM 11:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        
        I see one URL to a brief mention on a website in the article. This is not "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works." NicM 11:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. These sources need to go into the article, not just sit here in the deletion discussion. --Alan Au 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do they need to go into an article that is going to be deleted? Almost all articles about games (and not only) for GNU/Linux must be deleted because they don't have "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works." Some time ago I used Wikipedia to learn about the P2P programs (even those not in wide use). Now I know that instead of reading these articles I had to propose them for deletion. --Zinoviev 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll take it on good faith that you're joking around, but flippant comments are hard to treat seriously. Do you want to improve the article or not? --Alan Au 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Claims of failing WP:MUSIC - the applicable guideline here - have not been debunked. Proto ► 12:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan[edit]

Article appears to be written with the intention of self-promotion only. Google results for (erfan hip hop -wikipedia) returns 679 hits while (erfan rap -wikipedia) returns 861. Most returned links seem to either be links to MySpace, blogs or YouTube. Not signed to any major record labels as far as I can tell and his notability has not been established as required by the criteria provided by the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. Netsnipe ► 11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An embarressment to Wikipedia. Todd661 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. Clear bias, non-notable. Suriel1981 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, interesting point of view and appreciate your work in keeping wiki clean and to the point. While your point maybe be valid for other such articles, the creation of this article initially by me was to introduce a new artist as well as a new movement in "Iranian" music to the world and specially the Persian-American community living outside of Iran. I would like to open this discussion with you on the merits of deleting this article based on the points raised with in this page.

A - Article appears to be written with the intention of self-promotion only: This is not true, the content of this article originally comes from the underground Persian magazine called Zirzamin which did an article as well as an interview with Erfan in 2006 when his first two singles were released. The article was then later published by www.persianhiphop.com as well as www.021-music.com, the text of the interview can be found at: http://www.zirzamin.se/interviews/inter_2006/erfan.html

At the same time, Erfan has had interview's with major Persian alternative music magazines and E-zines including: 1- Radio Javan: http://www.radiojavan.com 2- Zirzamin Magazine: http://www.zirzamin.se/ 3- Iranian.com: http://www.iranian.com/ 4- Bebin.tv interview: go to http://www.bebin.tv/ and scroll to get to it or direct link on you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF6ta-sdtK0 5- BBC interview coming out soon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/, detailed in the BBC employee Behzad Bolour's blog http://www.behzadbolour.com/ 6- He is currently in the process of signing with major record label (http://www.avang.com/) which should be compeleted in a week from what I've heard, he is currently with underground label Major Records(http://www.majorrecordsinc.com/), his album which is competleted is to be released in a few weeks with Avang Music company (http://www.avang.com/) as the first major release of a Persian Hip Hop CD. Feel free to contact them for more information.

Again I understand your concern as a dedicated member of the Wikipedia community, but your lack of knowledge about the Persian Hiphop movement will obfuscate your judgement on the validity of this article. If you want to discuss this more, I can talk to you and put you in contact with all the above people to legitimize the details of the Erfan page. At the same time, you don't speak Persian so you are missing out on lots of information about this artist as well as lack understanding if his lyrics and poetry, the interviews, ETC.

B - Google results for (erfan hip hop -wikipedia) returns 679 hits while (erfan rap -wikipedia) returns 861. Most returned links seem to either be links to MySpace, blogs or YouTube: Just because you did a "string" google search and came across what you refer to as "seem to either be links to MySpace, blogs or YouTube" is not a good reseason to pass judgement on something. The persian blog community is one of the largest in the world (Iran is the fourth largest country for bloggers (sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Blogs ). Because of strong censorship in Iran, the bulk of newspapers, writers and free thinkers use the medium of blogs to express their opinion and pass information to the community. Iran has the worse reputation for freedom of speech and has been labeled the biggest enemy of publications (reporters without borders: http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=92) as well as the Iranian government has actively started blacklisting websites (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21052). So for most people, blogs are the only way to pass information, do not discredit it based on "your" personal opinion. Again just because you found something on google, doesn't mean this article is not valid. If you are not happy with the format, then please include what specifically you think is "opinionated" and we can move on from there to make it better or possibly correct incorrect information.

C - Not signed to any major record labels as far as I can tell and his notability has not been established as required by the criteria provided by the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines: The guidelines states:

1- It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: Details are listed above, let me know if you need anything else. He is not 50 cent being pushed by a giant such as "Interscope", or SONY, yet he is signed to a hip hop label currently and is finalizing his contract with the biggest Persian record company in the world, he is releasing his CD in a month. 2- per the notability clause of wikipedia, he matches clause "SIX" which states "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. " 3- also in the notability clause, section "other", part 3 states "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre", he has created the genre Persian Hip Hop as stated in major Iranian national radio, go to http://www.radiojavan.com/music/interviews.php, search for Erfan, listed among the major Iranian musicians, interview in Farsi, hope you understand it. also article "4" stating "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." as well as "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. ", sub-culture being the new genre of "Persian hip-hop".

All the above was to cover the concerns of "Netsnipe", as far as "Cornellrockey" is concerned, he makes no specific points. I have nothing to add to "Todd661", he makes no sense and as someone making a claim on this page, I expect him to be more professional, your comment comes across as childish.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelhaj (talk • contribs).

Do Not Delete: Article was cleaned a bit more based on "non detailed" reports from this group, I have also detailed reasons above on keeping this article, please review and give feedback. Still waiting on a case by case dialog on this article, "non-notable" is not acceptable, if we are discussing something, then it should be opened up for detailed discussion, you can't convict someone without a trial, you have to have a case! To my understanding another beauty of Wikipedia is collaboration on articles, I started this and have maintained but an article such as this or any other grows over time with contribution from all, you can't say there are many complete articles on this site since they are evolving all the time anyway, I'm starting to think this one is getting picked on!Adelhaj 10:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Ok, My above comment was probably not as detailed as it should be. The article seems to be about a non-notable identity. Notability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia Policy and is perfect justification and perfectly acceptable for an AfD debate - a place for discussion. User:Efran and User:Adelhaj have made repeated claims as to the subjects notability, yet the ARTICLE does not make this clear. Moreover, there are several other issues with the article, such as it opening with a quote (violates WP:LEAD), having more external links than is necessary (against WP:EXTERNAL) and sentences such as He is not into creating the fusion of Persian music elements in his music but believe it or not he thinks in Persian and he raps in Persian and he talks to his folk through his own Persian Hip Hop style which has the word heor his seven times! But those are cleanup issues, and not for AfD debate and that is why the above Keep Votes have not recieved any feedback on the quality of the article. This article was brought to AfD because there is no claim to notability. No matter how many times I am called me childish, or how many times you say Notability doesn't matter, I will endorse my Delete vote until Notability is addressed. Todd661 04:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a POV mess, written like a press release. The real question here, are "Radio Javan" and "Zirzamin Magazine" sufficient reliable sources to meet the media coverage requirement of WP:MUSIC? Neither have English wikipedia articles. "Zirzamin Magazine" receives 7 unique Ghits, but looks like it might be real (site). "Radio Javan" fares much better (333 unique Ghits), and the site appears legit. Therefore, it appears this may meet the bare bones requirements of WP:MUSIC and I vote Weak keep, contingent upon the complete removal of all the steaming piles of pro-Erfan POV. -- Scientizzle 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've de-POVed it some... -- Scientizzle 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scientizzle, thanks for taking the time to contribute to this article for de-POV, I've tried to explain the case for legitimate Media outlets, there are not many sites that comment on Iranian hiphop, it's a new thing and there are more sites soon that will be publishing details on Erfan. If a keep is cool with the guys here, I can spend sometime in the next few weeks, reading on other artists and de_PV'ing this thing more, WORK WORK WORK is keeping me occupied, hate to see this page go for "now", I'm sure that it will be back up in a month with better links and coverage. It looks good after Scientizzle edit, anyone else have comments on this. Cheers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelhaj (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was keep. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Starbird[edit]

Contested deletion. A local politician, no other claim for notability made and no references/source Nuttah68 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and no references, making this a unnessasary amountof space that should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete has not been sourced and/or referenced since creation and I suspect none will be forthcoming Alf photoman 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. "Local politician"? How about "mayor of the 10th largest city in the United States". Compare the other articles from List of mayors of San Jose, California. Starbird didn't have an article until now and no Google hits, because, well, he died before Google and teh internets. Lots of easily verifiable reliable facts if you use the right sources (e.g. newsbank). I've expanded the article and added references. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 11:38Z
Keep As per Quarl Jules1975 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple references demonstrate that he has adequate coverage in third-party sources. San Jose is also a sufficiently major city as to make him inherently notable. Walton monarchist89 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayor of large US city. NawlinWiki 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good example of why you need to take at least five minutes for basic research when you think about putting something on AFD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Quarls excellent arguments. Seeing as the article now contains sources, it's no longer unverified either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totarus[edit]

Page is virtually empty, band is not notable.

Speedy Delete A1 (no context), A7 (no assertion of notability), and borderline A3 (no content). Walton monarchist89 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. Walton monarchist89 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonney Eberndu[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO, ~~I do not see the reason of having this person~~. Jeff503 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Question I'd like to thank whoever expanded it, but still have the question in the back of my mind, do we include every criminal, or was this really a huge incident?

No, we don't necessarily include every criminal, but according to WP:BIO we do include anyone who has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. This person has had four separate news reports, in the Times, Guardian and BBC, written about him. Therefore he automatically passes WP:BIO. If he had defecated in 22 trains and it hadn't appeared in the news, or had appeared only in the local newspaper, then he wouldn't be notable. Walton monarchist89 09:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defecating in trains does not make you pass WP:BIO -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - four separate news reports counts as multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, per WP:BIO. The person may not seem notable, but he passes WP guidelines. Walton monarchist89 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Almost empty article describing a non-notable person. A very poor article. If you want to keep it, ask "How can the article be expanded?" Maybe when he also defecates in a bus that could be added? (That's sarcasm!) Robinson weijman 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article has now been expanded (by me). There's plenty more information out there as well, if anyone wants to look it up and add it to the article. Walton monarchist89 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The version recently updated by Walton monarchist89 is fine. This person clearly passes WP:BIO. In fact looking at the previous version, that had enough in it to assert the notability of this person. Just because an article is in need of improvement doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Should this article have been tagged for cleanup or improvement rather than AfD? Jules1975 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but the various articles are all describing a single event (OK, several instances, but the story was mentioned once in the media). Therefore I still do not think this individual meets the Notability criteria. But maybe this is because I have an "outside of the UK" perspective? Those living in the UK may consider it more newsworthy. Robinson weijman 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He's done one thing (defecate on trains) many times. I (based in the UK!) think he's done enough (as it were) to be notable. Having read WP:BIO again I can't see any requirement that a notable person has to be notable for more than one reason, they just have to be notable. Jules1975 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as far as I can read wiki guidelines both WP:BIO and WP:V have been satisfied. It is a question of debate whether being noted (or notorious) for asocial behavior is enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia, but as it stands it meets the rules Alf photoman 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person being hunted for defaecation and desecration, a horribly gross (vulgar) crime but misdemeanour. We've deleted articles on people who have had coverage for repeatedly getting arrested for wandering around the streets naked, and this is on about the same level. The references supplied are covered by the "one coverage" rule, whereas it actually requires multiple coverage to pass WP:BIO (The pirate king cites BBC article as its source). Ohconfucius 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable minor criminal. As an aside, Wkipedia really needs a guideline explaining the difference between newsworthy and notable. Nuttah68 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cartañá[edit]

This appears to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged under WP:AUTO. It reads like a CV and advertising medium for the lady in question. It appears she may be worthy of an article, but certainly not one written by herself. -- Necrothesp 12:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of external sourcing except to her own site and MySpace; no references to third-party independent sources. Delete unless further sources are added by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, article about a evidently living person without external non-trivial sources or references. if references are added by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is a singer and is on the virgin website with a lcip. if re-written this would be a decent article. I dont think it should be deleted before it has had a chacne to be re-written, as some work has gone itno it already and is set out well. --PrincessBrat 12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in the City of Thuringowa[edit]

Contested proposed deletion (WP:NOT#DIR) Tikiwont 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Health Services in the City of Thuringowa. Walton monarchist89 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WaltonMonarchist Cornell Rockey 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not?? Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Please explain your reasoning in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when deciding on whether to keep or delete an article. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Restaurants is even worse than health services because of the no. of trivial reviews. WP is not GogleMaps.DGG 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page is a link from the main article City of Thuringowa as i have seen many othe rpages do so can somebody please tell me why it needs to be deleted as again it is a direct link form the main page Thuringowacityrep 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would also like to add that i read this "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted" isn't this what i have done. Thuringowacityrep 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:Not a directory. Thuringowa isn't known for it's gastronomic delights, which would be the only real reason for such an article. A list of restaurants should be a list of restaurants which have articles on Wikipedia.Ga rr ie 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; this article is bordering on being an advert for the township. John Vandenberg 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page content has been replaced by author with "it's gone, so you can delete thsi page now ...." and appears to have been reintegrated into City of Thuringowa page. Orderinchaos78 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Health Services in the City of Thuringowa[edit]

Contested proposed deletion (WP:NOT#DIR) Tikiwont 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary list: WP:NOT a directory. Walton monarchist89 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok this is my page that we are talking about deleting i move this info from the main Thuringowa page and put a link to it on the Thuringowa city page, so can somebody please tell me why it needs to be deleted, i have seen a lot of other pages do this and they are all ok look forward to your replies Thuringowacityrep 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also i would like to add that i read this "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted" isn't this what i have done. Thuringowacityrep 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is currently obviously at a stub level and that is why it currently looks like a directory (although it does not have the features of a directory such as contact info, etc) but it does have the potential to become a full article, doesn't every (legitimate) stub have a right to be there because of it's potential to improve? This list has the potential to one day become a Featured List, for examples: List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, The Oz books, List of English words containing Q not followed by U, United Nations member states, List of signatories of the United States Constitution, List of Church of England dioceses... etc. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Not a directory. Thuringowa isn't known for it's prowess in delivering health services, which would be the only real reason for such an article. A list of health services should be a list of health serivces which have articles on Wikipedia.Ga rr ie 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Each article needs to be encyclopedic, and this is not defensible as one. The content in this article would be better included in the articles City of Thuringowa and a new article Kirwan Health Campus; also List of medical facilities in Townsville could be moved to List of medical facilities in Townsville/Thuringowa or similar to incorporate the greater region. John Vandenberg 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others - John Vandenberg's ideas regarding possible remedies of the situation have merit. The biggest problem I have with this article is the listing of trivial medical centres, which as we all know start and end without notice at any time, and hence is a list nearly impossible to maintain. Orderinchaos78 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good one... first of all i was told by the person that gave the City of Thuringowa its new rating, to put the lists on there own page (as i did) and now here i am being told by John Vandenberg it would be better to include it in the article City of Thuringowa (this is where i took it from), and Orderinchaos78 tells me "we all know they start and end without notice at any time, and hence is a list nearly impossible to maintain" well i listed the major ones that have been here a long time plus as i am a local i would do the updating as needed, so i dont see any big problems here. so do what ever you people want as i have come to find that Wiki is a strange place where you do as one person tells you only to find that another 5 people don't agree ....why bother...and thanks to WikiTownsvillian for seeing the potential and understanding why i moved this list to here. Thuringowacityrep 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let nobody say that gathering everyone to come and build an encylopedia is easy or ends up being overly orderly! As a perfect example of this, you blanked the article and Zpb52 has very thoughtfully restored the prior text because your edit looked vandalish. Amongst all the confusion, an rather complete encylopedia somehow emerges. Let me clarify my own thoughts a little. Kirwan Health Campus "feels" like a notable subject, so you could move all of the content that relates to that organisation to its own article. I like what you have done moving this list over to City of Thuringowa, but what I was meaning was that the section "Health Services" should discuss the state of Health services in the region as a whole; and the details of each institution is probably best left to the website for each. By that I mean the current content of that section (i.e. listing the types of services that are available at "Bluewater Medical Practice") is rather fine grained information, and probably not necessary. Maybe you could find sufficient sources to justify an article on Bluewater Medical Practice. John Vandenberg 07:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC); updated John Vandenberg 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Concubine[edit]

Nonnotable band. Gives a couple of sources, but I don't think they meet WP:RS. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Given MrFizyx's sources below, it wouldn't bother me if this was kept. Leaving on here for further discussion, though. NawlinWiki 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - not enough sources to meet WP:BAND; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Only external links are to their own sites and MySpace. Delete unless more sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - sources have now been provided which should be adequate per WP:BAND. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think they just make it. I found a couple of album reviews[51][52] and one writer's list of "Ten Of Metal's Best Kept Secrets " (they top the list). -MrFizyx 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also rate a page at the All Music Guide. -MrFizyx 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The article is now reasonably well-sorced. Someone familiar with the band could use the added sources to expand this into a pretty good article. -MrFizyx 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto ► 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drone Disco[edit]

Contested speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 07:24Z

Weak delete, Hototigisu or however its spelled are notable, but they've only released one split album with them. Would like to see reliable, third-party sources. Recury 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dunno if this matters to you but the album is a collaboration rather than a split. Bought it today as it goes....Ac@osr 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as experimental music is concerned, I think C. Spencer Yeh and Burning Star Core are very notable. I created the page in order to gather more information on the label, and help create a better discograpy than I have found. Also, Drone Disco has released splits or full releases from other artists (Hair Police, Jessica Rylan, Hototogisu, Pete Nolan from the Magik Markers) who are definetly notable in the noise/experimental music genre. I've been searching for some better sources, but the most reliable so far are what I have listed in Related Links. MKPP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a label will be as notable as its artists and no more (or less). This is principally the private press of someone who is heading towards notability rather than being there but I think there is sufficient participation by other notable artists to allow this to survive, at least for now. Ac@osr 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Music Shop[edit]

Article created by user:Radiomusicshop. That looks like advertising to me. No indication of any notability acquired in the two months of the company's existence. -- RHaworth 13:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entry was designed to give information on the station, much like BBC, Heart FM etc. Its only been running for two months, so of course no notability yet. It is referenced on other sites, and was created as there were stubs on other wiki entries such as freeview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiomusicshop (talk • contribs)

No notability yet - so you are admitting it is spam! Wikipedia is here to report notability, not to help people gain notability! -- RHaworth 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but there are no independent third-party sources to demonstrate notability. Delete unless sources can be found. Also possible WP:COI issues. Walton monarchist89 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain but comment - It is notable (or we would have to delete thousands of less notable UK local FM, satellite, cable and DAB radio stations!) to hold its own article on Wikipedia because it is a national radio station broadcasting on the Freeview platform, unique in that it allows people to call in and buy the songs played on the station. However, I do share the conflict of interest concerns with the article, and indeed it will need a major cleanup for spam and references added to establish its notability. If it was a small local station, I would vote delete, but because it is a national UK station on the most popular digital television platform, I would like to see how this AfD nominations pans out. If it is deleted because it is not notable, then it sets a worrying precedent for the vast majority of less notable UK DAB, FM, satellite and cable radio stations, and I will contact the radio stations WikiProject for a major review of UK radio station articles. --tgheretford (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am also concerned about the COI aspect of this article. However, there are third party sources[53] [54], so I think the subject meets the notability guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSLua[edit]

The project does not look notable Alex Bakharev 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Turgidson 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not to mention there will probably never be WP:RS on this -- feb^talk 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think it is notable either, however there seems to be quite some mention of it on the internets. James086 ^Talk 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is notable. I did some clean up but more is probably needed. ZimmerBarnes 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE, not a directory of all software and this scripting language appears to lack notability. Warfieldian 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. Seems notable enough, but more information is needed. » K i G O E | talk 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite from scratch. DSLua is a port of the Lua scripting language to the Nintendo DS. The article should, at the very least, mention this essential fact. Besides, nobody but the developers of DSLua care about the development details; the article should talk about the language itself, its differences (if any) to standard Lua, and other technical facts. LGM ᚂ 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Lua (programming language) until such time as encyclopedic and independently sourced content can be found. Right now it reads like a gossip column for nerds. —David Eppstein 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:32Z

Affordaspendability[edit]

Delete Clear WP:NEO. No independent ghits. Orderinchaos78 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced neologism, original research. Walton monarchist89 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. 0 Ghits. Ohconfucius 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT]. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Satu Suro 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:12Z

Esprit Holidays[edit]

Reads like an advert. I don't reckon the company isn't that big or notable in my eyes Botley Crew 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - notability is asserted (claiming they're the largest ski package provider in Britain) but not demonstrated; no references or links to third-party independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless further sources are added by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you can Delete this - This was one of my first page creations. I went on a (reasonable) holiday with this company, and thought I'd write an article about them. Didn't know anything about the Notability guidelines then. I'm still not that clued-up on it. --Montchav 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, speedy delete CSD G7 (author requests deletion). Please tag accordingly (I can't do so as I'm not the author). Walton monarchist89 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yeah, this crazy CSD G7 clause. Does that mean that any page I've made I can get speedy deleted? --Montchav 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors[edit]

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture not only every appearance of R-P-S in every medium ever regardless of whether that appearance has any actual significance or not, but everything that in the opinion of an editor kinda sorta resembles R-P-S or maybe has a similar structure to R-P-S, of course not having any sources to back up the assertion. Otto4711 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, unnecessary list, unverified. Walton monarchist89 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - A hopeless mess of original research and an indiscriminate list. If, however, reliable sources are found, I withdraw my um, "opinion?" "motion?". --Sapphire Flame 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WaltonMonarchist Cornell Rockey 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any that are truly notable and sourced can go into Rock, Paper, Scissors.--UsaSatsui 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was originally a fork from Rock Paper Scissors because the list had grown far to large. I'm agnostic about keeping the article, but let's not merge too much of it back into the original article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, when these sections get too large, trimming the section is the proper course. If your house gets filled with trash, you take it out, you don't build a new house to hold the trash in. --UsaSatsui 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You seem to be trying to make this look like a POV issue. It is not. It is verifiable. There is no good reason to delete this article. Cosmetor 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about POV? It's not POV. It's being challenged under the WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:LIST, and WP:OR...and while I agree it is verifiable, it's not sourced. There's plenty of good reasons to delete it. --UsaSatsui 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is, obviously, the work of fiction itself. It can clearly be seen whether they involve RPS simply by reading/watching/playing them. The facts of the matter have been "published" by default. Cosmetor 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source still needs to be in the article, and in many cases it's not on this list...but even if we give you that point, that's only one concern. It's being challenged under more than verifiability. --UsaSatsui 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete my big concern is that this is unmaintainable. A widely known game being used in popular culture - yippee, this gets "referenced to" a lot, whatever that means. Perhaps resurrect it in the main article and trim the heck out of it. (And besides, this list is sacrilegious because it doesn't even include the obligatory reference to the Monty Python reference ("Ypres 1914", in episode 25 of Monty Python's Flying Circus). =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quotefarm and no sources. Also is just too funny to be encyclopediac. Possibly a WP:POINT creation.--Sefringle 06:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think it's a WP:POINT creation? Please WP:AGF. Regarding funniness, please see, WP:UA. While I think there are some good reasons why this article should be deleted, I'm a bit frustrated by the repeated use of its lack of sources. I don't think a lack of sources is a legitimate reason for deletion, only a lack of verifiability. This article is clearly verifiable, even if it's not encyclopedic. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indescriminant and trivial list. Eluchil404 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Lake Local School District, Stark County, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:33Z

Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Millbury, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Millbury, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Stub in development. part of schools project.EagleFan 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete then develop it off-line to avoid problems here. The number of articles successfully created and kept will be higher, & we'll have more & better articles DGG 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please refer to WP:LOCAL about how to develop and expand articles, then splitting them off only when they become too large. Although Wikipedia is not paper, we do not need hundreds of C&P stubs which fail to assert notability. Ohconfucius 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles.WMMartin 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to parent community if appropriate to that article, no substantial secondary sources are cited (or that I can find are out there) to assert notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake Local School District, Stark County, Ohio, and link to that from Millbury, Ohio. --El on ka 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Northwood, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:34Z

Northwood High School (Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Northwood, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Northwood, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Northwood, Ohio until the creator has time to develop this further. (jarbarf) 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northwood, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Bloomdale, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:34Z

Elmwood High School (Bloomdale, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Bloomdale, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bloomdale, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Stub in development. There's a reason we have a "Stub" category. Nominator has far exceeded reasonable good faith in nominating many, many pages for deletion in last few days. EagleFan 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Stubs are for articles which have a reasonable chance of passing the notability threshhold by way of multiple citations in independent, external sources - typically, stubs themselves also have an assertion of notability from the outset. See in particular the section on the 'ideal stub article'. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I very strongly feel that it is EagleFan who is exceeding good faith here. EagleFan, let's be clear about this: by adding vast numbers of articles without providing any reason to believe that their subjects are notable you are simply spamming Wikipedia in an attempt to impose your personal view that all schools should have articles. Wikipedia works only when we all accept the common principles that guide and bind us, and one of the chiefs of these is that the topics we cover meet our guidelines for notability and verifiability. Notability is not subjective within this project. You may not like this any more than I do - we all have subjects that we feel should be included, but which fail our community guidelines - but we have to live by these shared principles, or our project will fail. There is no room here for prima donnas who seek to impose their personal likes and dislikes. We are all trying to build the best encyclopedia we can, but right now your approach is counter-productive, and I strongly feel you should stop, and try to work in a more consensual way. By all means add articles about schools, but make sure that they are well documented and researched, and provide clear evidence of notability to support them: do this and I will be the first to applaud you. WMMartin 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Might be better to develop it off-line to avoid problems here. The number of articles successfully created and kept will be higher, & we'll have more & better articles DGG 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bloomdale, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Stryker, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:34Z

Stryker High School[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Stryker, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stryker, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Stub just created.EagleFan 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Might be safer to develop it off-line to avoid problems here. The number of articles successfully created and kept will be higher, & we'll have more & better articles DGG 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bite me. EagleFan (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stryker, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Pioneer, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:35Z

North Central High School (Pioneer, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Pioneer, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pioneer, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Stub not given more than 1 day to develop...EagleFan 21:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete but question -- might PROD be a better way of handling these articles, which will give 5 days or creation of material as matter of course? The fewer we have to discuss here in this repetitive way, the better. DGG 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing wrong with merging this with Pioneer, Ohio but that is an editorial decision. Either way I would like to see more content development regarding this school. (jarbarf) 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pioneer, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Montpelier, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:35Z

Montpelier High School (Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Montpelier, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Montpelier, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Stub in development. EagleFan 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles are not stubs - they are single line sentences which give no useful information. Has anyone considered that all these Ohio schools could be merged into one article and then expanded that way - and if they become larger as info is added then they could qualify for their own article. --PrincessBrat 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montpelier, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Edon, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:35Z

Edon High School[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Edon, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Page just created. Renominate in 6 months if development is lacking. EagleFan 21:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are notable. Stubs will grow given time. AntiVan 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Edon, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Apple Creek, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:36Z

Waynedale High School[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Stub in defelopment. Illinois users need not seek out my pages to nominate.EagleFan 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please assume good faith in not believing that users of a particular geographic area are "seeking out" your pages for deletion and see my comment at the Elmwood AfD regarding stub development. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Apple Creek, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Apple Creek, Ohio. — RJH (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Illinois user voted to keep Churchill County HS, NV because the criteria of notability was met. I respectfully suggest you use the sandbox to create your stubs until you have notable facts to upgrade the article(s) with. I will abstain my vote at this time. MarlaB 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-stub, little context. --Vsion 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apple Creek, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Wooster, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:36Z

Triway High School (Wooster, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge pertinent information to Wooster, Ohio per WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOLS3. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wooster, Ohio. It's unfortunate that the nominator didn't just perform the merge him/herself and saved everybody a bunch of edits. — RJH (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete In each case these are the only high schools in the district, which help to judge the articles and should have been mentioned. DGG 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Nominator could have saved even more time by not nominating in the first place.EagleFan 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Perhaps the authors of such articles could accomplish more if they initially wrote the material as a section of a more appropriate article--the school district if relevant, or the town or county? Having them do the work to create, and then having it deleted here must not be very satisfying — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Children, let's not waste time blaming each other for wasting our time ;-). please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But do be insulting to other wikipedians? Hmm... — RJH (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wooster, Ohio. If more information about the school becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Indonesian Idol. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:36Z

Adika Priatama[edit]

Subject should be noted as a contestant in the main article Indonesian Idol, at this time does not have the notability for their own article. Ozgod 15:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesian Idol. Not enough information to merit own article; article asserts that he "rose to popularity" following his participation in the show, but there's no evidence of external coverage in third-party independent sources. Walton monarchist89 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indonesian Idol, per Walton monarchist89. — Indon (reply) — 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indonesian Idol and commend Ozgod on his improved nomination rationale. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The Fifth Element. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:37Z

Fhloston[edit]

Delete Non notable movie element. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - although I love this film and would prefer to keep this article, there is no evidence of real-world notability per WP:FICT. Delete (sadly) unless further sources are added to demonstrate coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the The Fifth Element. While it can't stand alone, it should lead to the main entry with which it is closely associated. --Tikiwont 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tikiwont. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tikiwont. -Gomm 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge While this article may seem useless to most people, including myself, all of the facts are backed up by the film and it is a notable film. The article would probably be better off merged with The Fifth Element though, than on it's own. (Third3rdIII 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Stolen Summer. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:38Z

Adiel Stein[edit]

Has only appeared in one film, Stolen Summer. Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable as a movie star, but the article currently has only one external link, and evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources is not presented. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete article about a evidently living person without external non-trivial references. Change to keep if references are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/~~redirect. He actually had a lead role in that film, which is notable even if it's just one role. I would have to look to see if I can find anything else about him, besides the obvious, but in case that can't be found I suggest we redirect to Stolen Summer so people looking for info about him get the info we have. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for newspaper articles and other credits and found nothing else besides the fact his casting was an inside joke. While be plays a Catholic kid, he's actually Jewish like the other family in the film. I think it's worth noting in the film article, but there's too little info to have a separate article. Note, he's also known as Adi Stein. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect one role in a minor film is hardly noteworthy. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Yksin 01:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:39Z

Land Of Chaos (album)[edit]

Only album of the band Totarus which is currently up for deletion. Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the AFD for Totarus, the page was deleted as virtually empty with no notability assertion. I don't know what was written there, but my vote is judged by this fact. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Totarus page consisted of one sentence which provided no contextual information or assertion of notability, which is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. This article is slightly better (making it a non-speedy candidate) but is still unsourced and non-notable. Walton monarchist89 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Walton monarchist89 - if the band article was deleted due to non-notability, surely 'child articles' like albums would qualify as well. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability; band article was deleted due to no assertion of notability/non-notability too-K@ngi e ^meep! 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Traffic flow. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:39Z

Traffic flow analysis[edit]

The page is orphaned, and doesn't contain any encyclopedic information -- just a very simplified example. I suggest either delete, or redirection to traffic flow. Dvandersluis 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge & redirect per nom. Cornell Rockey 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge and redirect seems sensible. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:02Z

Alisport Silent 2T[edit]

Original author created multiple copies of the same page under different variations of the name. Original was deleted through an AfD:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silent_2_Targa. Article was then recreated and speedy deleted. Prod tag deleted by author ~~without comment~~. ShaleZero 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ShaleZero 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please help, instead of deleting..... first of all this article is NOW CHANGED and similar to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_PW-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASK_21 and many other.... where the title is made up name with the
name of the maker and by the name of the glider. multiple copies were created because the first title Silent 2 Targa was incorrect and nobody helped to change it. It is about a glider: Silent 2 Targa
made by Alisport
and it deserve a place like any other glider, if there is something wrong please help with positive input, instead of deleting it, or at least give a chance of discussing about it.

keep The article looks quite satisfactory DGG 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention DGG: can you tell me how I can rename this page to the correct name Alisport Silent 2 Targa because Alisport Silent 2T is wrong, sorry I made a mistake.

Better to wait till the discussion is closed, Then, be sure you're logged in first, and Just click the move tab at the top & follow directions. For more, see WP:MOVEDGG 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previous versions of this article had problems with POV tone and material being copied from web-pages. Rather than explaining and/or fixing these problems the page was deleted. The person working on it seems to have eventually figured out some of our standards and procedures on their (HIS) own and has produced a perfectly acceptable article. If articles are fixable we should do that rather than deleting them, but we certainly shouldn't continue deleting them after they have been fixed. --CBD 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But work on it Alf photoman 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its present form is informative. Francisco de Almeida 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge is suggested - this would not be a bad idea. Proto ► 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded by Blood (poster)[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable, not encyclopdaedic, at best can be merged into the All Blacks page Spearhead 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment not that neither Adidas nor All Blacks link to this page. If it was notable, these articles should at least have linked it back. In fact the only page linking to it is a disambiguation page. Spearhead 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete so the poster has their DNA in it, eh? Lets put it in a cloning machine and have an All-Blacks on All-Blacks rugby game! Cornell Rockey 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This poster is a widely popular marketing piece by Adidas, a notable company. This has been covered by the Wall Street Journal.[55] Do not confuse the lay meaning of notable with the meaning of the Wikipedia policy. --Richard Daly 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable, just a load of nonsense 24.132.57.116 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not an argument, that's an assertion. This is a discussion, not a vote. --Richard Daly 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a perfect argument in AfD. Todd661 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (or its lack) is a potential conclusion of an argument, but if offered without grounds it is a naked assertion. An argument has at least two parts: a thesis and the support for that thesis. "Not notable, just a load of nonsense" may be what 24.132.57.116 would like to show, but he or she offers no evidence to support this assertion: no discussion of any theory of notability, no citations to the article or anything outside the article, and nothing to support the vague "load of nonsense" accusation. -- Richard Daly 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to team article, subject is verifiable but I don't see a whole article for it being necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per seraphimblade. DanielZimmerman 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has enough sources to qualify as notable. Merging would be a great idea, except that the main article about the All Blacks is currently almost twice the recommended article length. The absolute best solution would be for someone to break up the All Blacks article per Wikipedia:Article series, then merge and redirect Bonded by Blood into one of the resulting articles, but (1) that's a lot to ask of whatever random editor carries out the recommendation of this group, and (2) a merge and redirect doesn't even require an AFD. (Although jamming these two paragraphs and their references into the All Blacks article might encourage a spin-out, that reasoning smacks of WP:POINT). Thanks, TheronJ 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture[edit]

Basically this article is mostly original research. It needs to be deleted and any useful content merged into the appropriate articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article as initially formed out of a consensus from the Cult talk pages. There are many similar articles on Wikipedia that discuss applications to similar ideas "in literature and popular culture". See for example List of Scientology references in popular culture, as well as Religion in The Simpsons. Smee 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory which is designed to capture any reference to a "cult" (which suffers from POV definitional problems) or "new religious movements" that appear in any medium, regardless of the importance or lack of same either within the fictional work or the real world. The instinct to remove garbage information from the Cult article was a good one, but the proper solution is to delete the information entirely rather than turn it into someone else's problem by dumping it off into a trash bin list article. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a justification for keeping this article. Otto4711 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 above. Additionally (or redundantly), the article is peppered with unsourced and historically inaccurate original research claims, as well as WP:BLP violations per the arbitrary inclusion of individuals without even a pretense of providing WP:RS's. BabyDweezil 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of it is not original research and there seems to be no good entries to merge it with. Andries 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are certainly notable instances of such, however it needs to be overhauled. —siro χ o 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepsome of the beliefs may first come to light via this medium and not academia. Interest is only received when it leaps/hits the main stream media of popular culture. Sad but true.PEACETalkAbout 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I wanted to state that some of the "touchy" subjects are discussed in popular culture shows such as Bill Maher where presidential candidates were discussed [56]and the touchy subjects aired. I learned some thing I didn't know and I am sure others did too and yes it did peek my curiosity to learn more on the subject. So, serious people are talking/discussing [57]issues in popular culture shows and surely wikipedia can have an article reflecting this cultural reality and how the population receives information via this medium.PEACETalkAbout 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep such pop culture subarticles serve a useful purpose, to keep amount of trivia in the main article pared down. Though, this page can definitely use cleanup. --Aude (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is junk in the main article, it is no less junk in a split off "...in popular culture" article. Junk is junk. The correct response to garbage information is to remove it, not to dump it off into another article because it's inconvenient to deal with. Otto4711 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry, Otto4711, I cannot accept that the argument "Junk is junk" as an argument any stronger than the fact that 'othercrapexists' you cited above. While the amount of truly insignificant trivia should be pared down, an article such as this does server a dual purpose. Firstly, as a repository for significant, verifiable, pop-culture references to the subject, which would otherwise be nearly impossible for the causal reader to collect for himself. And secondly, to keep these references from dominating the subject's main article. The fact that we want to prevent these points from dominating the original article is of no consequence to their validity. It is just an effort to keep that article from being too long for the casual reader. Pop-culture or not, articles will be split off from any long article. I have no qualms with monitoring this article closely so it doesn't become a list of "hey one time this character talked about scientology in an episode of my favorite show". However, deletion of the entire article is not the solution to that problem. —siro χ o 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Bucketsofg 14:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do you have anything else to comment? I did not think that this process was akin to a vote... Smee 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Delete per nom" means that I agree with the nominator's formulation of the problem. It is not a vote, but a brief statement of my view, and in this case sufficient to communicate my opinion, which I have every right to express. Bucketsofg 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:40Z

Bob Burton, Jr.[edit]

Nom & vote...
Del on this bio of n-n apparent champion of a faded-craze puzzle. Lk'd only by Rdrs; GTest <<234 of about 342 for "Bob Burton" cube>>.
--Jerzy•t 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the mechanics of this deletion should be deletion of all revisions, and replacement by a Rdr to something like Speedcubing, but please note that this should be distinguished from a decision to merge with e.g. Speedcubing, in that the purpose of the Rdr would be to give access to our coverage of the practice via one of the rdr'd versions of his name (for e.g., those who caught the name but can't recall a name for the practice), without merging any part of the content of this bio into Speedcubing -- since presumably (and deleter can remedy if not) Speedcubing already has the same lks to other Web coverage of him. The few people who want to learn hints from his bio on how to accomplish what he did, or to test hypotheses about what such experts have in common, are a tiny niche interest, and beyond the scope of WP; it's not even clear we can do more than give them hints at what the closer-to-primary-sources literature is.
--Jerzy•t 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That Rubrik's cube is a "faded craze" is not supported by the WP article on it or on speedcubing, both of which has 2007 references. There are 908,000 ghits for +2007 +"Rubik's Cube" and 72,308 for 2008, though probably only about 1 in 10 are relevant. in any case, one N, always N. That people can find information elsewhere is not relevant to our decisions. Even if one thinks this a tiny niche, tiny niches are suitable for the subjects of WP articles, as long as there are sources for N. That he is a notable player, is demonstrated by the article. He has won other RC competitions besides speedcubing, and they are mentioned in the article. More refs can be added. If it is thought there are too many articles on RC, a merge should be suggested on their talk pages. (note: I have no personal interest in this game) DGG 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not something that changes with time and wiki policy states that once notable always notable. A reason for delete would be insufficient or deficient sources discovered after a time but not that a toy is not available anymore Alf photoman 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact the Rubik's Cube is less popular than it used to be hasn't affected it's notability, so it shouldn't affect the notability of someone who is a champion in it. This is not a valid reason for deletion according to deletion policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bob Burton is one of the most well-known cubers in the sport and so the notability should not be an issue. However, if it still is, please see http://media.www.dailytargum.com/media/storage/paper168/news/2005/01/21/PageOne/Rutgers.Rubiks.Cube.Whiz.Competes-837443.shtml an article that appeared on the front page of The Daily Targum in 2005. The Daily Targum is the second oldest collegiate newspaper in the United States and has a circulation of 17,000. Moreover, this should take care of the verifiability. With respect to original research, everything on the page is true and can be verified at www.worldcubeassociation.org -- Finally, cubing competitions are much more common now than they were in the past. The sport has increased greatly in popularity and the "craze" is not much of a craze at all. Cubing competitions have been running longer and more commonly in the past few years than when the puzzle was introduced (www.speedcubing.com). - thexvb| 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superdickery[edit]

Weak delete because it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Lots of google hits and while I haven't checked them all obviously the several dozen I did check appear to be somewhat trivial mentions on blog-like sites. WP:ILIKEIT but that's not reason enough for a keep. Otto4711 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Funny and a personal favorite, but not really notable. ShaleZero 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Context is important here. This site has been mentioned many times at Newsarama, a fairly important comic book oriented website; and has been the subject of comment at fark.com and (I don't have a cite) Wizard magazine, if I remember right. Any of these things ought to demonstrate sufficient notability in the context of a web site devoted to making fun of old comic book covers. -Smerdis of Tlön 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been on Boingboing [58] [59]. It's become a meme with a sufficient fan base. samwaltz 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Love this site, but unless it has sources, can't go for the keep (note: sources do no good here. Add them into the article).--UsaSatsui 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Keep per Kendrick7, rewrite the article around the meme and use the site as a source. --UsaSatsui 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep though the focus should be changed from the site (which fails WP:WEB, though I've heard of it too) to the meme of Superdickery, i.e. that these [Comic book] covers [were] the result of a frequent Silver Age comic promotional tactic in which the front cover featured a scene so baffling and apparently nonsensical that readers would be compelled to buy the comic just for the explanation. That sounds like a fact which can be WP:RS'd, and is the real nut graf. That there is a site devoted to providing examples of this, and that the promotional tactic has been named after the site, is another issue. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree with this. In fact, I'm changing my opinion. --UsaSatsui 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quick question: If we re-write it based on the meme, is the meme "Superdickery", or is it "Superman is a Dick", which is currently a redirect? --UsaSatsui 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it as "Superdickery", as it is easier to remember, and you don't have to worry about capitalisation, etc. I would probably recommend adding a few other redirects for "Superman is a jerk", "Superman is a Jerk", etc.samwaltz 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — notable meme as described above ➥the Epopt 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added two sources to the article: Coverage in the Edmonton Journal and The Irish Times. --Dragonfiend 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. JuJube 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. I belive the owner was interviewed in Maxim or somthing. Jack Cain 12:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough said Alyeska 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srong Keep If Habbo can be on here, why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 good ideas about how to improve the content and renaming the article - I suggest trying these, and if no improvement can be made, resubmit it to AFD. Proto ► 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun myths in popular culture[edit]

DeleteThis article is a mindless collection of 'myths' and 'proof' against these myths. In fact, it is nothing more than a discussion forum akin to a gun show debate. It is virtually all unsupportable and lacks any encyclopedic value. --Asams10 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no need for spottily referenced remarks to myths that would be better off in a gun enthusiast's website. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only 2 citations for the hundreds of miscellaneous factoids used. It seems to be all original research and the subject itself is not notable. Some of the facts should probably be spread around into relavent articles, like the lack of a hammer originating in the Colt Hammerless. It's a list of loosely associated topics laid out in an FAQ format. --JJLatWiki 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except there were dozens of hammerless and shrouded hammer firearms made before the Colt "hammerless" series. And BOTH of the citations are incorrect. The 44 Magnum was not the most powerful handugn in the world, even when it was first introduced. The AK-47 is not proved accurate at 300 meters when the US Army says it provides "Effective automatic fire out to 300 meters."--Asams10 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I really would like this content to be available on Wikipedia, but I have to agree with the original poster. I've seen this content elsewhere, which suggests that it might be a big copyvio anyway. --Mdwyer 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There are plenty of other articles on this site similar to this article. The content is useful and mostly accurate. Citations should be used and NPOV enforced. I am willing to help with this. Jrkarp 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are plenty of other articles on this site similar to this article" is another way of saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cannot justify the existence of this or any other article. Otto4711 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority of the information is incorrect. The first thing that's incorrect is the 'myth' status. Many of these 'myths' are merely political claims and anti-gun propoganda. Some of the 'debunking' is also incorrect. For instance, a 50 caliber Barrett is more than capable of taking down an airliner, although I'll not go into detail for obvious reasons.--Asams10 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was looking at nominating this one myself. Otto4711 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I do not feel that the subject matter is inappropriate, but rather that the article itself is somewhat poor. Articles that are not up to par should not be an automatic reason for deletion when the subject matter is still useful. nrw 15:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wrong forum. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Asams, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. There's a lot of controversy as to what is original research and what is common knowledge. I myself can testify that I've heard people believe in these gun myths and that the proof against the myths is reasonable and factual. Plus, there is plenty of room for improvement, just like every article here started out with it's (often times major) flaws. RavenStorm 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasons included so far: Uncited original research, list of loosely associated topics, essentially an FAQ, inappropriate for wikipedia. In response to your "controversy" over OR vs common knowledge, I submit to you that the article is rife with non-common knowledge that is not cited, ie "Only the rare Glock 17 Mariner variant... allows safe firing underwater". Your testimonial contribution to the article would amount to original research. I would also suggest that if you move facts to a relavent article, like the Glock 17 Mariner's ability to safely fire under water, and remove insignificant trivia like the fact that some video games will not allow the M1 Garand to be reloaded mid-clip, what you'll be left with doesn't justify the rest of the article. It becomes even more a list of trivia, which implies "interesting without being notable". --JJLatWiki 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think it's notable indeed that the M1 Garand can be reloaded mid-clip. Also, you have to take things into context... when the article talked about the Glock 17 Mariner's ability to fire underwater, it was using it as an example to show that some (although not all) guns can fire underwater. Anyways, I gave the article a massive clean-up... so please, take another look at it, I removed as much useless information as I could. RavenStorm 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who ever said that the Garand can't be reloaded mid-clip? It's in the manual how to do it. There's already mention in the Garand article of this very fact. The Glock 17 requires only a modified firing pin to fire underwater, but who ever said it could or couldn't? Where's the myth. Where are the references that say that knowledgeable people every said it was a myth? We can go item by item rebuking of all of this crap, but it'll take a while. You bring up what's worthwile, then make sure it's duplicated elsewhere so the article can be deleted without losing that content which you can show is useful, factual, and encyclopedic.--Asams10 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs better referencing but that alone isn't reason to delete. Dragomiloff 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name and re-classifiy to Firearm Myths in Media: By removing certain myths and adding others, as well as re-writing some of the information in this article, I believe it would be an excellent way to add on to the firearms article. Instead of being a trivial list, the newly-named Firearm Myths in Media would comply with Wikipedia's standards. All in favor? RavenStorm 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming it does not change the nature of the article. It's still a collection of trivia with zero encyclopedic value. You can't take what is in this article and make another article out of it. Virtually everything here is unsupportable. Whether you like or value the information, Wikipedia is not a place for what ammounts to a firearms forum.--Asams10 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the "re-name and re-classify" suggestion. Eventually you'll have to rename it "Mistakes, misconceptions, and myths about firearms in the media". But why is it notable? I haven't searched for it, but is there an article called "Automobile myths in the media" that debunks the myth that cars will fly through the air as if from a ramp instead of slamming into a parked car, and debunking the myth that the wires that cause the starter to crank when hotwiring a car should be twisted together after the car starts? That's trivia, which by definition is not notable. Does "interesting" transform "trivia"? --JJLatWiki 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should it still be worth zero encyclopedic value? I really hate to use the old "but x article has it" procedure, but there are PLENTY of articles that branch off and have their own trivia or "in the media" page (look at Middle-earth in popular culture or Hitler in popular culture). I don't see why Firearms should be any different! If we remove everything EXCEPT myths that have been specifically used in movies, video games and other forms of media, then it is no longer a trivial, unfounded list, it is something notable about firearms. Listen, all I'm really trying to do here is solve the problems you guys have been complaining about instead of removing the article outright. RavenStorm 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there are plenty of other articles that have their "trivia" or "...in popular culture" sections split off. Usually that happens because the trivia section is ridiculously long and the people who maintain the article think that splitting the garbage information off into its own article will give the people who want to add every instance where Hitler flashes past on a TV screen a place to dump it. A great number of those sorts of garbage dump articles are being deleted, and even if they weren't, as I noted previously the existence of another article or even batch of articles is not justification for this one. Otto4711 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These facts aren't notable about firearms. They're only tangentially related to firearms. They're generally trivia specifically related to movies, television, and video games, where there are an infinite number of other mistakes and misconceptions and misuse of many, many things, including firearms. Maybe there should be an article called "Trivial mistakes made in movies, television, and video games", with "Firearms" as a sub-section. Then you could include facts like: cars don't explode upon being shot by a .357 Magnum as seen in Dirty Harry (is that a car myth or a firearms myth?), and a still photograph can not be scanned into a computer in order to zoom from a wide shot of 5 people to see a reflection of the photographer in the eyes of the 5 subjects of the photograph as seen in CSI (is that a photography myth or a computer myth?). --JJLatWiki 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we prune and merge it to the firearms article or just plain delete this? Ravenstorm 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as this stands it is almost entirely unsourced, OR and even if sources could be found it would be an unencyclopedic collection of mistakes made in movies. Eluchil404 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. (At the very least, "myths" is POV and must be removed.) Bucketsofg 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is encyclopedic and, if it is properly reformated and rewritten with a reasonable attempt at citing sources, an unconventional and informative colluction of uncommon knowledge about a very misunderstood subject that is socially important. I think the focus should move away from references to individual sources or movies unless that has caused a widespread misconception (like the "Glock 7" issue). Additionally, the argument about the M1 Garand further up and it's appearance in multiple games is an illustration of how these myths (or misinformations) tend to exhibit themselves. Deathbunny 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Malta[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as a useless list that can be split into other lists.

Firstly, the article appears to be named after a page under Category:National Register of Historic Places, an American organisation. However there doesn't seem to be an official register of Maltese historic places according to Google (and certainly no organisation in the country called the National Register of Historic Places). Secondly, there are separate lists for this kind of information (List of forts, for example) as well as a comprehensive list of buildings under Category:Buildings and structures in Malta.

Unless there is a consensus by some users to create lists of historical attractions by country (which I doubt), this article is pointless. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of sources, context, or defined notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malta isn't a U.S. state, territory, or commonwealth, so it doesn't have anything on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. The list of historic places in Malta is unsourced because there's no citation of any agency that has certified these buildings and structures as being on a register. I'm hesitant to recommend deleting this article altogether, but it should at least be renamed as just a list of historic sites in Malta, without any association implied with the U.S. National Register. Category:World Heritage Sites in Malta might be an appropriate starting point for this list, and a list of other palaces and structures in Malta would also be worthwhile. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Elkman, there are already lists for forts, museums, cathedrals, palaces etc., where Maltese attractions are listed. Do we really need another list that simply bunches them up together? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 21:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does seem to be a "National Protective Inventory" for Malta, commonly called "listed buildings", as well as "urban conservation areas" and "scheduled areas", equivalent to historic districts etc. City of Malta guide (slightly broken). It seems as if there is a list, if it exists and can be sourced, Malta should be treated the same as the US, UK, and other nations. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's comments. Nobody thinks to delete the American National Register of Historic Places and other countries similar lists should be treated the same. --Oakshade 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete: it is a kind of own research (probably), it could be compared to the US National Register and could be taken as something official (it is neither nor), we have an official list - the UNESCO heritage one, and any other list will stay very subjective and own research - first of all when we call it list. Let us make a catogory for such things, or the mentioned list of museums etc., there is no subjective problem. The page mentioned by Dhartung seems to be something else, although it could be used in an article. Sure, Malta has a lot to show, and there can be done a lot, but I guess not this way. -jkb- 10:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see no evidence on the website provided by Dhartung that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is committed to preserving Malta's historic buildings. As far as from what I've read, the company is Malta's national environmental regulator and land use planning agency [60] and does not participate in building conservation.
However I have just found an organisation that does. Heritage Malta is a national agency set up by the Maltese Government, and I guess this is the closest thing to an official register available.
Instead of having another list, I think it would be best to incorporate the list into a Heritage Malta article. Unless anyone has any other ideas, I shall get to work on it. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what I have ment - make a page about it, great. But, I wonder if you will succeed - I know this page (heritagemalta.com), it was reported in many articles, but I have never succeeded to open it... -jkb- 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably rename, per all the reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wykejbs's comment of 25 February 2007 and Dhartung. jkb, your problem may be that it's http://www.heritagemalta.org/heritagesites.html (and not .com). However, as said, renaming may be helpful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Malta is a popular tourist destination within Europe, and one of its main attractions is the cultural heritage; this list would be useful for anyone wishing to find out more about the islands. Renaming would be a good idea though (remove the 'registered' part). CounterFX 12:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: if Wykebjs makes something like Heritage Malta from that page, it will be fully OK, but the present list makes an attempt to be something official - and this is not (no source etc.). My oppinion. -jkb- 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find no objection to that. The reason I recommended keeping the article is that it will probably take longer than the duration of the AfD nomination for such an article to be set up. Just a thought: How about renaming the present article itself to Heritage Malta, and then replacing it with Wykebjs's version once it is completed? CounterFX 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was a WP:POINT, and as much as I have issues with this article, Wikipedia hasn't (yet) matured to the level to dispose of it, so WP:SNOW. For now, we'll just need to make sure WP:BLP is enforced in spirit and letter on all relevant entries. . -Doc^g 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena 2[edit]

Contested PROD, with rationale:

Lack of relevance (70.58.114.69 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 22 February 2007)

Procedural nomination only. Chris cheese whine 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to previous version for sourcing, or else delete. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Doc_glasgow for events leading to this point. The emasculated version has major holes in its coverage, and as such is useless. -- Jay Maynard 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started work on a repair to the damage that caused this nomnation. Before I invest hours days in it, I'd like someone to look and make sure I'm on the right track. Sample entries are at User:Jmaynard/Repairing_List_of_Internet_phenomena. -- Jay Maynard 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral. I no longer care. Hipocrite destroyed the article by wiping out essentially all of its content - after voting to delete the article. It's clear that my work isn't wanted, and neither is the work of the hundreds of other editors who have contributed to it. Delete or not; I'm powerless to do anything about it. -- Jay Maynard 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) keep. Nomination makes no sense, is not based on policy. The subject of Internet memes as a whole has been covered by sources such as CNET. Individual memes in this article are being sourced as we speak (apparently this nom was caused by the ADDITION of sources). When we discussed this a few months ago, there was a clear consensus to keep. --- RockMFR 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go read the cited RfC: the nom was caused by wiping out major sections of the article and using admin powers to defend the action, thus leading to the belief that this article meets with admin displeasure. -- Jay Maynard 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect this nomination is intended to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Rather than source the material to make it compliant with WP:BLP, we're getting this.--Doc^g 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The material's lack of compliance with WP:BLP is disputed, as a look at the RfC will show. -- Jay Maynard 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Thought the nomination is obviously a WP:POINT, somehow they have found an article that is nothing more than a category misnamed, with some additional, randomly selected entries. WP:LIST states that "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." This list is difficutl and contentious, and lacks such reliable sourcing. As such, it is a clear and obvious deletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - the list itself states that "What defines an Internet phenomenon is purely subjective," the criteria proposed for inclusion is that anyone, anywhere has called it one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominated before. Basically a list of things that are internet phenomina and notable. No policy based reason to delete that I see... - Denny 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I do not see why this should be deleted, besides that I think this article can be very helpful (got some interesting information out of it myself) (Me-pawel 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Um. On the one hand the vast majority of this can, to put it bluntly, Fark off, but it is a way of keeping the more egregious cruft from being rereated and battled over. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We typically don't delete things because they didn't get edited to satisfy one particular person's preferences. While I understand that Jmaynard may be somewhat frustrated, and I won't go so far as to allege WP:POINT I will say this nomination seems ill advised. Keep because much of the information could well be added back, IF it were properly sourced. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I did suggest the nomination, I did not make it, as a checkuser will show: my system is on a static IP address, and the one int he nomination is not that address. -- Jay Maynard 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs to be looked over for WP:BLP and WP:V, and sources added for verifiable entries. It doesn't need to be deleted. Dave6 ^talk 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Lar. Internet phenomena are encyclopedic, and this list provides a short overview of them. Not wanting to work on an article to weed out original research and not-as-notable phenomena is not a criterion for deletion. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may need sourcing more, and the RfC may affect this, but keep. ThuranX 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and is pure Listcruft. SirFozzie 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main problem is lack of internal structure: arranging the items by date within each group might be better than alphabetical. Objecytions to individual items for BLP etc. should go on the talk page of--and sometimes on the talk page of the article being linked to. DGG 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A serious request to proponent of keep[edit]

One of the criteria listed at WP:LISTS is "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources." Could someone please present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources? Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST is a guideline, that means that we don't have to follow it word by word when not doing it makes sense. And it does in this case, IMHO. When we can have a category, why can't we have a list? A list of internet phenomena is interesting, encyclopaedic (compared to other kind of lists we have), and can be properly sourced. --Conti|✉ 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I suspect the argle-bargle surrounding this list has something to do with the recent passing of "Brian Peppers Day." Like many of the pop culture lists, this does seem like a random collection of crap with no well-defined membership criteria. On the other hand, and I know this is not strictly relevant, where were you people when I was trying to get List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us" deleted? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to get a well known adminstrator to file an RFC regarding his behavior with respect to that article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah. My bad... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is there anything wrong with keeping a list of internet phenomenons? 72.83.118.187 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I bet there is other pop culture and popular article on WP that are similar to Internet phenomena. What this list would support is the WP article regarding Internet and add weight to this technology being so influential in so many areas including entertainment and viral marketing..etc --Mikecraig 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, the article was a mess before, and I question whether some of the content should have been removed (not naming names, everyone knows what I'm talking about), but this article is the best place to keep random shit that people might look up which doesn't merit articles. JuJube 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main problem is lack of internal structure: arranging the items by date within each group might be better than alphabetical. But this, and considerations of the proper criteria, and Objections to individual items for BLP etc. should go on the talk page of--and sometimes on the talk page of the article being linked to. Could even be used as a list of possible BL{Ps to check.DGG 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it but only include entries with either a Wikipedia article, or reliable sources. —siro χ o 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article is at least as relevant as many other pop-culture articles on WP. Notability is definitely not a problem, nor is verifiability. If ever, rename to [[[List of Internet Memes]] or List of Notable Internet Memes and then narrow down the requirements in order to be on the list. WP:IAR should be the case here with using Internet sources as this IS a topic regarding the Internet. Shrumster 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Guy above. As long as there are some rationale guidelines for inclusion (third party sourcing, evidence of notability, etc.) there are no content policies that this list must violate. WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. problems need to be delt with but that doesn't require deletion. I might reconsider if it were convicingly argued that this list were unmaintainable rather than just poorly maintained but noone above seems to be arguing that. Eluchil404 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An issue that is timely and here forever. (See current news on China's internet revolution) Revert for source work. Seek reliable sources and additional help. Lee Nysted 13:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captain America. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:42Z

Captain America (2009 film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notes on a film over two years ahead of release seems a tad premature. No director, no sources besides IMDb and what is essentially a PR announcement. Basically appears to be in the "high concept" stage. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ball, unverified (IIMDb is not considered a completely reputable source since, like Wikipedia, it is user-edited). Can always be recreated if and when such a production is actually announced officially. 23skidoo 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the subject is unverifiable. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose a redirect to Captain America. If this would be inappropriate, delete. Chris cheese whine 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect seems like a good idea to me although it still seems premature to even have that at this stage of film development. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain America#Films pending verifiable information that could merit recreation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this just isn't necessary yet. If it gets "merged" with Captain Amerca#Films then it may as well be re-written entirely. It's garbage as is. -- Randall00 ^Talk 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain America. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would make sense to include it in the Captain America article.Sockem 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Russian School of Mathematics. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:43Z

Irene Khavinson[edit]

Non-notable. KNewman 06:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Russian School of Mathematics Alex Bakharev 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge perhaps should have been merged in the first place, instead of coming here.DGG 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I hope someone is going to suggest deleting Russian School of Mathematics, though, as it doesn't appear notable to me. WMMartin 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hyland[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. Seems it's either a non-notable person or a hoax at best.Hondasaregood 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no references = not notable Alf photoman 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources showing notability are produced. Nuttah68 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No reliable sources show up in google search. - Mocko13 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:44Z

Tammy Stoner[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Bear Therapy
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 09:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article seems to exist only to support her Teddy Bear therapy and that article has been prod'd and now sent for AFD since it fails to explain what it is and therefore why it is important. Ms. Stoner would be better served if she signed up for a free website service such as Geocities and explained both herself and her therapy there. Postcard Cathy 11:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The page is blatantly biased. Suriel1981 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced, lacking citations, problems with WP:NPOV in an article about a living person leaves us no choice due to WP:V Alf photoman 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:43Z

Teddy Bear Therapy[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Stoner
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Even after being prod'd and rewritten, it still doesn't describe what the Therapy is and how it can help people. Arguably it was more helpful before being rewritten but even then still did not describe the actual therapy itself. Postcard Cathy 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising rawks. --Randall00 ^Talk 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlabrownfeld (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC). whups didn't mean to unsign.MarlaB 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It could be interesting, if there were more information. Kolindigo 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No useful information. Arguably an advertisement (note the "TM" after the therapy's name). I would have assumed this was a hoax but unfortunately Google reveals that this therapy does indeed exist. And I don't believe it can be trademarked. Suriel1981 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unreferenced and unsourced therefore fails WP:V Alf photoman 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zylstra[edit]

Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. I will add some more information to the page as soon as I can. user:zylstra555

RE: To all replys[edit]

Ok, I completely understand. What if I can circulate this around to a few people and get more non-cited original information on it within a week?

I'll widthdraw my nomination, good luck on the article. --Hojimachong^talk 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~no notability, cited Ancestry.com? Barely escaped a speedy.~~ --Hojimachong^talk 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why is my article being considered for deletion? user:zylstra555

Notability assertion? It is also somewhat incoherent. --Hojimachong^talk 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am not exactly the greatest user of Wikipedia, I must admit, when it comes to editing and adding pages. I apologize, if you believe that the page should surely be removed, then go ahead. -- user:Zylstra555

I tried to clean up the article; tell me if I completely screwed it up. --Hojimachong^talk 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Bucketsofg 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Érika Ortiz Rocasolano[edit]

Delete You can put that information in her sister's article Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano. Gaudio 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of information in this article, and I think, sufficient enough to warrant its own article. There are articles on things that are far less relavant than this one. Érika's sister is Princess of Asturias, which gives her some claim to notability, even prior to her death. For example, Pia Getty, sister of Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece. I don't think she'd have an article if her sister had not married so well, and I believe this is the case for Érika. She was notable enough to recieve a mention in CNN (can't find the article, the summary is here. I think she's notable enough. Morhange 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect besides that it was consensus about that in the talk page. She was on newspapers in Spain two days because she died, but it had no political impact, just the news. She was totally unknown until the time of her "normal" dead. This article talks about an ephemeral news, not the biography of a notable person. Besides, who was in press was not she but her sister and the king, they are notable. While this is another project, take a look at the discussion about this in the Spanish Wikipedia, where many many comments were given about the non-notability of this person. News to wikinews, encyclopedic facts to Wikipedia. Barcex 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not true, she was known before her death as Letizia's sister, but I agree that information should be in Letizia's article. Gaudio 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, she was not totally unknown, in fact she went to her sister's public wedding and she was not hidden. But she had no public life. It is interesting to see that the special issue of ¡Hola! shows Letizia and the Royal Family, focusing on them and not on Erika. Barcex 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm afraid you know nothing about Spanish yellow press, she appeared in several Spanish TV programs (such as Aquí hay tomate), they do that: they follow people when they are in the supermarket, when they are going to work, etc. She was known because of that, but of course, that's not a reason to be in an encyclopaedia.Gaudio 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so after more than one year repeating everywhere in the wikipedias that you should have common rules, now you realised we should.Gaudio 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with princess Letizia of Asturias, besides trivial yellow press mentions there is nothing notable to warrant an article Alf photoman 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as it was the consensus in the talk page before Gaudio started meddling in. She doesn't meet the Wikipedia: Notability criteria. She wasn't famous. She was just known as the sister of a princess and she kept herself out of public spotlight. And about the Pia Getty article, it should be deleted too. That one article about a non-notable person exists it doesn't mean an article about another non-notable person has to exist too. It means the other article has to be deleted too. --Andromeda 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, just your opinions over anybody else's as you guys are used to do in Spanish wikipedia. Everyone's opinion can be important, although you guys forget that very often. Everyone's invited here and everyone has the right to take part, to middle. Gaudio 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bronks 09:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the sister of the wife of a member of royalty does not in itself pass WP:BIO. Nuttah68 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nuttah. -- Pastordavid 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Sykes[edit]

The page does not establish any notability for the individual aside from his association with the band Bring Me the Horizon, which itself just barely seems to meet notability criteria for WP:MUSIC (based on its AfD discussion). This page seems more of a fansite for the individual and a marketing tool for his clothing business. Normally I would recommend a merge, but I don't see any notable info that can't be found on the band's page - I think the best course would be a delete and redirect to the band's page. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --J2thawiki 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand what the nominater is saying. However, many of the BMTH fans (especially the girls) really like Oli.... This to me gives him some notability. Fair enough, Drop Dead Clothing isn't very big. So that doesn't add to his notability. However, he is the lead singer of BMTH - who I do believe easily meets the notability criteria, as one can buy their material from many good retailers including HMV (I saw their cds there last week), also they are doing a UK tour (not that big, but are being supported by IKTPQ), BMTH also won the Kerrang new-comer award, so they appear to be easily notable enough. However, this is not about BMTH, Oli Sykes did all the artwork for their albums, as well as most (if not all) of the music and lyrics. I believe more citation is needed. However, the article is more informative than some other metal band members such as Travis Smith and Nicholas Brooks. Therefore I believe that this article is important enough to be here. And if altered slightly, could be a very good article. Thanks, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, no non-trivial external references in an article about a living person leaves no other choice. Change to KEEP if sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The band won The Kerrang! award for Best British Newcomer in 2006. I think that seeing the band is clearly notable, the lead vocalist should be notable enough for an article. Keep and tag with ((unreferenced)) until sources are dug up-K@ngi e ^meep! 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion. Deb 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-promotion is the act of promoting one's own businesses and/or one's self, so I do not find it feasible that my creation of an article can be self-promoting for someone else. Perhaps it could be classed as promotion; however, apart from mentioning Drop Dead Clothing, there is nothing that I can see that could possibly be classed as promoting. However, Drop Dead Clothing is Oli's own business, so needs to be mentioned in a biographical article. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article contains nothing notable not already in the band's page. Also fails WP:BIO and borders on self-promition. A1octopus 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:46Z

Barbossabeth[edit]

Subgenre of Pirates of the Caribbean erotic fanfiction which is not sourced with verifiable assertion of notability. I am including the related page Sparrabeth in this nomination. Creator removed prod. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and trivial. Only external links (references?) are to a social blogging site. --pIrish 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in this article supports notability and the sources are blogs. (Third3rdIII 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio from the company's website, [61]. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTN Irancell[edit]

Procedural, abstain. While reviewing PRODs I came across this article. The article is unsourced and there are notability concerns, but because this is Iran and sources are kinda tough, I thought we should have more process before we delete this. - NYC JD make a motion 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:47Z

Fema Camps[edit]

Contested prod. Concern was OR. Article is wholly unsourced. Procedural nom, abstain. - NYC JD make a motion 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard of this conspiracy theory before, but this article treats some complete conjecture as if it were fact and without any sources. Whether the theory is worthy of an article I couldn't say. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single Ghit I can find is a blog, a forum or a conspiracy website. If it was better written it could possibly be merged into one of the conspiracy theory articles but it needs cleaning up and ... hang on, how do you source conspiracy theory articles? :) EliminatorJR 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was this even contested as such? The OP simply removed the tag. That's more like vandalism. Potatoswatter 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PROD tags may be removed by anyone without an explanation. - NYC JD (make a motion) 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google leads to nothing but conspiracy websites and wannabe blogs. While I consider the American government to be evil, I don't think they're =this= evil. Denni ^talk 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 12:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Treatment[edit]

Neologism. Google only coughs up 120 usages, none of which reflect the definition here. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Slang made up by kids north of Boston so they sound all cool and tough when they go south of Boston. As for our friend Googleis evil, evil must be opposed, adding the qualifier "Boston" to the search string ["North Shore Treatment" Boston -wikipedia] bring is the grand total of 4 unique from 5 total results, all about the "North Shore Treatment Center" for substance abuse in Boston. Unverifable as this was something made up by a bunch of people one day for which Wikipedia is not. -- saberwyn 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - renaming to "water breathing" is an editorial decision --BigDT 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterbreathing[edit]

Non notable fictional ability, using a neologism as an article name... covered as clearly here as it is at List of comic book superpowers ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to the list article. (Could potentially be a search term?) Otherwise delete if this is not a common neologism for this ability. I watchlisted this article last year while on NP Patrol; nothing has been done to expand it in all that time. Zun aid ©® 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable ability of fictional characters, tag for references, however. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable superpower. Maybe rename to breathe underwater. - Peregrine Fisher 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a real superpower, and a notable number of fictional characters have this power. The article could be expanded into something larger quite nicely. Might want to change the name to Water-breathing or Water breathing though. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Fairfield[edit]

Delete - fails WP:N as I can find no independent sources of which the subject was the subject. The article's creator has been inserting links to the subject's website in various drag-related articles, leading me to believe that the editor may be the subject. Otto4711 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:COI. Jokestress 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent non-trivial sources, which is unacceptable for an article of a living person Alf photoman 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat exactly does one have to do to make this a legit entry? The personality - Carrie Fairfield - is indeed the namesake behind a very well known resource for the art of female impersonation and drag pageantry in the United States. If you search for articles on the topic - it's in the highest hit. The site/personality is also quoted in places across this site as well as images being located on this site branded by the site's watermark.

Please read WP:BIO and WP:N. The crux of the problem is that there appear to be no verifiable third-party sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional indepth information on the creation of the character and more of the history of the website and it's popularity. Please review and research the name and the influence it has had on the drag community since 1999. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnova1974 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not my responsibility to research this subject matter. It's your responsibility as the creator and as the person seeking to keep the article to provide multiple independent third-party sources that attest to the subject's notability. The current article has no sources. Otto4711 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you have newspaper articles about the subject, or an IMDb listing, or television interviews, those are reliable sources that can be cited. Otherwise, the article as it stands does not meet notability guidelines. Jokestress 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't agree with your point but just FYI IMDB is not a reliable source. Otto4711 02:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the resource, or the use of the name, or site, is more famous than the actual person, perhaps the article should be moved accordingly--since apparently there are references available for that use, per the above comments.DGG 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a caution to User:Chingachinga to review and adhere to our policies on personal attacks and civility. Proto ► 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caterina Bandini[edit]

Incomplete nomination by User:Chingachinga User has been notified to come and lodge a reasoning for deletion. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News anchor who has been the primary subject of newspapers articles including [62], passes BIO easily —siro χ o 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Caterina Bandini is a has-been, an EX news anchor, and a brief fluff piece in the Boston Globe hardly constitites a biographical justification for a Wikipedia article. Her tenure as anchor was mercifully brief (about 5 years), and during that time, despite WHDH's generally high ratings, she was not a popular anchor, as evidenced by numerous postings on local media forums. Note that the Globe has media ties with WHDH.

Somebody please tell me what she did in her entire career as a reporter/anchor that was at all noteworthy, anything at all. Reading a teleprompter five days a week does not count. She is gone and soon forgotten. She won't be back as anchor anywhere in Boston either even if she wants to return - what station would have her? She will be over 40 in a business that worships young and pretty. Her stiff humorless on-air persona was a frequent source of comment among news watchers. She would likely demand more money than any station would be willing to pay. She has no fan base, never did. Her career is done.

If you are going to allow this article to stand, then anybody else who has been an anchor in local news deserves an article as well, and I just can't see that. If any current Boston anchors deserve Wikipedia articles, it would be the likes of Natalie Jacobsen or Jack Williams, who at least have both had very long TV careers in Boston and will no doubt be remembered for some time. But again, does local popularity equate to Wikipedia notability? A decade or less from now, people will be saying "Caterina who?" I have asked some people, and they cannot even name her as the person who preceded the current female anchor. Is that notability?

Given that she seems to be just about the only local Boston anchor or reporter to have an article here, the question naturally arises, who posted this article in the first place? Bandini herself? Possible. Some random TV news groupie that has an infatuation with her? Possible too, but other anchors are far more popular here, so why don't they have articles on Wikipedia. Draw your own conclusions. (Chingachinga 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, notability --Peta 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, two more references added to article. Chingachinga needs to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ALLORNOTHING not to mention that the rambling above sounds very much like a personal attack to me.EliminatorJR 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the articles cited do anything to establish notability. She quite her high profile job to have twins. So? Chingachinga 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If she had a high-profile job - as Chingachinga has just said - that implies notability, no? Regardless, the articles added by myself and User:Siroxo quite clearly show that she passes WP:BIO (and I've never heard of her before tonight, as I live in the UK). EliminatorJR 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me offer some comparisons. Other things being equal, a national anchor is more notable than a local one. A local anchor with a long career is more notable than one with a brief career. A local anchor with some additional accomplishments, either within or outside their news position, is more notable than one lacking them. I would suggest that a popular local anchor is more notable than a relatively unpopular one because in TV news it's all about ratings and Q scores.

Bandini was a local anchor. Her career as a anchor was quite modest in length, and she has admitted that she is no longer interested in returning to that particular job, so that career will not be extended. To my knowledge she had no genuine additional accomplishments at all, e.g. Pulitzer Prize, best-selling book, etc. Even her supporters have admitted that her public persona needed improvement, as she had something of an 'ice queen' image. Newspaper articles from the 'Lifestyle' sections about her decision to choose family over career are not that substantive and barely add to any claims of notability. I'll wager the frequency of those articles will drop quickly as she fades from public memory.

A high-profile job may imply notability only to the extent that it raises the issue. An undistinguished short career in a local market does not establish notability.

Say what you want, she fails the notability test.

Comment to closing admin. This is getting silly. Chingachinga has now voted Delete three times as well as being the nom. Meanwhile, WP:BIO is easily proven. EliminatorJR 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my understanding that "votes" are no longer tabulated and used as the sole criterion for deletion, so if EliminatorJR chooses to vote Strong Keep I reserve the right to reaffirm my Delete vote.

What I find silly is that EliminatorJR, who claims to be from the UK and claims to know nothing about Bandini, should take it upon him(her)self to promote Bandini's notability by posting insignificant media articles when he(she) is utterly unfamiliar with Boston TV news, the very context of Bandini's alleged notability. I, on the other hand, have been watching local news for decades, back to the days of Don Kent and Jack Chase among others. It is my opinion that Bandini was a minor figure, that such press as she received was perfunctory, and that she will quickly become less notable over time as her name recognition diminishes.

I also fail to see how WP:BIO establishes Bandini's notability.

With reference to "Primary criterion" - "Person has been a subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Not really. Whenever a new anchor is promoted it is standard fare for local print media reporters to write a brief piece about him or her. It's pretty trivial, usually appearing in the TV or Lifestyle pages. Stories relating to her decision to quit her position to care for her twins are human interest stories, and may be juxtaposed with an opposing position by a feminist critical of women leaving the workplace to raise children. Such articles are relatively trivial, and hardly bolster notability, as any other successful woman, famous or not, would serve the illustrative purpose just as well.

Under "Special cases, notable actor and television personality" - "Multiple features in popular culture publications" - no.

"Large fan base, fan listing, or 'cult' following" - no. To the contrary, Bandini was reportedly relatively unpopular because of her stiff demeanor. The success of WHDH was widely attributed to the glitzy, fast paced look of the news, not to the anchors' celebrity.

"Independent Biography" - no. See the above comments under "Primary criterion".

"Name recognition" - doubtful. Bandini was only known in the Boston area, and was the station's female anchor for only 5 years. Her name recognition will no doubt decline rapidly now that she is off the air, and Frances Rivera has proved a popular, successful replacement for her.

"Commercial endorsements" - no.

Under "Proposed alternative criteria" - "Expandability - will the article ever be more than a stub?" - Almost certainly not, and a brief stub it is at that, despite recent external references. She is out of the news business and has expressed a desire not to return. Her agent may make hyped up claims that a local station would pick her up, but I find that hard to believe.

100 year tests - fails both.

Search engine test - questionable. Google hits are mostly station posts of news stories she covered, and reports of personal appearances anchors are expected to make during their tenure. None of these items bolster notability, and many hits will no doubt be taken down over time as the stories lose their releveance.

So again, I fail to see anything that establishes notability to keep this article. Chingachinga 12:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to read WP:CIVIL. I'm not getting involved in this, obviously the nominator has a major grudge against the subject of the article. Doesn't matter how much they've annoyed him, WP:BIO is proved. EliminatorJR 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EliminatorJR would do well to read WP:CIVIL him(her)self. The disparaging comments made about me are moderately insulting, gratuitous, erroneous, and most damning of all, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

WP:BIO is not a mathematical theorem to be proved QED, as some matter of universally accepted fact. WP:BIO is only a matter of opinion. As the saying goes, that which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. WP:BIO is not proven.

I have a difficult time finding notability in any local anchor lacking other legitimate accomplishments, since for starters any notability hardly extends beyond the local viewing area, which might be rather small in many cases. Other than your own, how many local anchors can you name, excluding those who might have experienced some measure of fame for activities unrelated to their anchor position? None? I myself cannot name any anchors in Providence RI, or Manchester NH, or in any of the other surrounding media markets, never mind the rest of the country. That is not to say that local anchors do not merit an article just because they are local and not nationally recognized, but rather there must be something sufficiently notable about them that might impress others unfamiliar with their careers. Achieving only a very local celebrity as an anchor is not a significant enough accomplishment in my view.

Let me offer some TV newspeople examples as illustrations. Paula Zahn was an anchor in Boston for a while, also at channel 7 where Bandini later worked, but moved on to a national morning talk show, and eventually got her own national cable news program. No problem with a Wikipedia article here: a long and diverse TV news career including national exposure in several programs, and with an ongoing program on CNN. People throughout the country recognize her, and name recognition certainly counts in notability. If her career had ended when it did at channel 7, Zahn would not qualify on notability in my opinion. Too obscure and brief a career.

Chuck Scarborough was also an anchor at channel 7 for a time, but moved on to a very long-term high visibility anchor position at WNBC in New York City. Even though known primarily as a local anchor, I would say he qualifies on notability first, because NY is the largest media market in the country (or maybe a close second behind LA). Perhaps millions of people would recognize him, and he has been an anchor at WNBC for over three decades. That's a substantive career in the public eye in itself. Additionally he has had national network exposure throughout the country, and he has also had several successful books published. That body of accomplishments warrants a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Even the NY local news anchor position alone might qualify, given the market and his tenure. If he had only been a NY anchor for one year and not done the rest, would he qualify? I would be inclined to think not. If his career had ended in Boston with nothing else, definitely not - not enough substance.

I do have some question about Natalie Jacobson's inclusion in Wikipedia, though I would not contest it. She has been at WCVB in Boston for decades and is likely the most recognized TV newsperson in Boston today, and arguably one on the most famous in Boston TV news history. With her then husband Chet Curtis as co-anchor, "Chet and Nat" dominated the local prime-time news ratings until they divorced and he moved on to NECN. Jacobson still lead the ratings as solo anchor in her time slot. My problem with her notability is that she is no doubt completely unknown outside her viewing area, and Boston is not NY or LA, and there is no reason that she should be known elsewhere either. In some sense she is a big fish in a relatively small pond. At some point the market size matters. Have any of you ever heard of her, even if you have a keen interest in American TV news? Does a long-term anchor on Jerkwater Cable Access News lacking other accomplishments qualify?

Another interesting case to consider is WHDH's investigative reporter, Hank Phillippi Ryan. She has been at Bandini's station for some time and covered many stories, but one was a career maker. She reported after a long investigation on a pattern of collusion and corrupt practices involving construction firms promoting remodeling projects to homeowners in some of Boston's poorer neighborhoods, with ties to banks offering dubious loans. The story was significant enough that the state itself investigated and initiated new rules regarding registration of contractors and changes in bank lending practices. Ryan's story was notable for its genuine impact, but would she merit a Wikipedia article? That's a tough one to call.

I cite these examples to illustrate that the criteria for notability for TV journalists are rather vague. Some individuals clearly qualify without discussion - who could doubt, say, Walter Cronkite? Some are iffy, and subject to legitimate debate. Some don't make the cut.

Bandini's career lacks notability. Her Wikipedia article boils down to the first sentence: an 11 year position at WHDH (only the last 5 of which were as anchor). That she co-anchored with Randy Price adds no weight. Boston is neither NY nor LA as a media market. The cited articles recently added are trivial ephemera. Apparently she did nothing of substance outside her anchor chair, e.g. wrote a book of note, held elected office, etc. Bandini fails to make the cut, as would any other local anchor with a brief, uninspired career. In the panoply of local TV news, she did not rise much above that of the general assignment reporter. Unfortunately such is probably the case for the majority of local anchors. Chingachinga 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:NFT, The Game again. NawlinWiki 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Battle[edit]

Delete as nom. The article clearly fails WP:NFT, and had the prod tags remove. Flyguy649 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited, but an edit relevant to WP:NFT is here Flyguy649 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Jules1975 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was probably copied from an essay on Wikipedia, wherever that is. WP:NFT this out. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia in a new, shiny form. No information is taken from reliable, thrid party sources - "References (All by Personal Interviews)". No external sources that can be checked by others at all. Nothing here at this point can be WP:attributed, and I'd be willing to claim without searching that this term is unverifable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day applies, in particular Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day#That infamous game. Delete -- saberwyn 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This wheel that gets re-invented about once a week! -- RHaworth 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think speedy delete applies here. But maybe it should! The tag could be ((db-SDOWP)) or some such... Flyguy649 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Saberwyn and per WP:V. Barno 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I had known about WP:NFT#That infamous game I would have put it up for speedy deletion. --Afed 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the article having no attribution, as well as possibly being made up. Kyra_~(talk) 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidelete Wikijunk. JuJube 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 presence of other articles is not an reason to keep the article in discussion. WP:INN may provide useful reading on this topic. Proto ► 11:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sproughton Tennis Club[edit]

Local tennis club. Remind me: are they of themselves notable? Does having raised a Wimbledon champion make it notable? -- RHaworth 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that they did raise a future Wimbledon champion makes them notable to people who have more than a passing interest in the sport. There have sadly been few enough champions to emanate from the UK, so it should be of considerable interest to find out further details about the past of one of them. James was playing in the first team at the age of 9 and was a regular member until he obtained a scholarship at Bisham Abbey as a teenager. His father was the club coach for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sproughtontennis (talk • contribs) Author of the article. Shall we take that as a keep? -- RHaworth 08:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why there should be a request to delete this entry. There are many other articles on tennis clubs located in Wikipedia which have stubs only and there is no indication that they have been subject to possible deletion. Further they appear to have no claim to fame whereas as has already been explained a former champion "cut their teeth" at Sproughton. --Sproughtontennis 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no verifiable claims to notability through reliable sources. Nuttah68 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as Nuttah68 shows. Places or gorups associated with a notble person (and he isn't yet Tim Henman) are not automatically notable themselves. Eluchil404 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newyorkbrad, copyvio. BryanG^(talk) 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval crimes and punsih ment[edit]

unencyclopedic essay piece Travelbird 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No real content and horribly misspelled title. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and for the fact that it is copied word-for-word from another website. --pIrish 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per pIrish. JuJube 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. Hbdragon88 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7 malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan schuster[edit]

Notability. I have done some internet searching on this person, but cannot find anything. This was created by a new user, and might be a "test". Either way, it seems that the person who created this article created it about him/herself, or knew that person as a friend. In summary, this hardly seems notable. Tim.bounceback 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-bio -Seinfreak37 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete.--Alabamaboy 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete.--AFYFAF 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Wapakoneta City School District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:03Z

Wapakoneta High School[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user without any sort of notability asserted. Request for addition of notable content was requested 16 December 2006 with no response. Seinfreak37 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as we do all articles of the form "X Y is a Y X". Article does not even contain an assertion that its presence is merited. Chris cheese whine 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wapakoneta City School District — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siroxo (talk • contribs)
Redirect per above unless expanded. Redirects are cheap. BryanG^(talk) 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake High School (Millbury, Ohio). Ohconfucius 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, not another one ! Hasn't this guy got anything better to do ? Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wapakoneta City School District - redirects are cheap and encouraged. TerriersFan 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district article. --El on ka 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:03Z

WWE Action Figures by Jakks Pacific[edit]

Pure fancruft. Wikipedia is not a advertising website. Listing every single wrestler that has been released by Jakks Pacific is pointless. The page seems to be edited by mainly users that aren't registered. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a website that lists a set of toys. Davnel03 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mass list of toys isn't useful. RobJ1981 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the list doesn't even link to articles about the toys themselves to qualify each individual toy's notability, only to the person on whom the toy is based off of. Kyra_~(talk) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously some effort went into this article, but ye it's not really needed for wikipedia. Govvy 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Normy132 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed with Govvy that significant effort has been put in but it doesn't seem merit an encyclopaedic article. Suriel1981 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also make the point that all the information contained can be obtained from the company's commercial website. Suriel1981 11:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:CSD#G12. – riana_dzasta 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.T. Boyz[edit]

First several pages of non-wiki g-hits are all myspace pages; no evidence of notability offered. Kathy A. 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criterion G12, blatant copyright infringement from [63]. So tagged Kyra_~(talk) 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable, plus the copyvio Kyra pointed out. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:07Z

Jessica Huang[edit]

It appears if this person appeared once as a movie extra, which does not meet WP:NOT. Cue the Strings 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ms Huang appears in the opening scene of Serenity as one of a class of about 10 students, who almost immediately die. If she's who I think she is she has a single line of dialogue which has no particular impact on the plot, and then she is never seen or heard from again. If she's not who I think she is, she has no lines of dialogue and is never seen or heard from again. Not notable, not worth keeping. Jeendan 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While she is credited ninth on Best of the Best: Without Warning, I have no idea if that is a speaking role or not. Including that she has a grand total of two credits, the other (as noted above) isn't notable. Non-notable actress. In time, she may become notable she just isn't there yet. IrishGuy ^talk 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete possibly a merge into a section in Serenity about extras or something. IMDB makes me wonder on the deletion, but ultimately I think it's the right move. Just H^{editor review} 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. --Oscarthecat 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:08Z

Hermitage High School (Virginia)[edit]

Article has very little content, no assertion of notability, POV problems, and no sources. Prod removed. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep - Article has been extensively rewritten and is on par with similar school pages. Could do with a bit more on the notability front (why is it more notable than any other school?), but its a big improvement on the earlier version and I can't see any reason to remove it as it stands. Jeendan 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the warning and the fact that it was "peer reviewed," it should be deleted. the article gives no credible assertion of notability and not much NPOV information. Warfieldian 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC) The school is listed already under Henrico County Public Schools and, even with the revisions, I don't see any significant notability to the school or verifiable non-trivial sources given. It certainly merits mention under the County Public Schools page but not its own article.Warfieldian 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Very Weak Keep - Based on other decisions regarding notability, Blue Ribbon Schools are considered notable. This school was recognized back in 1983 and does not have much other notability. Warfieldian 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep -what should be added to let it stay? This is my school and i beleive we should have a page. this is a notable article made and created by students of hermitage and have a right to express their own oponion about their school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr William Wright (talk • contribs)

WP:SCHOOLS3 is a proposed guideline for what constitutes notability for a school. Review this guideline and if you can add additional material from verified reliabile sources than it may merit keeping the article. Warfieldian 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleteConsidering the writing in the article, I think the statement that the principal & 1 of the teachers approved it needs some RS.DGG 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but we need to see an assertion of notability and supporting evidence. This article provides neither. Goodbye. WMMartin 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok we have edited our page....please revise your the deletion, it is compleatly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr William Wright (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep-Looks like it needs some work, but it can be saved. It has notability, as it's a Blue Ribbon School, and apparently only 300 out of 133,000 schools are selected as Blue Ribbon each year.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school is notable, article should stay, but it definately needs expanding, a clean up and some more references, LordHarris 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources cited to establish notability. Can a school article be a G11? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are inherently notable, and Blue Ribbon schools especially so. --El on ka 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Ribbon Schools are inherently notable. TerriersFan 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 prejudice against an article under the same name being created providing it is reliably sourced as per the constructive discussions below. I do note that the two editors who recommended keeping and trimming have similarly accepted that starting from a clean slate may be a better option. Proto ► 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable trance music records[edit]

Hopelessly compromised list. Barely any sources to speak of, let alone any sources which actually determine which records are notable. One Night In Hackney 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfixably POV-ridden OR nightmare. Otto4711 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above. Mystache 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong delete There is no way this can be anything but POV and OR. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Trim, strongly against delete~~ Keep/Trim: I attest against the claim that the article is unfixably POV. Several lists of a similar nature exist across the web (typically guised as trance classics), such as [64], [65], [66], [67] and [68] (in addition to those listed on the article talk page: [69], [70]). There are also numerous related CD compilations, such as [71], [72], [73] and, most notably, [74]. Anyone can see that the vast majority of these sources have a good number of the tracks (or, at least, artists) in common, both amongst themselves as well as with the article. I would consider it severely lacking for an encyclopedia not to have a list of defining trance records, such as, at bare minimum, Binary Finary's "1998", Age of Love's "The Age of Love" and Energy 52's "Cafe Del Mar". I admit that the lack of citations are problematic; however, I am sure that there are at least a few entries for which an authoritative non-disputable claim to notability can be made, such as Solar Stone's "Seven Cities" being credited as "The best trance record of the last 10 years" by DJMag. What I strongly recommend should be done is to clear the list, and allow it to be reconstructed on condition that each entry is backed by a notable (authoritative) source. CounterFX 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've nothing against a new article, however I think this article isn't a good starting point for it and should be deleted. One Night In Hackney 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the standard for deciding that any particular declaration of a track as a "classic" or "defining" or whatever term is used is sufficient for inclusion? If an individual track is notable then write an article about it and put it in Category:Trance music or an appropriate sub-cat. Otto4711 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the tracks do have their own articles already. In the trance music scene, notability is typically measured by the number of compilations the track appears on, the number of remixes that the track has enjoyed from leading artists, and the frequency of its inclusion in sets played by leading DJs (such as Paul van Dyk and Tiësto). Just to demonstrate my point about the earlier mentioned tracks:
- "The Age Of Love": Own article. Included in all above lists and compilations. Remixed by Paul van Dyk, Jam & Spoon, Marc et Claude, Cosmic Gate, Marco V, and others. 67 releases, appears on 346 compilations. [75]
- "Café del Mar": Own article. Included in all above lists and compilations. Remixed by Solar Stone, Nalin & Kane, Michael Woods, Marco V, Oliver Lieb, Kenny Hayes, and others. 74 releases, appears on 385 compilations. [76]
- "1998": Included in all above lists, and in half the compilations. Remixed by Paul van Dyk, Gouryella, Kaycee, Matt Darey, Marc et Claude, and others. 31 releases, appears on 198 compilations. [77]

(Note: Discogs figures have been corrected to exclude other tracks released by the same artist)

The point I am trying to get across is that, despite there possibly not being a single conclusive listing on which the article may be based, a set of tracks which enjoy worldwide recognition as classics does exist . Notwithstanding, I would concede to One Night In Hackney's point that the present article might not be a good starting point. I was wondering, how about moving the present list to the article talk page (or a subpage), trimming the actual article to three or four tracks (possibly using the above-given justifications for notability; specifically: notable remixes and Discogs figures), and allowing future editors to re-introduce tracks provided that they explicitly demonstrate the tracks' notability when doing so?

CounterFX 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Trim Article should be retained. By the article's nature it is subject to editors adding a lot of opinion-based, unsourced additions; similarly, a lot of additions which are relevant but unsourced, compromising the lists integrity. This is not a reason for deletion, it is only a reason for some heavy-handed, counter-POV/weasel editing. I have attempted this to a degree in the past, but it is a mammoth task, and I don't have the boldness to make such cleanups. Starting from a clean-slate is viable. I think it is perfectly reasonable to construct a veritable list of notable trance records, by using creditable sources such as those outlined by Counter FX. It should simply be noted that unreasonably verified, or unverified additions will be deleted, unmercilessly ;). Early Q 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness, the entire article is (and always seems to have been) unsourced, that is a valid deletion reason. If there are no sources, there is no integrity to compromise in the first place. If you currently remove every record that isn't reliably sourced as a notable trance record, the list ceases to exist. One Night In Hackney 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then do you argue that the article should be irrevocably deleted, or deleted and then started afresh? Early Q 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I agree that restarting the article from a clean-slate (and subsequently watching the page for unreferenced additions) would be the best way to go, although I still suggest making the old list available (through the talk page) for editors who wish to take up the task of finding authoritative sources for the present tracks. Regarding the comment that the article has always been unsourced: this is, in my opinion, a false claim. The entry for Zyon's "No Fate" asserts that it was "the first successful trance release on Eye Q", as is corroborated on the label's own website. The entry for Solar Stone's "Seven Cities" gives a citation from DJMag identifying it as "the best trance record of the last 10 years" - an indisputably valid claim to notability (provided the citation is correct).

I have also actually managed to locate one authoritative listing: Ministry of Sound's Fifteen:50, a chart giving the "50 biggest dancefloor filling tunes of the last 15 years" which also includes several of the trance tracks mentioned in the article. The chart states that it is the result of "numerous interviews with DJ’s, loads of posts to this site and some very heated arguments" (valid criteria for notability); this, coupled with the indisputable status of MoS, is sufficient (in my opinion) to refer to it as an authoritative source. CounterFX 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the question remains, what about the next source that the next editor decides is an authoritative source? What if that authoritative source conflicts with your authoritative source? Otto4711 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're also confusing asserting (alleged) notability with being sourced, because the link you provided for No Fate isn't in the article. What makes the first successful trance release on a particular record label notable? Were there more successful releases before that on other record labels? Were there subsequently even more successful releases after that on the same record label? Even then successful and notable aren't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't accept a record company's claim that a record was "successful" as a claim of notability, bare minimum would have to be independent verification that the record was successful even if that was the same as notability which I don't think it is. The DJMag claim is not sourced, it isn't a citation. It simply claims it's one of the "best" (which I don't consider to mean notable anyway) releases of the last 10 years, but provides no information so anyone can verify this. Which issue of DJMag is it in? They don't have an online archive, so without a publication date it's an unsourced claim. The MoS list isn't a list of notable records, it's a list of popular records. Notability and popularity are not the same thing. One Night In Hackney 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But popularity makes something notable, if only notable for being so popular. Perhaps what you are suggesting here is a change to the phraseology of the article's title. Such a change would be pedantic rather than effecting any real change. Otto4711's comment seems to undermine the policy of sourcing and citation too much. DJMag is the international herald of information with regards to dance music; it may not be accurate or make positive statements, but then neither does the BBC or Rolling Stone. If conflicting statements do arise in sources, then this makes an interesting point in the article :). Early Q 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the last two examples I gave were not the best choice. I agree that the DJMag claim not being sourced destroys its verifiability.

The main issue, as I see it now, can be split into two arguments:

The legitimacy of the list itself existing as an article in conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As I see it, it was the disputing of this legitimacy that motivated the AfD nomination
The criteria for notability against which candidate trance music records may be evaluated

For the latter argument, I would maintain my original position that, in the trance music scene, notability is defined by

the number of compilations the track appears on
the number of remixes that the track has enjoyed from leading artists
the frequency of its inclusion in sets played by leading DJs
its influence on the evolution of the trance genre in general or a subgenre in particular
(non-exclusively) a measure of the track's popularity

The first two criteria are verifiable against Discogs, the third and the fifth were addressed by the MoS's Fifteen:50 chart. Of course, I am not insisting that the criteria given above are conclusive - I am certain that they can be improved - but rather that a set of objective criteria for notability can be defined, and should be reached by community consensus.

Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the list is addressed by the Wikipedia-endorsed assertion that notability is not subjective. Thus, a track's inclusion warrants more than just it being an editor's favourite, and would not violate NPOV provided that it satisfies the criteria for notability (as discussed above). Given that the criteria are accepted and abided by, the legitimacy issue should also be resolved.

CounterFX 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I have constructed (from scratch) a draft version of what could be used as a starting point for the new article. I would appreciate it if you reviewed the proposed article and proposed talk page. As you will see, all claims are referenced and the notability of the tracks is explicitly stated. I believe that, in this form, the article would successfully resolve the issues of NPOV and notability. However, as has been earlier pointed out, rebuilding the entire article using this level of referencing is a massive task; I would propose starting off with just the three given tracks and see how the article evolves.

Recommendation If no-one finds any objection to my proposal, I would recommend that the article be blanked and replaced (not moved, so as to preserve history) by the draft, together with its talk page. The old contents of the talk page would be archived within a subpage of the talk page (since they would no longer be applicable to the new article). I will personally (timetable permitting) keep a regular watch on any additions being made to the page.

CounterFX 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't be blanked as long as the AFD is open. Otto4711 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was proposing a tentative solution for resolving the AfD. Obviously I will not take any action until a consensus is reached and the AfD is closed. CounterFX 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've reviewed your proposed article and talk page and I don't see that it's a solution. I think the best solution remains to delete this article and, as particular trance songs attain notability, write articles about them and then categorize them as appropriate. Otto4711 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's a solution. Many songs with articles are not among the most notable in their genres, and categories are not annotated, as repeatedly pointed out during the actors by series categories debate. –Unint 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable song doesn't have an article, write it. Otto4711 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (therefore keep). Bucketsofg 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Metropolis[edit]

NN superhero fight that appears in two issues of a comic book series. We simply can't devote articles to spandex slap fights when all of the information is already covered in the article about the series it appears in, in this case Infinite Crisis. Incidentally, has anyone noticed how many articles about fictional events use the ((Infobox Military Conflict)) template inappropriately?Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shudder...I mean Delete - we do not need articles on every aspect of every series regardless of how notable. Noting some issues with OR as well, for example in the casualty list. Otto4711 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its already mentioned in the articel for Infinite Crisis. Its simply not major enough to need iown article beyond that. Stephen Day 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Solve it with a Redirect to Infinite Crisis then? preserves history for non-admins and keeps it easily findable~~ Edit: change to keep considering its importance within Infinite Crisis. it is therefore a valid subarticle. —siro χ o 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is it inappropriate to use the military conflict infobox for fictional battles? --Hemlock Martinis 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable comic book series, not completely unsourced, needs work to be honest. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, there is no reason why we can't have an article on every notable comic book, comic book battle or television series. Also the military infobox is perfectly justifiable (and thus I'll re-add it..) in the article, I see no "usage guidelines" for it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Sure there is: It's excessive. We have notability guidelines for a lot of subjects, and I think it's really time we got more into what fictional elements are appropriate as article subjects on Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be sourced, it's a remarkable bit of work and I like the military battles infobox. --Basique 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only possible source is the Infinite Crisis miniseries itself (which is a primary source), and this is already covered in appropriate detail in the article on that series. Just because Wikipedia isn't paper doesn't mean we have to duplicate in explicit detail ever story ever committed to paper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable. Here are a couple of independant sources that talk about it: [78], [79]. Even without them, Infinite Crisis and every signigicant part of it are notable. - Peregrine Fisher 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Neither page is about the subject of this article; each mentions subject in passing only. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Participants may find Category:Fictional battles interesting as well: Category is full of similar articles, all misusing infoboxes and speaking about events only from an in-universe perspective, both of which go against WP:WAF. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have a Fictional Battles category, and the Battle of Metropolis is a fictional events still bearing consequences in every DC title One Year Later related. SO, I think it can stay. A huge Infinite Crisis article full of details about all the matters covered will be muddy, not practical DrTofu83 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the existence of a category does not justify the article's existence. I have found that few of the articles in this category belong here because they suffer from the same problems: reperesenting fictional events as if real, using only primary sources (something WP:CMC has said is grounds for deletion as non-notable), and generally just focusing on minutiae without really discussing the real-world publishing information. These attract a lot of OR and speculation because they are cruft articles without basis in anything but primary sources. This isn't a guide to comic book storyines. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the lack of secondary sources is the matter, Peregrine Fisher has posted something of regular. I also think that the fictional quality of the events is quite evident. Plus, the Battle of Metropolis event was a metafictional event told in more than one publication, so it's more than a simple plotline, but a closure event. If it's really needed to delete it, but I still cast my vote for keep, we've at least to put a passing reference of the death count in People died during Infinite Crisis. But we'll lose reference of a focal event of the whole comic event. DrTofu83 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBrian Boru is awesome 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about out-of-universe perspective to fit it in? Brian Boru is awesome 17:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please give more of a reason? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable conclusion of a major DC Comics storyline turning point. --Hemlock Martinis 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What important information is covered here that is not covered in Infinite Crisis?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article provides substantial background into the battle, and explains its ramifications, which the Infinite Crisis article does not do. --Hemlock Martinis 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply "SUPERHERO FIGHT FIGHT" and has no actual bearing on anything. ' 06:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.182.177 (talk • contribs)
Merge into Infinite Crisis any relevant info and Delete the rest. This fictional battle has no long-term consequenses in the real world that are separate from those in Infinite Crisis. Background into the battle, and its ramifications, are all in-universe perspectives. CovenantD 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this would merit inclusion in an encylopedia--The Spith 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does it create Precedent for other comic battles to have their own articles made? There are at least a half dozen with bigger consequences than this one, surely that should be taken into account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.210.73 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedgefield Ball Game[edit]

A tradition in a small English town that doesn't deserve its own article. Could be shorted and merged into the short town article, but obviously not notable enough. I prodded it, but it was removed. Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your template as comments about a tradition being silly could be seen as being offensive. Traditions are important regardless of the size of a town or in this case a village. Talskiddy 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry by what I said, but this does not achieve Notability standards and doesn't need its own article. Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Such ball games were once widespread throughout Europe, but AFAIK Sedgefields is just about the last survivor. As such it has some notability. Mind you, I did hope that some combination of the words "Sedgefield' and "Mob" might relate to the local MP in some way... Grutness...wha? 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, BBC article already sourced, and here's some more (independent, reliable, etc): [80], [81], check out achive search—siro χ o 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:09Z

Chicco[edit]

company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial verifiable published works independent of the company and does not meet notability guidelines. Warfieldian 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, very notable company, as evidenced by multiple, relaible, nontrivial sources, including a mention in NYT. —siro χ o 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. If you have kids, you'll certainly have heard of Chicco, which are one of the biggest brands in the segment. Admittedly, the article could be a lot better, but notability is well enough asserted, and what's more, it's true that their products are available (and popular) the world over. Ohconfucius 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per nom.Cyberdemon007 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban dihydrogenmonoxide[edit]

It is a funny mem, but I do not think it is appropriate for the main space. Alex Bakharev 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Corvus cornix 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Corvus cornix. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree this is the best idea Alex Bakharev 00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slang terms for using dipping tobacco[edit]

Unencyclopedic, laundry list. No sources. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MarlaB 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are reliable sources for specific slang, add them to Dipping tobacco. Pomte 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was created because people constantly added new slang to dipping tobacco, making it ugly and cluttered. Editors should keep an eye on the dipping tobacco article and make sure the slang section does not get spammed. Old american century 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above Dunne409 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:12Z

Marxmas[edit]

Not notable neologism Alex Bakharev 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO, only trivial results in Google News Archive, <500 Google web results. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KNewman 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the kind of carpet-chewingly non-notable drivel that gives us a bad name. As always, where are the references ? Where's the evidence to support the view that this is in any way notable ? WMMartin 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable--Sefringle 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; removal of the speedy tag by the author can be reverted as many times as necessary. In this case, speedy deletion was entirely appropriate as no notability was asserted. Kafziel ^Talk 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17M[edit]

Non-notable suburban gang, no sources, no claims of notability. I put a db tag on it but the creator kept deleting it. Not wanting to get into an edit war, I have listed it here. Corvus cornix 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't intend to delete your db tag. This is the first time I am creating a Wikipedia page. I believe it is notable that a large number of individuals have joined this group. There are Wikipedia pages for other youth organizations. You stated that there are no sources or claims to notablity, I created the article by myself 10 minutes ago. You can't expect me to mention notablility and sources in 10 minutes. GregaR89 GregaR89 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, it is a very notable article. 24.239.185.118 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE... the remaning of this page is of utmost importance. 216.6.161.87 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. This gang is actual, and like the article says, is a non-violent group of youth residing near the infamous road called 17m. There is no reason to delete this article, and there are members in this group. Reignfire22 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 10:12Z

Travis Steedle[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. Article's author notes on the talk page the person is notable because he has some minor state fame. I say he has no fame and the sources aren't notable, just some school stuff. When you add your vote please mention how little we at Wikipedia think of this person's so-called fame. Nardman1 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted. I would however advise Nardman to be a little more civil. No reason to disparage the subject of the article. I would happily change my vote if reliable sources sufficient enough to write an article are provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article or the links supplied demonstrate the subject has any notability beyond his immediate school system. Also second Daniel's comment above- even if there is a series of rather unconvincing meatpuppetry in support on the article's talk page, that's no reason for this nomination to have been couched in such uncivil terms.--cjllw | TALK 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been a speedy delete instead of a regular delete action. In reference to Nardman1's deletion comments above, I think we need to be mindful that some new, contributing editors don't fully understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines and we shouldn't insult them or their work just because we move to delete the article of which they were the primary (or only) editor. Cla68 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#A7. – riana_dzasta 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Draper[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any assertion of notability, and only one source has been cited. Doesn't appear to be subject of multiple non-trival published works from independent sources (although I'm not certain whether Take A Break magazine is a reliable source) or not, not certain she meets WP:BIO either. --sunstar net^talk 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, so tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semen analysis[edit]

article is cleverly disguised ad for fertilityformen.com. An anon recently changed one of the links to a competing website selling fertility products. On top of that, it appears to be original research (shame really, it's well-written) Nardman1 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I suspect it's copied fro their lab manual, because all of it seems rather standard. We probably should have an article on this, but I do not have the time to do it myself.DGG 03:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Wiki is not a "How to guide". Ohconfucius 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep conditional on someone planning a re-write to get rid of WP:OR and the other serious issue here. And get rid of all advertisement external links. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puns in Hamlet[edit]

Seems to run against WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information. - Tapir Terrific 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks in some form perhaps? —siro χ o 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Nardman1 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki into Wikibooks or some literary analysis wiki. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the submitter of the Puns in Hamlet article:

Re indiscrimate collection of data:
In most works of literature, puns are of little importance. But in Hamlet, puns are very important for understanding the play and for understanding the literary form of puns and for understanding the evolution of the English language. Although the main article on Puns links to the main article on Hamlet for examples of puns on names, the Hamlet article has no mention at all of puns. The new Puns in Hamlet includes (so far) three puns on names: "Claudius/cloud", "Polonius/Poland", and "villain dwelling/Hamlet." (Not yet included: my sinews grow instant old, the book and volume of my brain, a book of old men with weak hams.) In modern literature, puns are usually synonymous with triviality. However, as the Puns article notes: "In the past, the serious pun was an important and standard rhetorical or poetic device." It's possible that the puns on Polonius' name elucidate the meaning and structure of the play more than the character himself. The understanding and misunderstanding of the puns in Hamlet may have had a significant impact on the English language. More than once I've looked up a Hamlet pun word in a dictionary and found a reference to Hamlet in the definition of the word.
From the Folger Shakespeare Library, "Wordplay in Hamlet," Adapted from Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine (editors), the New Folger Library Shakespeare edition of Hamlet. © 1992 Folger Shakespeare Library, (http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=953): "In many of Shakespeare’s plays, one may not be aware that a character is punning, and the dialogue can seem simply silly or unintelligible; one must thus stay alert to the sounds of words and to the possibility of double meanings. In Hamlet, puns carry a heavier burden. Hamlet packs much of his feeling about Claudius into his single-line “aside”: “A little more than kin and less than kind,” where “kind” has the double meaning of “kindred” and “kindhearted.” Many of Polonius’s speeches also cannot be fully understood until one untangles the puns and related plays on words"

Some statistics from http://inventory.overture.com/d/searchinventory/suggestion/

(Note: The above website only gave statistics for January, which is probably one of the slowest months for Shakespeare searches because very few students begin term papers that early in the semester.)

Searches done in January 2007

60652  Shakespeare
31066  Hamlet
  7811  pun
  4070  wordplay 
  1419 Claudius

For comparison
39874  wikipedia encyclopedia
27618  Mark Twain
19662 encyclopedia britannica
16960  John Steinbeck
 8649  William Faulkner	
 1789  Hemmingway
 1309  Falstaff
  385  Capulet	
  188  Thackeray
  154  indiscriminate

Re no original research:
A good pun is difficult to spot, but, once found, it is obvious. The puns I've included so far are some that I discovered independently (though I wasn't the first - I was preceeded at least by Shakespeare, and probably by hundreds of unpublished high-school English students, among others). However, once pointed out, a true pun needs no authority to verify it. If it's not obvious once pointed out then Shakespeare probably did not intend it as a pun. If I point out lines in Hamlet that describe something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I should be able to call it a duck without referring to higher authority. However, even if the particular puns I've included so far fail that test, there are other important puns which have been endorsed by authorities (e.g. Diet of Worms). Or perhaps the page would satisfy the "no original research" test if all commentary was deleted. Only the quotes from Hamlet would be listed, with the puns indicated only by emphasizing key words and grouping related quotes. Any doubtful puns would be deleted, unless documented by reference to "by some elder masters, of known honour." - from the submitter of the Puns in Hamlet article, Ray Eston Smith Jr 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR Alex Bakharev 11:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two new sections, "womb of earth - breeder of sinners" and "Diet of Worms," with references for each of them. This comment, by Skalzey 16,was in the talk section of the main Hamlet article in April, 2006: "I get no sense of the play's language, structure or themes / concerns..." I think a Puns in Hamlet article would help to address that concern. - from the original submitter of the Puns in Hamlet article, Ray Eston Smith Jr 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A typical user of Wikipedia might be someone about to see Hamlet for the first

time and looking for help in understanding the play. A play summary is inadequate for this purpose. Knowing the plot of Hamlet tells you nothing about the essence of Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare is notable for his mastery of language, not for the originality of his plots. To help the prospective play-goer, we need to give him a summary of the language. A listing of related lines is a language summary, one which can be compiled with much less effort, "original research," and POV than a plot summary.

Without a plot summary, a first-time play-goer could still understand the plot from the exposition within the play, but, without a language summary, he or she would almost certainly fail to notice most of the word-play relationships between lines scattered throughout the play. There is reason to suspect (Ophelia: "will he tell us what this show meant?"), that Shakespeare curried favor with special patrons by explaining word-play which was visible only to the initiated.

(This discussion reminds me of one I had with my boss about 20 years ago. I was working with a collection of about 50 computer programs which totalled about 50,000 lines. All the programs used the same data fields. I suggested to my boss that we needed a master cross-reference to list all the different lines of code which referenced each data field. My boss disagreed. I went ahead anyway and, on my own initiative, wrote a computer program which generated the master cross-reference listing. I was subsequently fired for doing "unauthorized work.")

If "Related Lines Within Hamlet" is not acceptable for Wikipedia, would it be acceptable to put an external link in the main Hamlet article pointing to a Wikibook entry for "Related Lines Within Hamlet"?

Ray Eston Smith Jr 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added ref for mole/mole, knave/nave, & additional ref for cannon/canon Ray Eston Smith Jr 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as this is, it should maybe be called, "list of puns in Hamlet," but still it would be unencyclopedic. A page called "Puns in Hamlet" could maybe work at Wikipedia if it were about the puns, not a listing of them. Yes a Wikibook link could go in the main article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks has a "no original research" policy: "Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks#Wikibooks_is_not_a_place_to_publish_original_works

Academic Publishing Wiki (http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) allows original works. It is currently a sparsely populated frontier, but that situation could be remedied if wikipedia editors would link to it when rejecting articles for "orignal research." It might also help to have a wikipedia article on Academic Publishing Wiki. It's currently small and obscure, but it's a unique and important category of wiki communication. Ray Eston Smith Jr 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This isn't an article, it's a list; and much of it is pure OR. Paul B 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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