< February 27 March 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4 ~ trialsanderrors 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nguyen[edit]

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

This is 3rd nom. I think this is speedy recreation of previously deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen (Second Nomination) Pete.Hurd 02:37, 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, per WP:SNOW. A Train take the 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Academy[edit]

De-prodded. Not a major setting of Arrested Development, no Springfield Elementary School. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Valente[edit]

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

Valente is of borderline notability at best. Additionally, current version reads very much like a promotional biography, though ruthless editing can alleviate this. jredmond 00:06, 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) 2007-03-05 10:34Z

Bushi Ban[edit]

Bushi Ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Bushi ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

According to web site very small cluster of schools - Non-notable. No case made for notability - yet another martual art style created by somebody. Peter Rehse 00:16, 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 delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exillon[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#A7; it has been challenged, so I'm sending it here for more discussion. Chick Bowen 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First of all, future satisfaction of points 3 and 4 has absolutely no relevance to present day events, nor present notability. Furthermore, KUCI 88.9 FM is not a national radio station; it is local to Orange County, and UC Irvine. In fact, it is specifcally called "Orange County Community Radio (emphasis added). This does not meet standards under point 11 of that list, since it requires the radio station to be national. --Haemo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Nobay[edit]

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

Filing a frivolous lawsuit that was dismissed does not constitute notablity as far as I can see. Delete. DMG413 00:47, 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. Closing per WP:SNOW. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shara R. Reyes[edit]

Shara R. Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notibility is questionable. I get hits on google outside wikipedia for this person, what do you think? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:47, 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 NawlinWiki 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Popper[edit]

Notability not established, autobiography, resurrection of the material speedy deleted per A7 Alex Bakharev 01:47, 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. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Jerusalem[edit]

A category (particularly Category:Jerusalem) could handle the job this article is currently performing. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes MPS 23:55, 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) 2007-03-05 10:31Z

The Spring Offensive[edit]

The Spring Offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Tsoband.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Inshalafinal.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Band with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC in the article. There is a vague assertion on the talkpage, but it isn't verified and I was not able to verify it. This is a recreation of something I previously deleted so I guess technically it could go WP:CSD#G4 but I figured I'd give it the benefit of a community review. My opinion is delete.--Isotope23 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be WP:COI. DanBeale 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think that is a great idea.--Isotope23 03:21, 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 - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian dancers[edit]

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

Adds no value over the associated category, will never be complete, fails the guidelines at WP:LIST Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes there is -- this one! :-) In its current form, the list does the same task this list does. If someone wants to expand this list before the Afd is closed, then someone cares about building a nice list and its worth reconsidering. John Vandenberg 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list is redundant to a category if it does not have more information than a name for each entry, or red links for all other (verifiable) members of the list category who do not yet have articles. --Scott Davis Talk 00:26, 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. NawlinWiki 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fedorov[edit]

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

Possibly notable former Idol contestant. Pisspoor article which utterly fails WP:RS. The only sources appear to be interviews with same, but principally chat and idol forum postings. I always find it amusing that this sort of articles frequently say "started singing at an early age", inherently unproveable, yet implying some sort of prodigious talent. I've tidied it up somewhat, but I think this is a pretty hopeless article and we might as well start from scratch. Delete, without prejudice to re-creation if properly sourced. Ohconfucius 02:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobOnWikipedia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 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. I've disregarded 216.54.173.172 as a single-purpose account and 66.194.114.163 as a vandal. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Turner[edit]

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

Former Idol contestant. Article which appears to fail WP:RS. Although she may have a role in a film to be released, only time will tell if she is notable. Ohconfucius 02:50, 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 Redirect to Heartbreak Station. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:28Z

Sick for the Cure[edit]

Sick for the Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to have any notability in and of itself; possibly redirect to Heartbreak Station Veinor (talk to me) 03:06, 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 nomination withdrawn on the condition that the article be merged into Hillside Lake, New York in accordance with WP:LOCAL. --Polaron | Talk 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess County Route 33[edit]

Dutchess County Route 33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL. County roads are not inherently notable and no assertion of notability is given. Nv8200p talk 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, county roads are not inherently notable. -Nv8200p talk 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion and support the suggestion to merge and redirect. -Nv8200p talk 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to establish a new precedent. -Nv8200p talk 04:37, 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. NawlinWiki 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skirt (slang)[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:18, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Torres[edit]

Vanity bio, fails WP:BIO. Creator also repeatedly spammed Ayn Rand with promo links. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:17, 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) 2007-03-05 10:26Z

TinyWarz[edit]

TinyWarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Tinywarz tumb.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Tw modify units.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:TinyWarz ingame.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

A webgame that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and doesn't contain information attributable to reliable sources. The three sources provided are a forum link, a weblog, and an unattributed review (I'm guessing user-submitted). search doesn't bring up reliable sources. Wafulz 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Did you just read what you wrote? What you just argued is that this site cannot meet guidelines under WP:WEB, but should be kept regardless. That's patently absurd. If you can't find reliable sources that show this game is notable, it should be deleted per standards under WP:NOTE. This isn't a popularity contest. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, no, since we are arguing about notability, and this the only evidence of notability provided. If you remove the link, there is no notability, and it should be deleted. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe, that information is not documented enough, maybe you could place the same warning as for the Vietnam War? Rafkory 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of WP:WEB:
  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
So, as we will note, it completely fails all notability requirements. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the material on the page is not attributed to anyone - and certainly not to any reliable sources cited on the page, which in any case say next-to-nothing about the game in any case. --Haemo 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, not all material is suited for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't intend to make you feel victimized. --Wafulz 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

"The distinguished staff of TIGSource are a varied lot, culled from all over cyberspace to bring you all your indie gaming news, all the time.

Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills - just because we're casual and fun doesn't mean that we type like monkeys! The second is enthusiasm. You gotta love indie games. Both should be reflected in your e-mail, so don't slouch!"

They may not be proffessional but they are an independent source and quite numerous. The main fact we're trying to get across is that this game does not have major recognition but does have unbaised reviews from external sources. Provided this page continues to exist we will continue updating and trying to gain more "appropriate" reviews for more distinguished sources. But you must understand that if you kill this site from the start than we'll barely have the chance to do so. Also Haemo, "obvious reasons" isn't a phrase I particularly like, these guides are very wordy and difficult to translate into real english. If you would care to properly articulate why this latest reference is unworthy, it would be appreciated. --Jester

Well, from your excerpt: "Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills." Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries). These people don't even have to be well-versed in anything online, let alone in games, which speaks piles about their credibility. It's the same as picking up someone off the street and asking them their opinion of the game.
I've done a pretty exhaustive search for good sources, and it doesn't look like the article has a chance of surviving. If you'd like, an administrator can have a copy of the article moved to your user page (or someone else's), sort of "housing" it until better sources (assuming they exist) come up sometime in the future. This is probably the best solution available right now- it won't have an article, but all the work on won't be lost. --Wafulz 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wafluz, you said "Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries)". What other skills are necessary to write articles for Wikipedia? Sorry, but your argument does not convince me. On the other, I would like to thank you for the helpful hint.
Telling the true, due to the nature of the web games (all of them) they need a lot of time to become known to so called "general public", unless they have a big company supporting it, that is able to spend money on PR. If I may use the analogy, the same sittuation is with the SF books in Poland. Books published in big number of copies are not either mentioned by the "mainstream" magazines, that are sponsored by the Ministery of Culture, as there are not "serious" enough. Using this criterion, you would not be allowed to place any SF authors in Polish Wikipedia but Isaac Assimov, Philip K. Dick, Stanisław Lem and Mikhail Bulgakov and authors, whose books were used for making a movie picture. For all the other authors, the sources that exist are linked to SF community, and not the official 'literature' organisations, i.e. they do not satisfy the independence criterion .

Rafkory 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having native-language sources is not the same as having zero sources. I nominated the game Popomundo a while back, but withdrew my nomination once it was revealed that there were sources in Spanish. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nowehere near notable enough for a web game as far as I'm concerned, sources are in no way reliable, only arguement for keeping appears to be WP:ILIKEIT and self-promotional reasons, and the article is riddled with game guidey and how-to-play information, which violates WP:NOT. The Kinslayer 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite many polite requests the article still has no reliable sources to support the notability claimed. Nuttah68 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this oddly feels like a continuation or expansion of the recent slate of afd's for various webcomics. if that is deliberate or accidental is a completely different debate. however, from what i have been able to glean from those debates, the afd should be the _second step_ after a request for sources hasn't been met. but, somebody will probably say if such is formal policy or just basic politeness. so base question, was that formal request for sources even made, or did somebody just light the primer cord on the article without even making the cursory attempt to start the process to fix it. 70.51.53.37 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) steuben (fixing my spelling)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TinyWarz&oldid=110529681 As this diff shows, the prod clearly states where the article was failing, and the removal of the prod by an editor is tantamount to acknowledgement of the articles failings. Following the failure to actually address these isssues, the deletion process was moved to an AfD. So yes, a chance was given for the article to be fixed, but it was squandered. The Kinslayer 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an issue for wikipedia. The Kinslayer 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under WP:WEB, it should not be included. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. You guys say that there needs to be a source that is reputable and can't have anyone's opinion of the game in the reviews. How can the game be reviewed without someone actually playing it first? That's how all reviews are done.Whistles384 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We did not say that at all. Read the standards under WP:WEB, WP:ATT, and WP:RS before commenting further. Furthermore, you have a WP:COI commenting on this article without making it clear that you're an active contributor on the TinyWarz Wiki. --Haemo 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB is an invalid arguement in this case. tinywarz is a game not a website. it is a game that happens to played through <insert browser here>. if tinywarz was played through a downloaded and separate client then the WP:WEB arguement would not apply. so by extenstion neither does the WP:WEB here. unless Wafulz would like to expand on reasons for including the wp:web argument.70.51.53.37 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]

You answered your own question. WP:WEB applies because you don't download anything to play. You said so yourself, you have to launch a web browser, go to the web site and play the game whilst surfing the web. There is no 'by extension', WP:WEB applies to web sites, and this game is played through a web site. Or to put it another way, the website is the game and the game is the website. Very simple, no big leap of logic needed. Looking at your argument, what you have essentially said is: WP:WEB doesn't apply because you play the game through a web site. If you had to download anything, then WP:WEB would indeed not apply. It is then covered by WP:SOFTWARE and this article would STILL be here in an AfD.The Kinslayer 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I disagree with such an argument for basically the same reasons. First of all, WP:WEB does apply, as per Kinslayer's argument. Moreover, even if it did not the reason for deletion is per WP:NOTE and WP:ATT, which WP:WEB is a subset of - thus, a simple reductio argument shows that deletion is the proper standard in either respect. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also just like to comment that, despite assertions to the contrary, this AFD has been linked to from the TinyWarz wiki http://wiki.mobrulestudios.com/index.php?title=Main_Page by a developer. So, I would suggest tagging SPA's as they arise. On the plus side, the TinyWarz page has apparently also been TransWiki'd to their personal Wiki, so we can avoid having to do that. --Haemo 16:59, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Monica's Church, Barre[edit]

Saint Monica's Church, Barre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church; only possible claim is the 'largest parish', which doesn't have a source. Veinor (talk to me) 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep now that we have sources. Veinor (talk to me) 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not different ( in any substantive way ) from its peers. We're an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive list of buildings, however important they may be locally. WMMartin 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem here? Information is on organisation website and denominational website and corroborated with information from local govmt and elsewhere. That's clearly verification. There is zero chance of a hoax. WP:V is satisfied - to demand more is to introduce a systemic bias against information that is static rather than spectacular. The internet and media pic up on new phenomena not 19th century local institutions. We are by defauly an inclusive encyclopedia, and this is clearly more than directory information, on what basis are you calling for deletion?--Docg 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said in discussions before, I can write an article on my car that would clearly be more then a directory, and source it to publicly-available records. (Accident reports are publicly available, I was rear-ended once, detailing the accident and sourcing it to the accident report would go beyond a directory.) At a very technical level, that would satisfy WP:ATT (not my original research as it was done by a police officer, sourced to publicly available material), WP:NPOV (a neutral description of an event from a neutral, reliable source cannot be POV), and WP:NOT (not a directory entry, not soapboxing, etc., etc.). What my car is not, however, is notable, because unrelated sources have not covered it in any non-trivial manner. The same applies here, from what I can tell, so I argue to delete. It should not be to us to determine what is notable, it should be to those who write secondary sources. As to your argument above, Notre Dame Cathedral may noy be in the newspaper today, but there are certainly plenty of books and other secondary sources available on it. If that were shown to be the case for this church as well, I would happily argue to keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing notability with sources. Source it all you like, no-one is interested in your car. Whilst, a nineteenth century church connected with the history of a locality, operating a school (heavens, if I removed the rest and only mentioned a school it would be kept!) is obviously more than personal information. The problem with your criteria is it leaves us keeping passing internet fads which get mentioned in the media and then forgotten, but excludes perfectly verifiable information that will be of stable interest in 100 years time. It is a systemic bias, and it weakens the encyclopedia. And further, you still have given no reason why the encyclopedia benefits from removing this factual verifiable information, other than that it is the logical conclusion of legalistic pursuing of a supposed objective definition of notability. Objective standards of notability are a dangerous mirage - leading to foolish decisions. WP:NOT paper. No reason in policy or logic to remove this.--Docg 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is genuinely of as much interest and historical value as you state, someone will have taken note and written a book on it (or have devoted significant mention in a book to it at least), or studied it in a scholarly paper about old churches or the region, or the like. The news media may be a reliable source, but they're certainly not the only reliable source. If sources such as those were cited, again, I would happily argue to keep, and I looked, but I just can't find any such thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I heard bit. But tell me again what the gain is by removing this particular piece of verifiable information?--Docg 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you can give me the name/title/author of the book, I can likely find some excerpts, but a citation can certainly be written. There's no need that sources be readily available or online, just that they exist and be reliable and non-trivial. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) "does not pass as the guidelines currently stand" - what guidelines? We have none.
2) A decision to merge should merge should be done on the basis of organising content, not notability. If merging is a better way of organising material without losing anything, fine. But we don't merge for notability reasons.--Docg 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBy current guidelines, I meant WP:N. And actually, I do think a decision to merge could have something to do with notability -- you have two related topic, one notable, and one not. Well, the notable one gets an article, the other does not ... but the information could be included on the notable page. Seems reasonable to me, at least. -- Pastordavid 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously flawed. If merging makes for better organisation of material, then merge. If it doesn't don't. I mean we might merge 6 articles on battles into an article on one war simply because we don't currently have much info on any other them - equally we split pokemon characters into separate articles because we do. Merging has nothing to do with notability. If the information is verifiable and encyclopedic, we keep it. We then decide how to organise it. If merging improves this information's delivery, and that of Barre, fine. But we don't bugger up articles just to allow us to keep information without 'rewarding it' with its own article.--Docg 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

writers note typo at official cometary website (accessed 28 02 07) -- sorry too tired to fix in text notes tonight. --Kevin Murray 07:40, 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 REDIRECT to Poser. Yuser31415 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posette[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:26, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:22Z

Strictly Comedy[edit]

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

Looks like an advert more then anything to me, I don't know if the subject of this is notable or not, "airing" as far as england does not impress me, especially as it is sourced. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:29, 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 Redirect to Beg for Mercy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:21Z

Stunt 101[edit]

Stunt 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this song notable? —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:32, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storage model[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:39, 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) 2007-03-05 10:20Z

Skills like this[edit]

Skills like this (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't seem to find many good reliable sources for this other than the IMDB entry; I'm personally kinda weak on this one, though. Veinor (talk to me) 03:43, 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) 2007-03-05 10:20Z

St Thomas Missionary Society[edit]

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

I cannot find any reason why this is notable. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:44, 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) 2007-03-05 10:19Z

Speed (club)[edit]

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

Doesn't many any mention of notability besides the vague "played host to some of the finest Drum n Bass stars of the time". Veinor (talk to me) 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and entirely unreferenced. Doesn't seem like there is much breadth to this article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability seems limited and lack of references. According to the article active only in 1993 on one night a week? Exceptionally narrow. PigmanTalk to me 00:47, 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. Yuser31415 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McGhee[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a former Idol contestant still apparently awaiting a record deal. She has apparently made some appearances post Idol, but which were not outside the context of Idol. No singles, no nationwide tours. Online press articles are a mixture of show marketing, and trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 03:47, 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, obvious hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:18Z

Writing on the Wall Movie[edit]

Writing on the Wall Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant crystal-balling; movie is part of a trilogy that is "initiating in 2015". Google produces 0 hits for the full name of the movie, "Writing on the Wall: The Curse of the Dead Locket", and for "Writing on the Wall" "Johnny Depp" "Madison Mott" (alleged star and director, respectively). No IMDB link provided, even. The writing on the wall is clear for stuff like this: delete. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For anyone better at probabilities than me, could you work out the chances of two new independent accounts showing up within 5 minutes of each other, both posting on this particular AfD, and both signing their posts twice? No wonder I can never find a matching set of cotton footwear. Oh, and Delete per nom. Totally excessive Crystal-Balling. EliminatorJR Talk 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple. What if the people above you copied the same signature and worked out a different name? Honestly, they're probably newbies right? 5 minutes...well...I'm just posting on this and then something else: what if someone just posted two seconds ago or something? And what does Delete per nom mean? Sorry, I'm a half-newbie, too! Gargoyle123 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per Nom" = "For the same reasons given by the nominator". EliminatorJR Talk 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEHow do you know someone who works with Terry Rossio? Not that I doubt you, just curious. That sounds very interesting. I agree that it is probably a MySpace hoax, but it is probably a good idea to delete off of Wikipedia. Too much crystal-balling. Just my thoughts....sorry if it's long. Gargoyle123 23:48, 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 delete. Transwiki not necessary; Wiktionary already has an entry. Mangojuicetalk 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy (name)[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. (Sorry about the many afd nominations, I'm going through Category:stubs, tagging what is good, deleting, or nominating here). —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:47, 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) 2007-03-05 10:16Z

Video Game Show[edit]

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

Per the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. No claim of notability, no citations to third-party reliable sources. (also the related article Video Game Show: Show Notes) -- JeremyA (talk) 03:51, 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) 2007-03-05 10:16Z

Tea bed[edit]

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

we are not a dictionary. (Sorry about the many afd nominations, I'm going through Category:stubs, tagging what is good, deleting, or nominating here). —— Eagle101 Need help? 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian cartoonists[edit]

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

Badly maintained, incomplete list that replicates existing category Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 04:13, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:10Z

HELLYEAH[edit]

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

Bandcruft - not released anything yet, speculations about future release (crytall ball), prod removed without explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep! This is a Metal Supergroup with Radio airplay already, Cover stories and many sites.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HELLYEAH (at least until album is released). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:12Z

Hell Yeah (album)[edit]

Hell Yeah (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album by a non-notable group (in essense, speculation about their first album). Oh, and this crytalballing cruft is unreferenced, too. Prod removed without explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery High School (Blackpool)[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability criteria ubiquity 04:17, 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 Redirect to Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:09Z

Showgirl: Homecoming Tour 2006/7 (Kylie Minogue Tour)[edit]

Showgirl: Homecoming Tour 2006/7 (Kylie Minogue Tour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this show notable, and or watched by a large enough group of people? At minimum it needs some sources. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:31, 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, though the article has large issues (e.g. citations) that need to be fixed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:08Z

Peter Wray[edit]

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

Incomplete/broken nom by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete/broken nom by IP from 24.77.227.155 Has repeatedly vandalized article and posted AfD twice.--Kittengirlz 09:37, 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) 2007-03-05 10:05Z

Hillary Clinton Nude[edit]

Hillary Clinton Nude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am amazed that this article has not been nominated till now. Blatant advertising for a non-notable book which fails WP:BK miserably - criteria 1 to 5. Only notable thing is the person whose name is in the title. Author is non-notable also. —Moondyne 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm think the "many" result might be because of, erm,

something else, eh? Searching "Hillary Clinton Nude" give only 11,000-odd GHits. Searching the full title give only around 150 hits. --Haemo 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete; According to Amazon.com, a book search on Amazon for the topic "Hillary Clinton" lists this book, "Hillary Clinton Nude," number 3 in relevance among more than 7,000 titles.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames[edit]

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames
Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy (review me!) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic DDT[edit]

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

Minor wrestling move, "not known by practically anyone" according to the article itself. Redirect is pointless as the term is nonstandard. Even popular DDT variants do not merit breakout articles (with the exception of the brainbuster, which is commonly considered a distinct maneuver). — Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 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) 2007-03-05 10:04Z

Quayleaf[edit]

Quayleaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Quayleaf.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Contest prod; pub-band with no releases, does not meet MUSIC, delete. --Peta 23:03, 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, Bucketsofg 05:29, 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. Yuser31415 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qi (programming language)[edit]

Qi (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like vanity article. Certainly, notability hasn't been shown or proven. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 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 semi-speedy delete. – Steel 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiro-Cracker[edit]

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

A move used by a backyard wrestler (i.e. an untrained amateur imitating pro wrestling with his buddies). Even popular suplex variants don't merit breakout articles. — Gwalla | Talk 05:47, 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 semi-speedy delete. – Steel 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wolfson[edit]

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

Non-notable backyard (untrained amateur) "pro" wrestler. Backyarders are non-notable almost by definition (the only tme they come to anyone's attention is when one of them injures himself in a manner spectacular enough to get a "weird news" article). Google brings up some hits on the name, but none seem to have anything to do with wrestling (actors, mostly). — Gwalla | Talk 06:05, 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) 2007-03-05 10:03Z

Daniel Perkins[edit]

Daniel Perkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Dan.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Entrepreneur bio, possible WP:COI. No independent sources, nothing on Newsbank, unlikely to be notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like his CV, as written by himself or a close associate. Vanity and WP:COI not to mention WP:NPOV. Too much of this stuff swilling around in the encyclopedia. The Boy that time forgot 21:33, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion order[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this article can be expanded, and has been listed to be Wikified for a while. Looking it up on Google defines it as an order to place an ad in a newspaper or other media - hardly seems significant for Wikipedia, especially if there's no historical background. Maybe better elsewhere, like on Wiktionary, but it doesn't seem to belong here. Kiwizoid 07:34, 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 Userfy per Black Falcon's request. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)[edit]

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Huge, unmaintainable mess of a list, where all the blue links are already covered in List of actors from Germany and Category:German actors. List will never be completed, nearly all the red links are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every semi-famous actor of every country in the world..etc.. Usedup 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I see now what you meant. I was referring to a different meaning of "completed" as in "no more information will be added to this list because it includes all persons/objects in its class past, present, and future". However, I disagree with your contention that "Lists serve no true organization purpose that a category couldn't handle." Categories organize alphabetically only. Lists can organize by other context-specific and relevant information. In this case, I am inclined to agree with deleting the article. However, I agree not because this is a list of redlinks (which is acceptable per WP:LIST for development purposes), but rather because it's a list that does not provide any sourcing or additional information for the redlinks.
I also disagree with your reasoning that the redlinks "are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia". First, WP should not be biased toward the Anglophone world. Second, just as inclusion in WP is not necessarily an indicator of notability, not having a WP article is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability. If you will note, the proportion of redlinks falls over time in the article--it could just be that the mass of redlinks for the first half of the 20th century are notable actors, but in whom there is little current interest and/or easily accessible online sources. -- Black Falcon 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to the comment I just want to clear up I'm not judging their notability by their lack of an article. I'm judging their notability because I randomly selected a few and looked them up. Obviously, tons of notable people don't have articles on wikipedia yet. In fact, because of the inherent prejudices of a lot of editors, we end up having tons of semi-notable people of some particular orientation and a lack of Universally-notable people.
Anyway...what encyclopedic value does a list of unknown (to the English-world) German actors serve on the English wikipedia? In a way, that's similar to having a list of characters from an American television show not aired in Germany on the German wikipedia. It serves no beneficial purpose. Of course the English wikipedia should be "bias" (I'm using this term in a non-negative way) towards the Anglophone world. Should we make articles for department stores that are really popular in Germany but completely unknown to the English-speaking world? I'm fairly positive an article like that would be deleted in a flash. Maybe a mention of the department store would be legitimate in an article on "shopping in Germany" or something like that. I'm not saying popular German actors CAN'T have articles on the English encyclopedia, I'm saying semi-popular German actors SHOULDN'T have articles on the English wikipedia because it interests probably two or three German-language-majors...and indeed, lists of an interest to a minority never pass on wikipedia; they are usually labelled as listcruft. Usedup 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have a list of semi-notable people regardless of whether they are Germans, Christmas Islanders, or Americans. However, we should have an article on a department store in Germany if the subject passes WP:N. Should we delete all the History of X and Politics of X articles for all countries except Canada, the UK, US, Australia, and NZ (I'm assuming you are referring to the traditional European Anglophone countries, with the exclusion of other Anglophone countries like India, Jamaica, and Liberia)? A subject is notable if it meets WP:N regardless of when or where it happened.
Your comment that an article not directly relevant to the English-speaking world "serves no beneficial purpose" is entirely subjective and essentially a restatement of WP:IDONTKNOWIT combined with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTUSEFUL (the last link doesn't actually exist, but you get my meaning). The purported goal of Wikipedia is to be the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge in the English-speaking world. http://en.wikipedia.org is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wikipedia for the English world, and I think it would be a great disservice to both the project and its members to try to make it the latter. I agree with your comments about this list in particular, but completely oppose any attempt to generalise it to apply to non-Anglophone topics.-- Black Falcon 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Histories and politics of other countries are not "unknown" to the English-speaking worlds like a department store or TV-show would be. So because you think we should make an article for that department store because it passes WP:N in Germany, then we should also make an article of an unknown (to the English world) German TV-show with all the details on it and its contestants. Each time you refer to "wikipedia" as in "wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge" you make it look as if the only wikipedia that exists is the English wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is all wikipedias, and indeed all the wikipedias do cover all the bases pretty nicely. The "Deletion guideleines" have a lot of overlap, like here WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Again, irrelevant to this list but just for future deletions, I would say things completely unknown to English speakers stay on their corresponding foreign language wikipedias. Otherwise this opens up a can of worms to let people literally translate every article they can find on a foreign wikipedia onto here. Usedup 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is inherently subjective, in trying to exclude things "completely unknown to English speakers". Who is to say they are completely unknown? I am more or less fluent in three languages and can reasonably converse in two others and have long held an interest in the histories and politics of countries across the world. I see nothing wrong with translating articles that meet WP policies and guidelines. Ideally, all the different-language Wikipedia's should have the same content, only in different languages. Your view of notability does not conform to WP:N, which requires the presence of multiple nontrivial sources, and is thus not limited by time or location (and no, I would not want all the contestants of the show listed, though the show should be included if it meets WP:N--regardless of the language of the sources).
And how exactly do you define the "English world"? The English language is used by over 1 billion people worldwide. Is it just the 5 white Anglophone countries I noted above? Or does it also include India and Liberia? Does it include Germany, where a reasonably portion of the population can converse in English? Does it include a Rwandan Tutsi whose second language is English? I don't see why we should exclude material that obviously meets WP:N just because an editor deems it not to be well known in the English-speaking world (whatever that is). That is more likely an indication that the topic is not well-known to the editor (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT). -- Black Falcon 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people discussing it on the afd say they are completely unknown. This is how the system works. As I've already said "Histories and Politics around the world" are not "unknown" but a popular German TV show in Germany might be. All different-language wikipedias should have the same content? That is very idealistic and relies on a "perfect world" phenomenon. The English world is simply any nation who's primary language is English. There are minority speakers everywhere of every language. Things that are of an interest to a minority of people typically are deleted on wikipedia. There is precedent for that. Usedup 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an idealistic concept that will never be achieved (I'm a realist), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to proceed in that direction. Being unknown has nothing to with whether a topic is encyclopedic. You define the "English world" as "any nation who's primary language is English". So, the English Wikipedia should have articles of relevance to countries like the US, UK, Ireland, NZ, Canada, Australia, India, Jamaica, Liberia, Ghana, Tanzania, etc.? That's seems rather a spotty selection not necessarily connected by geography or culture. Also, English is becoming a universal language, so it will not be too long before a large proportion of populations (at least those with access to education) in most countries will be able to converse in English (oh, and about 20-40% of a country's population--I mean Germany--is not an insignificant minority). I strongly oppose your suggested ethnocentric (no wait, more like linguo-centric?) approach and am surprised that you would want to create such a fragmented Wikipedia. I will, however, respect your views (even though I oppose any attempt to apply such views as the basis of deleting articles or content from Wikipedia). Let's leave it at that. -- Black Falcon 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, if the Tootsi nation (making it up) of Burundi happen to have internet access and want to write an article about a tribal ritual only known to them in their native language, I'm sure it passes notability among their entire population, but it is completely unknown to English speakers and I will gladly nominate it for deletion; I'm quite certain people will gladly support deletion on the afd. Equivalently if the entire cast of actors of a semi-popular German soap-opera were given articles on wikipedia, I would nominate these for deletion too. This isn't happening so far. Nearly all the actors we do have on this wikipedia are pretty much in line with general notability, enough to merit an English encyclopedia, but your extreme stance on this is, in my opinion, is compromising the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia and turning it into a dumpster for everything that attracted some attention in the world. That's bad. Sorry. Usedup 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Even if that "ritual" is the subject of multiple reliable sources published in Rwanda or Burundi (the common languages in those countries are English, French, and Kinyarwanda)? I'm not saying that subjects on Wikipedia should not satisfy the notability criterion, and please stop presenting my arguments as such. The cast of a soap opera will not meet WP:N, regardless of whether it's an American soap opera or an Andorran one! However, your argument is that even if a subject satisfies notability, it does not belong on WP unless it is "known" to "English speakers" (which, for some reason, excludes English-speaking Tutsis). I don't want "everything that attracted some attention in the world". I want everything that passes WP:N, which makes no distinction as to time or place (or ethnicity or race). And if you nominate perfectly legitimate articles (i.e., meeting WP:N, WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT for deletion for no other reason than a claim that they are "unknown" in the English world, that is a clear-cut case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. No offense, but I'd rather not have the content of an encyclopedia determined based on what the majority of (apparently) white "English-speakers" know or do not know, or more accurately, based on the individual dislikes of editors. -- Black Falcon 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mind sharing what ethnicity I'm "centric" for? Usedup 16:39, 3 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) 2007-03-05 10:00Z

Covering the Bases: Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense[edit]

Covering the Bases: Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This book was put out by self-publisher iUniverse. I could find no independent reviews of it, save a few blog entries. The only incoming link is from Bill James. Amazon sales rank is 298,083. Djrobgordon 07:55, 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) 2007-03-05 09:58Z

Diego Alliaudi[edit]

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

Young footballer who has been released by Real Madrid without ever making it beyond the youth team. Might sign with another club and become notable in the future but doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP:BIO at the moment ChrisTheDude 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Natureza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-05 09:57Z

Kumade toriichi[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, possibly a hoax. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following page for deletion by the same author about another non-notable fictional character:

Sukima in naruto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:09, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gosar[edit]

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

Subject's greatest claim to notability was being the editor of CRACKED Magazine for what appears to be only two issues prior to the magazine being gutted and relaunched. (The subject doesn't even warrant mention in the article for the magazine.) Only other stabs at notoriety are writing a handful of articles for a supermarket tabloid and running a non-notable memorabilia Web site. Article's author is Scott Gosar (a single-purpose account), which seems to violate WP:AUTO/WP:COI Caknuck 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own suggestion is to userfy this article to Scott Gosar. Caknuck 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTT GOSAR REPLIES: Hey "Gord": It was four issues. Why don't you spend less time worrying about what I'm doing on Wikipedia and more time minding your own affairs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.134.188 (talk • contribs)

No offense intended, but what you're doing is writing about yourself and contributing little else to the encyclopedia. Autobiographical articles are rarely permitted, and only so if they are about notable people and strictly adhere to the rules about maintaining a neutral point of view. I nominated your article because I have my doubts that you are notable enough, based on the guidelines here. One other note, removing the AFD tags from a page is not permissible. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. Caknuck 00:48, 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 Merge to Adaptationism. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:57Z

Darwinian Fundamentalism[edit]

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

It's an article on a book review by Stephen Jay Gould. While the review itself might make a good example for an article on the famous battle between Gould and Dawkins, I don't think there's much reason to keep this article. Adam Cuerden talk 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was in the process of writing it up when you replied. Adam Cuerden talk 08:25, 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) 2007-03-05 09:55Z

Macorino[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of this existence of this person via a google search. Unless some reliable sources are found, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 08:19, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Burton[edit]

Richard M. Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

author wrote an autobiographical wikipedia entry Csyberblue 08:21, 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) 2007-03-05 09:54Z

Sergio Tejera[edit]

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

16-year old who is a member of the Chelsea youth team, not a first team squad member. Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines ChrisTheDude 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpolitical[edit]

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

Dicdef & non-notable Bennie Noakes 08:49, 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 Redirect to L.D. 50 (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:49Z

-1 (Mudvayne song)[edit]

-1 (Mudvayne song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is on a non-notable song, all it has is the number of the track on the album and tells us the title - not encyclopedic material at all M3tal H3ad 09:01, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( )ette Collective[edit]

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

Previously, the article has been speedily deleted as self-promotion/not establishing notability. The deletion was contested by e-mail, so I am bringing it here; I suggest giving the creator a chance to clean it up. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it's primarily performance art and public intervention, which is legitimate enough. The (lack of) notability factor comes in the lack of references or exposure beyond the local. Some or all of them may become notable, but they are presumably young, which I've noticed is a common occurrence here: young artists seeking notability through wikipedia, rather than being written about in wikipedia because they are notable. Wikipedia is a victim of its success, I suppose. Freshacconci 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very odd question from bus stop. They say the "collective created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space". If they are not doing visual art there and in general, what are they doing? Poetry readings? Playing string quartets? I don't think so. Johnbod 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Johnbod -- I read that part about their saying they "created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space." But I don't think an exhibition space is visual art. Do you? Is the creation of an exhibition space the same as making art? Why are we considering this article for deletion? We are supposed to be considering for deletion "articles related to the Visual Arts." If there is no mention of any specific visual art in the article, how can we bring our expertise to bear in our decision making process? Bus stop 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are they exhibiting in the space if not visual art? This is just silly. Johnbod 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creation of an exhibition space can be "visual art": installation art, site specific art, art which critiques institutions. This is what they appear to be doing: creating an alternative space, or a space for performance, something along those lines.This all fits into the Rosalind Krauss notion of "an expanded field." But this isn't really about what is and what isn't art. I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms. My main issue regarding notability is as above. Freshacconci 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Freshacconci -- I certainly have problems with it about notability, or lack thereof. But I am not so open-minded as you and Johnbod, that I think lack of specificity is acceptable. Whatever they are talking about, it has to be specified. If it is not specified, I don't accept that it is visual art. If it is specified, I may not accept that it is visual art. So, why should I accept that it is visual art, if nothing is specified? I guess we can just conduct our article for deletion process without knowing what we are talking about. Bus stop 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might have resolved your issues about what they were doing before saying it sounded like "very good work" above! In unspecified contexts, "art" can be taken to mean visual art, as in "art critic" "art dealer", "art-lover" etc Johnbod 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod -- I thought they were doing very good work because they indicate on their website their concern for exploited women in the adult entertainment industry. I was moved by the extent of their involvement in that, and by what struck me as genuine concern. That is what I had in mind when I said that it sounds like they are doing very good work. I do not know how they use visual art to advance their cause. That is not specified in the article. And, no, I do not consider an "art dealer" to be a visual artist, and I do not consider an "art lover" to be a visual artist. From where do you derive the understanding that these categories of people are visual artists? Bus stop 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have trouble with the language. An art-dealer deals in visual art, and an art-lover loves it. Johnbod 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am referring to this web site, which I'm not even sure is theirs, but I was led to it from the link in their article: [23] Bus stop 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod -- I'm referring to the good work they are doing in the social sphere. That is what I think is commendable. But after reading the article, I am left with no understanding of what, in the field of visual art, they do. Why are you mentioning "art dealers," "art critics," and "art lovers?" Does this have anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the article we are considering for deletion? Is there any mention of these things in the article? Bus stop 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci -- There is no mention in the article of "performance art," "public intervention," "installation art," "site specific art," or art that "critiques institutions." I don't understand how you say "I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms." Since nothing is specified I don't see how you can reach any conclusion at all. Bus stop 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop -- Actually it does say: "promoting feminist ideology through their individual art practices as well as public organization and interventions", "the collective has staged public interventions, performances" and "creating new spaces and sometimes using public spaces", but I think this is all beside the point. They assert themselves as artists. This is an article within visual arts deletion. We are discussing the notability of the artists or in this case, the collective, not what specifically is or isn't art. As far as "not knowing what we're talking about," I feel confident that I understand where this collective is coming from within a history of performance and interventionist art. However, I do not think that they are notable yet in any art context. You may not like the work, or think of it as art, and as such you can recuse yourself, but I personally don't think that's necessary. I have taken part in deletion discussions about artists whose work I feel nothing towards, nor appreciate in any way as art, but I think I can distance myself enough to read it in a larger context of notability. Freshacconci 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci -- I don't know how one can avoid the question: Is it art? And, I am not saying it specifically in relation to this article. This article makes so slight a reference to art, if any at all, that one has to wonder why we are considering it in this forum. This is, after all, a forum for consideration of articles concerning visual art. There is no assertion of quality or of authenticity vis-a-vis visual art in the article. It is a given that it is visual art. I see no reason to be run over by a steam roller with that assumption. Therefore I point out that not only is the collective of artists in this article not notable, but that it is entirely possible that we are not even talking about art. Bus stop 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop -- I know it's a cliche, but we may need to agree to disagree on this one. I guess the only outstanding thing is, if not the visual art forum, where? They are calling themselves artists, we have chosen to take part in debates on notability for articles within visual art, so this seems to be the only forum for this discussion. And we're qualified (and I apologize for the cynicism here) because we can be bothered. Anyway, this is a good way to clear the cobwebs and actually think about what you're doing and saying and writing. Freshacconci 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci -- I am just amazed that it no longer is necessary to point out that it is art. No one has to assert anything. It is just understood that whatever it is, it is art. And that is not something I can accept. I am willing to consider anything as art. But you have to make your case to me. You have to argue your point. You have to convince me. In that article there is no attempt to assert that anything being done is art. Is it art because it advances a good social cause? Would it be art if it advanced a bad social cause? What if it advanced a merely self-serving cause, as advertising does? Is all advertising therefore art? Bus stop 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an example of an article that is a candidate for speedy deletion. That is because it is really not an article at all. Ostensibly it is an article about visual art activity. But there is no mention of any visual art activity in the article. Therefore it falls under the heading of patent nonsense. Notability is besides the point. The article is about nothing, therefore it should be deleted. Bus stop 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, to repeat: I think they are doing very good work in the social sphere. The article attributes to them what sounds like a sincere attempt to address homelessness in their area. I give them a lot of credit for attempting to tackle some of the most grievous problems in our midst. I think they should write an article about that work. Properly sourced, that could be a valid article. But mere allusions to artwork, without sources, is in my opinion just speedy deletion material. Bus stop 16:30, 4 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) 2007-03-05 09:47Z

Mort (operating system)[edit]

Mort (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Shameless self-promotion of a non-notable alpha-stage user project. Unreferenced & non-notable. /Blaxthos 10:14, 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) 2007-03-05 09:46Z

List of shōjo anime and manga[edit]

List of shōjo anime and manga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unmaintainable list. The category does everything that this list already does, category:Shōjo.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Circumcision. I think, since content was merged back, we may need this around for GFDL purposes. Consensus favors deletion. Mangojuicetalk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision policies of various countries[edit]

Circumcision policies of various countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article consists almost entirely of quotes from source material. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia should not contain "Mere collections of ... other source material." Jakew 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge back into Circumcision. It was unilaterally spun off anyway. Put it back where it belongs. Avi 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself AlfPhotoman 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in Circumcision remain . -- Avi 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is amply discussed in Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. The current article is a misnomer, since there reallt is no governmental policy on Circumcsion, with the possible exception of Sweden, and the article itself was actually a somewhat unilateral spin-off of Circumcision to begin with. -- Avi 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already been merged. See Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. -- Avi 07:05, 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) 2007-03-05 09:44Z

Like Rain[edit]

Like Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:LikeRain.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Appears to be a non-notable band, run by a non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. This seems to be a vanity page and an advert for musicians to apply to join the band. Jules1975 12:26, 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 Keep, though major cleanup is needed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:43Z

The Gomers[edit]

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

Band with some local notability that fails central criteria of WP:MUSIC. There are some real WP:COI issues here as well - the article is apparently autobiographical (this account is a sock of the page's creator and is a member of the band). A lot of sources are given, but nearly all are either trivial mentions, self-published, or original research. Most of the notabilty claim seems to be built on a slender thread of secondhand connections with other groups that were notable in some way. RJASE1 Talk 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - re: self-published references - I thought the Dr. Demento documentation, or the first (4) references, might be enough to show notability as those are national sources... I would contest there are multiple non-trivial mentions as the group has several notable ties that have been well-documented... The Fripp/Belew/Siggi/Bradley Fish connections all adhere to the wiki convention of notability if members have gone on to major notable projects...

please tell me if more sources are needed for this ? Will attempt to delete anything self-published...

--Debsuls 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the self-published references and notes.

I still put forth that even without the Fripp/Belew/Siggi connection (which has to be notable and is well documented in various non-trivial sources) - member Dave Adler performs with and produces the Willy Porter band (well documented) and also the Richard Cheese/ Adler connection seemed strong. Both Cheese & Porter have gone on to international success and are wiki'd...

--Debsuls 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added Gomers member Steve Burke's recording work w. Eugene Chadbourne on Killdeer Records' Country Protest Anew in 2003. Eugene is a well-known international performing artist --Debsuls 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added several more reliable sources citing the band's work w. Gen Jereb (international sensory therapist) on her four albums that support challenges associated with Autism, ADHD, Learning and Behavioral Disorders, and a couple more verifiable sources to strengthen the Willy Porter cross connections. also added a reference to the Biff discography, which shows work and associations beyond the scope of the Gomers article[24]

from the article: The Gomers backed up Jen Gereb on her album for autistic & sensory-challenged children titled Cool Bananas which was released in the USA and Australia. No Worries, Say G’day and Jumpin’ Jellybeans also featured Gomers Dave Adler, Steve Burke, Gordon Ranney and Biff as instrumentalists.[25][26] --Debsuls 20:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- added Westwood One link, the largest radio company in the world, to the Dr. Demento playlist references. Hopefully this will show the non-trivial and verifiable nature of these playlists, as the Dr. Demento show is syndicated and distributed throughout the USA, USVI and other international markets, like Jamaica, via Westwood One's massive radio network.

added newfound non-trivial, verifiable and reliable evidence showing Dave Adler as keyboardist Bobby Ricotta with Richard Cheese, to whit: Dave Adler, The Gomers' music director, was pianist/keyboardist Bobby Ricotta for Richard Cheese on Lounge Against the Machine's first 2 releases Lounge Against the Machine and Tuxicity[27][28]

--Debsuls 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added the Subgenius connection w. multiple non-trivial sources: Rev. Ivan Stang from the Church of the Subgenius collaberated with The Gomers on his 1999 release, Live at Starwood from the Starwood Festival on the song Pain Stain 2K. [29][30][31] The band has also appeared on the Hour Of Slack several times.[32][33][34] --Debsuls 22:33, 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 Userfy to User:Black Falcon/Advertising and disability (the article creator, Bhaller (talk · contribs), doesn't seem to be an active editor). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:39Z

Advertising and disability[edit]

Advertising and disability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A personal essay: NOR. Utgard Loki 15:16, 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) 2007-03-05 09:36Z

Eric Lane[edit]

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

NN actor. Appeared in minor roles in a few films. No references. Does not pass WP:BIO and violates WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:22, 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 keep. The recent expansion of the article and the addition of references clearly establish notability; comments favoring deletion were written prior to such expansion. John254 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kölling[edit]

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

A "biography" that says he wrote software and has a tattoo. That's not a biography, and he seems to be a basic professor, of which the world has many. Utgard Loki 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure; while I understand you dont trust my "feelings", it would be a lot easier if people did :-) Anyway, you have spurred me on to look further. lots of journal articles[35], at least one book that has been translated into a few languages, an award as is already mentioned on the article and sounds rather prestigious, a "best thesis award" in 2000, 50% shared inventorship of Blue (programming language) and a Senior Lecturer position. Worth a second look IMO. John Vandenberg 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that I believe makes him stand out of the crowd is the BlueJ list of users, firstly it's very large, over 780 institutions and secondly the caliber of the institutions on it: Cambridge University, UK, Durham University, UK, Otto-Nagel-Gymnasium, Berlin - the list goes on. BlueJ, his joint project has spread so far across the globe and to so many thousands of users, I believe that he is worthy of a mention in wiki.Tony Hunter 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rule 3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work: Kölling has co-written a book that has been translated into at least four languages and is the core text for the CO320 and CO520 Computer Science modules at Kent University.

Rule 5 The person is known for originating an important new concept: The object bench was the subject of Kölling's Ph.D dissertation[1] and is key feature of the heavily used BlueJ and a concept that Microsoft have now adapted.

Rule 6 The person has received a notable award or honor: Kölling has received two awards for his work as noted in his entry.

I now quote the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page again:

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable."

Kölling satisfies at least three of these main points and therefore his entry should stay Tony Hunter 15:55, 3 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. Yuser31415 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Suggs[edit]

A.J. Suggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable college player. Suggs was primarily a back-up quarterback for 2 different teams. It was nominated for speedy deletion, then prodded but prod was removed. Thomas.macmillan 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I would like to point out that he started all of 2002 and was relegated to backup his senior season. Excaliburhorn
I've now added a second source. Finding more sources is not going to be hard at all. This guy has received a lot of press. Johntex\talk 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the 'nique articles listed on the talk page. I'm sure we can work those in somewhere. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was a starter for more than a year, that means he passes WP:BIO. He is the subject of multiple non-trival press reports, that means the subject is verifiable. The fact that he started for not one but two Division IA schools puts him in a very small group of players. People are likely to want to know about him. Also, we can't have a complete record of the starting QB's of either school without this article. Johntex\talk 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I don't know why you've got this vendetta against AJ. I think you don't really understand the college game. College QB's don't typically play four full seasons. College teams typically play a QB for a year or two and their backups "mature." It's a pretty common practice. Four year starters are much more rare than you'd think. I assure you that being a full season starter for an ACC bowl team is noteworthy. And he actually played in 22 games: 7 at UT and 15 at GT. -Excaliburhorn 17:28 Feb 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think Thomas has a "vendetta" - it's probably a good idea to assume good faith and just assume that he's attempting to enforce WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, policies that, despite being agreed upon by community consensus, are still subject to individual interpretation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, QBs typically mature and then come into starting roles during the latter part of their career. This player started playing early and lost his starting job to somebody younger. That is not typical.↔NMajdan•talk 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where my "vendetta" is. I am sure A.J. Suggs is a wonderful human being and I do understand the college game very well. I just don't want every Division 1 player to have a wikipedia bio, as it would create glut of unhelpful articles. Given that there are 119 D1 teams and many times 80 or so players on a team, I would hope any college football fan would agree with my statements. Even if you broke it down to the BCS conference teams, you still have dozens of teams with most of the players having biographies and other sources online due to the fact that college football is very popular (and a huge money maker for all the networks). We should wait until they play at the highest level of college for a consistent time period, set a major record (aka Timmy Chang) or go pro to create Wiki-bios.--Thomas.macmillan 22:46, 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 Redirect to Recurring characters of Neighbours. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:35Z

Abbie Stafford[edit]

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

DELETE There is no way known this article should exist on its own. This character is way too minor. A mention in Recurring characters of Neighbours would be enough. Kogsquinge 23:27, 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 delete g7, author request. NawlinWiki 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Onion New Media[edit]

Blue_Onion_New_Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 09:19Z

Closing notes


There is some serious hoaxing going on here, perhaps by Duiek, or by Gillis himself.

Facts:

  • User:Duiek said he is the same user as User:71.232.30.194, so I'll just refer to both as Duiek.
  • Duiek created the biography article for J.R. Gillis.
  • Duiek says he created this garden after he met J.R. Gillis, who told him his family history.
  • Duiek later says he has asked a friend and the friend says he has the book and has sent him scans of the book. So Duiek was working based on what Gillis had told him, before that.
  • When the forgery was found out by User:Proteus, User:Kittybrewster, and User:AlexTiefling (good work), Duiek later says he checked the book in the library and agrees the scan is fake.

It's possible that:

  1. Duiek is Gillis and lied.
  2. Duiek is not Gillis and Duiek is telling the truth. Gillis lied to Duiek.
  3. Duiek is not Gillis but Duiek lied about having been told about the Gillis family by Gillis himself.

As far as I can tell, Gillis is indeed family name with a long history rooted in Scotland. Houseofnames.com sells Gillis family plaques and such. [36] There's a book called Gillis Family in the South by Clayton Metcalf [37]. There's even a whole web forum dedicated to Gillis geneaology [38]. I'm sure they'd know about this baronetcy already if it weren't a hoax.

In the real world:

  • W.M. Gulliksen Mfg. Co., Inc. is real, and J.R. Gillis is the owner and CEO of the company. I assume Gillis is a respectable person and wouldn't create a hoax like this.
  • I would like to assume good faith of Duiek. However, he is implicitly accusing Gillis himself of lying, a serious charge. We should assume good faith of Duiek, but on the other hand Duiek is a pseudonymous person and Gillis is a known semi-public figure, and we should also assume good faith of Gillis.
  • Gillis has been quoted in press, e.g.
    "Nowadays you can do a search on the Internet and you can find everything, but you have found nothing, because everybody is just as good as everybody else," said J.R. Gillis, president of W.M. Gulliksen Manufacturing Co. Inc., a plastic injection molding company based in Boston. "How would you know who to talk to out of the hundreds or thousands of results returned by the search?" added Gillis. [39]
  • Therefore, J.R. Gillis cares about what people find when they search for his name on the Internet. If Gillis himself is not the one creating the hoax, he might be interested in knowing about this incident. The contact information for his company is available on the Internet: 187 Gardner St., West Roxbury MA 02132, United States (617)323-5750, (617)323-3784 fax [40], and also in the whois records for gulliksen.com.

Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet[edit]

Note: I am merging the AFDs for Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

Gillis Baronets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sir Robert Gillis, 2nd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:33Z

This section was originally for Gillis Baronets only. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z DELETE

The next section of comments was originally for Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet only. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

DELETE

He is not in the book. - Kittybrewster 16:07, 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) 2007-03-04 09:36Z

Gillis family[edit]

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

DELETE

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Certainly no consensus exists to delete, and some of the keep arguments are strong and not well refuted. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

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

Nominated because there's no reason at all to list people who have had pies thrown at them. -Roofus 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also not emotionally attached either way, and I can certainly see your point, but it seems to me that while there's no overwhelming argument to keep this article, there's also (oddly enough) no real guideline for deleting it. It's not a neoligism, it's not original research, it's not unverified and because someone seems to have done a great deal of work, it doesn't even fall into those vague concepts behind the term "listcruft" (e.g. unmanageable, POV, etc). The closest valid guideline to delete that I can think of is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but even then I can see at least a vague argument that as a split off of pieing it's not necessarily "indiscriminate".
As I say, I'm not emotionally attached to it and wouldn't cry if a deletion vote were to happen, but my opinion is -- lacking any strong valid argument to delete, it should be kept (with perhaps a passive and kindly-meant prod to this article's editors to focus their admirable editing energies to some other articles that need work). -Markeer 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider putting the remainder of the listing in the table format that was started. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we better delete every article on every murder and war. We wouldn't want to encourage such behaviour. I'm sure that the people who pie other people do so in the hopes of being immortalized on Wikipedia. Otto4711 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was in 1981, so I'll give you that part. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 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 delete as WP:CSD#G10 Tizio 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary ghisolfo[edit]

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

Obvious nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 2007/02/27 22:52:43

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ECW Originals. Please discuss the final name of the merged article on Talk:ECW Originals. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:31Z

New Breed (ECW)[edit]

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

Starting. See User talk:72.225.255.18. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:33, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:29Z

Popug[edit]

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

I don't think the website is notable. Gnews search. --Hojimachongtalk 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The most interesting thing that comes to mind is the section about 'The No Wang Policy', sadly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 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.


DELETED BY DOUCHBAGS.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 09:19Z

Closing notes


There is some serious hoaxing going on here, perhaps by Duiek, or by Gillis himself.

Facts:

  • User:Duiek said he is the same user as User:71.232.30.194, so I'll just refer to both as Duiek.
  • Duiek created the biography article for J.R. Gillis.
  • Duiek says he created this garden after he met J.R. Gillis, who told him his family history.
  • Duiek later says he has asked a friend and the friend says he has the book and has sent him scans of the book. So Duiek was working based on what Gillis had told him, before that.
  • When the forgery was found out by User:Proteus, User:Kittybrewster, and User:AlexTiefling (good work), Duiek later says he checked the book in the library and agrees the scan is fake.

It's possible that:

  1. Duiek is Gillis and lied.
  2. Duiek is not Gillis and Duiek is telling the truth. Gillis lied to Duiek.
  3. Duiek is not Gillis but Duiek lied about having been told about the Gillis family by Gillis himself.

As far as I can tell, Gillis is indeed family name with a long history rooted in Scotland. Houseofnames.com sells Gillis family plaques and such. [44] There's a book called Gillis Family in the South by Clayton Metcalf [45]. There's even a whole web forum dedicated to Gillis geneaology [46]. I'm sure they'd know about this baronetcy already if it weren't a hoax.

In the real world:

  • W.M. Gulliksen Mfg. Co., Inc. is real, and J.R. Gillis is the owner and CEO of the company. I assume Gillis is a respectable person and wouldn't create a hoax like this.
  • I would like to assume good faith of Duiek. However, he is implicitly accusing Gillis himself of lying, a serious charge. We should assume good faith of Duiek, but on the other hand Duiek is a pseudonymous person and Gillis is a known semi-public figure, and we should also assume good faith of Gillis.
  • Gillis has been quoted in press, e.g.
    "Nowadays you can do a search on the Internet and you can find everything, but you have found nothing, because everybody is just as good as everybody else," said J.R. Gillis, president of W.M. Gulliksen Manufacturing Co. Inc., a plastic injection molding company based in Boston. "How would you know who to talk to out of the hundreds or thousands of results returned by the search?" added Gillis. [47]
  • Therefore, J.R. Gillis cares about what people find when they search for his name on the Internet. If Gillis himself is not the one creating the hoax, he might be interested in knowing about this incident. The contact information for his company is available on the Internet: 187 Gardner St., West Roxbury MA 02132, United States (617)323-5750, (617)323-3784 fax [48], and also in the whois records for gulliksen.com.

Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet[edit]

Note: I am merging the AFDs for Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

Gillis Baronets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sir Robert Gillis, 2nd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:33Z

This section was originally for Gillis Baronets only. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z DELETE

The next section of comments was originally for Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet only. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

DELETE

He is not in the book. - Kittybrewster 16:07, 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) 2007-03-05 09:28Z

Rob Brooks[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 21:06, 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, W.marsh 15:55, 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 Conversations with Other Women. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 07:46Z

Hans Canosa[edit]

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

Merge with film article Rothko65 15:56, 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 to delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:27Z

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series[edit]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously listed in a group AFD. Received some individual opinions, but the group AFD closed as delete all. Discussion at deletion review agreed that this merited individual consideration, because some of the issues are different. Please read both prior discussions before opining, this is a technical nomination by me. GRBerry 16:30, 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) 2007-03-05 09:23Z

Balkans Peace Park Project[edit]

Balkans Peace Park Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organizations appears to fail WP:CORP. Part Deux 16:45, 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 Redirect to Asian Australian. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:22Z

Bangladeshi Australian[edit]

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

This article is fairly short on context: just a list of the information on the Australian census, thus failing WP:NOT#IINFO. Suggest deletion without prejudice to recreating a better article. Part Deux 16:47, 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) 2007-03-04 07:42Z

Steggy and Lacy[edit]

Steggy and Lacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Steggy and Lacy is a complete hoax. No Google hits except for the Wikipedia article. --Caldorwards4 16:53, 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 Redirect to Water management. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 07:41Z

Water Management[edit]

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

Original research, essay, better article with same subject matter already exists: Water resources - Ozzykhan 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Water management disambig page identified by Tikiwont is actually a better target for the redirect. -- Whpq 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 Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tufts[edit]

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

Page does not meet notability guidelines per WP:Bio Mocko13 17:06, 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) 2007-03-04 07:34Z

Armenian blogs[edit]

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

There is no real content here. It is just a giant linkfarm for blogs. IrishGuy talk 17:20, 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 Adam Cuerden talk 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelloggsville[edit]

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

Non-notable school district; no reason given why it's any different from all the others. Veinor (talk to me) 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Contribs) 18:46, 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. I will create a redirect after deletion.

Web communication[edit]

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

Original research, essay, better article with same subject matter already exists: Computer network and Telecommunication - Ozzykhan 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I quite agree that the article has nothing to do with telecommunications, but the title its author gave it does. A redirect from "Web communication" to "Telecommunication" would be quite appropriate. Redirect without a merge implies a deletion of all the current content. ◄Zahakiel► 22:41, 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 delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snollville[edit]

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

Article purports to be about a place, but contains little or not information about the town. Instead it includes information about a specific murder incident that occured there. Contains little of use. Ian Goggin 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article purports to be about a town in Switzerland with a very un-Swiss name. The description of the murder is marked by anachronisms, improbable names, and so forth. In short - totally made up. FreplySpang 17:58, 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

Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr.[edit]

Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Candidates for municipal office and city councilmembers are not notable under WP:BIO. Relevant information (his declaration of candidacy) already exists in the article on the 2007 Mayoral Election. Mocko13 17:49, 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) 2007-03-04 07:27Z

Nicole Girard[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of Notability --Strangerer 18:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathleen Vitale[edit]

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

County council members and rumored candidates for higher office do not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO - Mocko13 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 5 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 Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:37Z

Early Sunsets Over Monroeville[edit]

Early Sunsets Over Monroeville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. No assertion of notability. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page. Rehevkor 18:33, 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 I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:38Z

Romance (song)[edit]

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

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page (i.e. a summary of the story in one place would be more appropriate. Rehevkor 18:43, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism[edit]

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

Denialism: Orwellian words for the 2000's. This article opens an epistemological can of worms. This is not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.

I believe this whole article is simply well-disguised original research. From the Wikipedia viewpoint, the article violates the WP:NOR as well as indeirectly violating the WP:POV policies (the existence of this article would seems to amplify "anti-denialism" propaganda, closing a self-justifying loop.) Also, reliable sources do not usually include mere blogs. From a functionalist viewpoint, the problem with "denialism" as a concept, and as an encyclopedic entry, is that it promotes poisoning the well: denouncing a view as denialism or its proponent as a denialist has the effect of leading to judgement before inquiry. Using User:Quitter's own words against him:

Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories.

we see this very kind of thinking. "Well-established" might mean theories which actually are demonstratable beyond reasonable doubt, or it might mean uncontested propaganda. Which is which?

--Otheus 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the word would be more suited toward Wikitionary than here. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:48, 6 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 Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:37Z

This is the Best Day Ever[edit]

This is the Best Day Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page, possibly no notable info at all. Rehevkor 19:01, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:20Z

Ten thousand smiles[edit]

Ten thousand smiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Martin C. Jischke Purdue Elves Ten Thousand Smiles.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ten thousand smiles flash mob happening purdue.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The article doesn't cite any independent reliable sources, and a somewhat thorough search via Google didn't turn up anything remotely independent. Article was written in a first-person style in December 2004, little has been updated since, and now that the group's website went down, it's not even clear that any first-person updates will occur. Interiot 19:04, 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 I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:36Z

Demolition Lovers[edit]

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

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. Not notable. Seems to contain only vague, unvarified info and a description of the song. Rehevkor 19:07, 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: Speedily deleted - spam, no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmotiv[edit]

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

I just don't see the importance and the article does not assert the notability of the invention. It's possibly spam. Just because it has a patent doesn't mean it's notable. PigmanTalk to me 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was probably being too kind and cautious to go to AfD from my initial prod when the author protested. Sometimes I don't trust my judgment. Live and learn. PigmanTalk to me 19:22, 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 Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:38Z

Drowning Lessons[edit]

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

Non notable non single with only un sourced meaning and lyrics (which are not allowed according to WP:L&P). Rehevkor 19:14, 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 I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 10:36Z

Skylines and Turnstiles[edit]

Skylines and Turnstiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable non-single, only contains unsourced info that could be moved to the album page if necessary. Rehevkor 19:18, 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) 2007-03-05 09:19Z

Gerald Starr[edit]

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

Failed candidates for local office are not notable. Sorry for all the Maryland politicians in AfD today, BTW - am clearing out the category. - Mocko13 19:22, 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 speedily deleted by Irishguy as nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The native volcanic bumble bee[edit]

The native volcanic bumble bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The information in this article seems to be fabricated. No additional information about the native volcanic bumble bee, Asinius-Perperus, or Mountain Smoke bug could be found with searches. Strangerer 19:25, 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 Redirect to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:19Z

The Jetset Life is Gonna Kill You[edit]

The Jetset Life is Gonna Kill You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable non-single. Contains no notable infomation/speculation. Rehevkor 19:30, 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 deletion by admin Steel359 as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tailies[edit]

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

This time-travelling article claims that the band had top 40 UK hits... in summer 2007. I can't find any verification of this with Google, not even when I engage the time-machine patch. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:46, 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) 2007-03-05 09:18Z

Dukinization[edit]

Dukinization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason Delete - Appears to be spurious nonsense. Googling "Dukinization" only brings up copies of this article. Googling "Duke Kim" + composer brings up nothing relevant. MakeRocketGoNow 19:48, 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) 2007-03-05 09:17Z

The Ruby Square[edit]

The Ruby Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable online community. Fails WP:WEB. Selket Talk 20:01, 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 Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZPanel[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATT, no sources provided or could be found. Fails WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE, whichever you want to apply. Page makes no claim to notability and from what I can tell has little hopes of expansion. Is not included in Ubuntu, Debian or Gentoo, showing lack of notability among Linux software. BJTalk 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Im not quite sure how this works but here goes: We are working behind the scenes and have an active forum. Progress can be checked at http://blog.thezpanel.com/. If you have any further questions feel free to contact me at mmulla(at)zee-way.com

Regards,
Meisam Mulla
ZPanel Developer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-05 09:16Z

GateWay Church[edit]

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

Article does not establish church's notability ObtuseAngle 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this discussion perfectly illustrates the folly of keeping the rejected guidelines: (a) they remain contentious, and (b) they continue to be quoted. Regardless this was never a guideline only a proposal which never should have been cited at AfD as having weight. --Kevin Murray 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Past practice has been to cite proposed guidelines in AFDs, labelling them as such. That was the way WP:PORNBIO 's authors got it accepted as a guideline for notability. It is not established by a vote at the discussion page. Edison 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that it's helpful in deciding what is or isn't helpful (like a WP essay). JROBBO 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would speedy be as effective in preventing re-creation? This was redirected before and then brought back. --Kevin Murray 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is speedied, and then the exact same thing is recreated, it can just be re-speedied under G4 (it was already determined that the old article was unacceptable). Of course, if something different is created, that would need to be evaluated on its own merits, but if the new article really is acceptable where the old one was not, that's not necessarily bad. If someone's really bent on recreating something, they're just going to keep it up until they get blocked or the page gets a dose of salt. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So reference to WP:cong is still perfectly appropriate. If WP:ORG were amended to exclude all articles about congregations, that would run contrary to the observed practice in AFDs and would be inappropriate and misleading, since many article about congregations have been kept. Edison 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 'no.' The notability of a denomination is based on the fact that denominations include multiple local congregations and have some sort of regional or national scope. Some individual non-denominational congregations have notability, like Saddleback Church and Willow Creek Community Church. This does not appear to be such a church. Googling 'GateWay Church Reminderville Ohio' returns this Wikipedia article as the first hit, along with a map to a completely different Gateway Church in Chagrin Falls. It doesn't appear the church which is the subject of this article has a website of its own. ObtuseAngle 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trip to the dictinoary puts me in agreement with Obtuse: "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination." Regardless this is an "organization" (possibly sect) and fits no case for special inclusion thus defaulting to WP:N, which it fails. --Kevin Murray 15:41, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:14Z

Republic (United Kingdom)[edit]

Republic (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obscure, non-notable substub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. Stringops 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one online newspaper mention doesn't make the group notable. Anyone can ring up a newspaper and make a claim hoping to get a mention. Apart from allegedly trying to get an advert printed, 'republic' seems to have little recognition outside of its own website. Searching google news for Republic anti-monarchy produces nothing relevant. Stringops 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guardian which ran the story, along with The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail who refused the ads, are slightly more than 'online newspapers'. Nuttah68 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only put one mention there. The problem is that the terms which might be searched for throw up a lot of irrelevant hits. Google news only searches the last few weeks. I can do a more lengthy search if you want. The group was founded in 1983 by Stephen Haseler. Sam Blacketer 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your point about the difficulty in accurately searching for something called 'republic', however, even if it gets an occasional media mention, I'm not convinced that it's well-known enough to satisfy notability. Also, having notable supporters doesn't necessarily make a group notable itself. If prominent people support it, there more of a case for mentioning that in their own articles. So far as pressure groups go, this one seems to me to be a pretty insignificant one from the evidence I've found. Stringops 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll do a longer search and place my results on this article's talk page. Now done. Sam Blacketer 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, references do not equate with notability.--Couter-revolutionary 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines then. One Night In HackneyIRA 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am and have seen many referenced organisations deleted. I could easily public lots of websites referencing a fictional society, would that make it notable? So far as I can tell this does not exist outside the internet.--Couter-revolutionary 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that would suggest you have not read the references, seeing as they contain reports from reliable sources of meetings, demonstrations, PQs and so on. Nuttah68 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it is interesting to note your attitude and interpretation of wiki policy switches depending on the issue. This AfD is a result of the previous AfD and the nominator appears to be a sockpuppet of one of those disgruntled by the imminent deletion.--Vintagekits 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your proof? Of course I've learnt my lesson from the previous deletions.--Couter-revolutionary 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a list of its supporters http://www.republic.org.uk/supporters/index.php Including renowned human rights campaigner peter tatchellRepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some references of its notability:

http://www.labourspace.com/campaign.php?whichcampaign=71

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212we08.htm

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/republic.htm.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first is a mention on a campaigns website, not a directory of notability. Does wikipedia have an article on Save Gloucester Mail Centre (Communication Workers Union - Gloucestershire Amal. Branch)? Should it?
The second concerns written evidence to a parliamentary committee. HMSO is obliged to publish all the written evidence it receives. If I were to submit evidence to such a committee myself, I would end up being quoted by the same website; that wouldn't make me notable enough for a wikipedia article! Indeed, if you look, you will find that the vast majority of the 96-odd published submissions are from non-notable individuals and organisations who quite rightly aren't mentioned on wikipedia.
The third link is Peter Tatchell voicing his opinion on his own website. Just because Tatchell is notable doesn't make any organisation he links to on his website notable! As I've said before, in the case of Tatchell, it makes far more sense to mention his support of this organisation in his own article rather than maintain a tiny stub in its own namespace. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was only made because I nominated an unoitable monarchist organisation.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. I nominated it because I happened to stumble upon the article whilst browsing and didn't think it deserved to be on wikipedia. I haven't contributed to wikipedia for several months previous to this and I have no involvement in any other arguments you might have had during this time. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith of the user who nominated this article for deletion.--Couter-revolutionary 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a topic of very significant consequence. People are advocating the replacement of the British monarchy with a republic, talk that would have gotten them spedily into prison in the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. The issue of republice versus monarchy is one that stocked the conservative ancien regime reaction against liberalism in Britain and on the European continent throughout the nineteenth century.

It is rather remarkable that people are hurling charges such as sock puppet. This organization is a bona fide organization with dozens of supporters among political and cultural figures in British society. The BBC had given reference to it in a series of articles in 2003. Dogru144 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wkipedia's job is not to give forum to a voice for different/extremist views. If it's not notable it's not notable! --Counter-revolutionary 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it helps if you show why, rather than just assert it vigorously. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 5 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 speedied repost. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 The Ranting Gryphon[edit]

2 The Ranting Gryphon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page offers no sources and does not assert notability of the subject.

Comment - Fascinating, I was wondering why the talk page said "glad to see this page back" when there was nothing in the deletion log. I would have proposed this earlier if I'd known. I put a Notability template on the page a month ago in the hopes of eliciting some relevant sources. Avt tor 01:04, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eje Records

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 07:12Z

Gradey Alexander and The Barnum Kid[edit]

Gradey Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Barnum Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both the author and the book are entirely unverifiable on Google. For one thing, any author who'd gotten into literary spats with Mordecai Richler and V. S. Naipaul would certainly garner at least one Google hit. Articles listed under references don't appear to actually exist, either. Most likely a hoax — and even if he does actually exist, he's still neither notable nor verifiable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the press release is dated today (28 February 2007), quotes "Daniel Yeoman" the creator of the Gradey Alexander appreciation website, and was posted by Yeoman under the Dyxxx tag he uses for the self-same site.Victoriagirl 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Extremely elaborate hoax, then? It just seems like a lot of work to go to for the simple matter of creating phony Wikipedia articles! Not that it changes whether or not the articles ought to be deleted. I just find it odd. Arkyan 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I read one of his books when I was in high school. We had a teacher who was fond of obscure Canadian writers like Alexander or O'Groussney.

Comment I note that the vague, unsigned comment above was placed by Westrimble23, a single purpose account (indeed the comment is the user's only contribution). I also note the similarity between Westrimble23 and Gradey23, the single purpose account that created the two articles under discussion).Victoriagirl 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Westrimble23's unsigned comment was deleted by 24.137.96.117. As this is against Wikipedia policy, I have restored the comment. I note that in his most recent posting on the Gradey Alexander appreciation site Daniel Yeoman identifies himself as Gradey23 and joins Westrimble23 in mentioning a Canadian author named O’Groussney (as Darren O'Groussny). As with Gradey Alexander, no books by Darren O'Groussny (or O'Groussney) are held in the National Library, the Toronto Public Library, or the various lIbraries of the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia. The names "Darren O'Groussny" and "Darren O'Groussney" generate no ghits. Victoriagirl 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I add that at least three of the four remaining references do not exist. This includes Mr Yeoman's own “Lost in Translation”, which he claims to have published in Queen’s Quarterly. About the remaining reference, “The Forgotten Patriarch” by “Jill Martin”: there is no record of the publication, “Firlotte Editions”, to be found at the libraries of McGill or Concordia. I note that the name generates no ghits. Those not yet entirely bored may wish to read a more detailed account of my research at Mr Yeoman's the Gradey Alexander appreciation website. Victoriagirl 21:48, 3 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 Merge to Chessington World of Adventures. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:11Z

Tomb Blaster[edit]

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

This is a non-notable amusement park ride. The entire text of the article was previously in Chessington World of Adventures but has since been changed, although a merge back makes the most sense. The author is a single purpose account, and based ont he user name, has a conflict of interest. There is not external referencing for this ride to estblish notability. PROD removed without comment. Whpq 21:03, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability, zero Ghits for band. NawlinWiki 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violador Profissional[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 21:13, 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. Yuser31415 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery Index (band)[edit]

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

Non-Notable Band/Bandcruft SERSeanCrane 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this a bad-faith nomination? The same user recently also AFD'd the Evoken article, which also clearly meets WP:BAND. I suggest SERSeanCrane to stop meddling with things s/he does not understand Spearhead 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article provided zero reliable sources, hence the nomination. Note that the 'official website' is not reliable because it is not a third party source. Perhaps if editors like yourself spent more time verifying their claims rather than accusing other editors of "bad faith nominations," there'd be less meddling. SERSeanCrane 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that albums itself are also reliable sources and it is easily verifiable whether they exist. Of course reliable sources are important but lack thereof does not require deletion. In such cases it is better to use e.g. Template:Unreferenced than to claim "bandcruft" particularly when you're not familiar with the genre. Spearhead 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. SERSeanCrane 16:34, 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Early Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The majority of these are just links to a site which is subject to a DMCA takedown notice. None of these publications appears to have an article, so t he list of links is not navigational, it's a bibliography which I need to unlink per WP:C, leaving not much. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this appears to be a link repository rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The links I tried were working fine when I visited the page; if someone is claiming copyright over stuff published in the 1860's, it seems more likely that it's an attempt to suppress uncomplimentary material than a valid copyright claim. A group that wants to silence its critics by trying to use a controversial U.S. law the DMCA to have material pulled from a website -- especially one as otherwise well known as the Jehovah's Witnesses -- is a quite notable subject matter. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the site hoists material right up to the present day, including material that is unquestionably still copyright. They make no distinction between copyright infringing and copyright expired. That is the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The subject title implies that this is going to be an encyclopedia entry on the subject of early Jehovah's Witness writings, which would merit inclusion. The current state of the article is nothing more than a massive linkfarm. With an extreme amount of work (getting rid of the useless linkspam and actually writing on the subject in the title) by someone knowledgable on the subject I would easily change to a keep vote. Arkyan 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete will change if this article can get some real content, right now it has too many external links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is supposed to be a counterpart to List of Watchtower publications, which is similar in design. The publications listed here are all quite old. Are there copyright issues with the links here (which come from a variety of sources)? I'd be willing to work at re-writing the page to meet objections mentioned here. Are lists like this and List of Watchtower publications not suitable material? Would it be preferred to create linked articles for each title? That could be done but would require some time. Would it be better to put the titles into paragraphs of text? Dtbrown 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is without prejudice with regards to the topic, the notability of the topic or the good faith and good judgment of the editors. It's normally reasonable to assume you're not linking to a copyright violation. I also want to emphasize that I am not taking a stand on either side of the main church vs the dissenters, theologically, or on the merits of their copyright dispute. I also have nothing against the Jehovah's Witness movement in general and I am very sensitive to deleting articles dealing with matters of faith. The problem as I see it is copyright. The article relies heavily on reexamine.info links and by our own policies, we need to remove these links -- and promptly. I am open to others recreating the article in the future if alternate, legally acceptable links are found. --A. B. (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are not most (if not all--I'm not sure exactly where the cut-off is) of the publications listed in this article no longer subject to copyright? Dtbrown 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the following:
Like it or not, the links have to go regardless of this article's disposition. I also don't think we're in a good position to judge which links violate copyright and which don't. --A. B. (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links are my bottom line -- fix the reexamine link issue and I'm fine with keeping or merging. --A. B. (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining what is going on and I understand the need to remove the links. Is there any way to find out who lodged the complaint? Dtbrown 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and I belive I have removed all links to reexamine.info in this article. Perhaps others could double check this. I have also tried to supply other "legally acceptable links". Dtbrown 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A day or two, the home page said closed for maintenance, but you could still load at least some of the links (very, very slowly -- felt like a 14k modem connection) --A. B. (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is replete with articles that are simply lists, so that alone is not justification for deleting the article. Whether the publications are out of copyright or not has no bearing on whether the publications may be listed. However, links to sites hosting material without permission that are still protected by copyright should be removed. Most of the listed publications are no longer protected by copyright. The article should probably be renamed "List of early JW publications" to make the intent of the article unambiguous. Another suitable alternative would be to merge with "List of Watchtower Publications" as a subsection. There is no valid reason for removing the information altogether.--Jeffro77 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thise lists are navigational. This is not. It's a bibliography, and every single liknk is (a) a weblink (WP:EL, WP:NOT a link farm) and (b) of no externally verifiable significance. This is just a list fo the publications some editor(s) thought were significant, it is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of publications that may be of informational interest to persons researching subjects related to Jehovah's Witnesses. It may also prompt editors to provide further information or create articles on some of those publications that may be of specific relevance. It therefore has some value. As previously stated, it should probably be merged with "List of Watchtower Publications".--Jeffro77 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea to retitle this "List of Early Watchtower Publications" or to merge it with the complimentary List of Watchtower publications is a good idea. Dtbrown 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: comment on links At the moment the web site for rexamine.info gives a message of "Closed for Maintenance" and all links to pages on that sight are nonoperative.DGG 00:25, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 07:09Z

AK Comics: Comics That Bite Back[edit]

AK Comics: Comics That Bite Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unreferenced and appears to fail to meet normal notability standards (see WP:N). Also sounds like it might have been written by someone affiliated with the comic. Delete unless proper sources included. Dugwiki 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Googling for AK Comics indicates that there may in fact be an AK Comics that might meet notability, but none of the information matches with what is in the wiki article leading me to suspect that they are not the same things. There are no sources provided for verification, and none that appear to corroborate the information here, so fails WP:V -- Whpq 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, borders on patent nonsense and WP:NFT. Krimpet 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be about someone who self-published his own comics. No relation to the Egyptian AK Comics, which is a notable publisher. Shimeru 06:39, 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 speedy delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmullo Bear[edit]

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

Hoax. Nonpareility 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as a hoax -- Whpq 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a hoax, but quite funny. Sam Blacketer 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense and so tagged. Whispering 00:42, 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) 2007-03-04 07:09Z

Jengameister[edit]

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

Prodded, removed without explantion or additions. Claims to be a game invented 2007. Totally non-notable. Richhoncho 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my omission - should have read "without explanation" --Richhoncho 22:37, 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) 2007-03-04 07:08Z

Brooke Boisse[edit]

Brooke Boisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Brookeboissew.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

According to IMDB, [60] she played "model" in Monkeybone and appeared as "the potential roommate" in one episode of Friends. Nothing else. Non-notable actress. IrishGuy talk 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content." Also, the author used an infobox for an adult film actress (strange). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. She's cute, though. ObtuseAngle 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 and per WP:V and per totally unsourced and unreferenced AlfPhotoman 20:41, 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. A recreate may be appropriate if notability and reliable sources can be shown, but combined with the current patent nonsense... Adam Cuerden talk 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xirsi Ugaaryahan[edit]

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

Other than that this is about a person, I cannot make heads or tails out of this "article." A google result turns up nothing. Salad Days 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete tending stronger if nobody comes forward with more information. As far as I can follow, he's the ancestor of a large number of diaspora Somalis (from one particular clan?). Aside from the fact that his descendents are apparently all over the cookshop, he doesn't seem to have done anything much else of significance. O'course, Somalis tend to be under-represented in all but their own language. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete will change if this can be rewritten and sourced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's largely incomprehensible. Fails WP:V without sourcing. -- Scientizzle 06:38, 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 speedy delete. – Steel 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pewter Report (magazine)[edit]

Pewter Report (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been nominated and deleted by speedy 2 times previous under PewterReport and Pewter Report with the concern of spam advertisement.--Hu12 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy and salt Obvious spam. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why was this article brought back from speedy? Removing all of the blatant advertising material would leave about two sentences in the whole article. There are also no references other than the company's website, and why is this even being debated given the author's username and history? Someguy1221 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
brought back because author was attempting communication--Hu12 23:53, 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 Redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist (done by User:Dbam). PeaceNT 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Fist[edit]

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

As the page has been redirected to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist, I withdraw my nomination. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Non-notable fictional band. This is a band in the Grand Theft Auto Series. There are no sources and the article makes little assertion of notability Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: Only the protagonists of the GTA games got their own pages so far, while even major secondary characters that recur in several GTA games are only mentioned in the "List of characters" pages. With that in mind, I don't see a reason why Love Fist can't be limited to the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City page.
    In fact, Love Fist already had an entry in the List page. I've enriched it with non-trivia information from the Love Fist page (such as credits and references to real-world events). So now, the Love Fist page should simply redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist. -- Ritchy 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all relevant information into the Vice City character list. 96T 18:51, 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.--Wizardman 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charla and Mirna[edit]

Charla and Mirna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article regarding two Amazing Race competitors. I first queried the notability of the article on the 27th, suggesting that unless there were improvements made I would eventually bring this to AFD. It was prodded by Ian Spackman on the 28th as "sheer non-notable American cultural imperialism", Evrik later removed teh prod beause he felt they were notable.

To quote from my mesage on the talk page: My main problem with the article is that it is little more than a blow-by-blow account of their participation in each series of the Race - which is plainly unencyclopaedic. There is little biographical information here that is a) not on The Amazing Race 5 contestants (in fact, much of the biographical stuff is plain copy & paste from text I added to that article) or b) not suitable to merge into that article.

Ooops! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a similar article, Derek and Drew Riker, has already been deleted recently. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Riker twins article was actually redirected to The Amazing Race 3. Your link is to an old AFD from October 06. Otto4711 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. Pretty much a plot summary of their appearances on the race and the biographical information is already there. Otto4711 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Having said that ... the article needs some serious work. --evrik (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very Notable. --Thankyoubaby 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as TAR contestants go, not the least being selected for the All-Stars episode. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignoring the drama between Evrik and I, there is already precedent that these contestants are not notable, even though they have participated on Allstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 March 2007
  • They pass the google test for notability. --evrik (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charla and Mirna are very notable and deserve their own article. Ben1283 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' Charla and Mirna are notable. Masterpedia
  • Comment as I made clear from my nom... I am not contesting their notability, but I believe there is no use for the article because all relevant information is provided on The Amazing Race 5 contestants. I wish there would be more discussion of that, rather than simply agreeing with me that they are notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I support deleting/redirecting one-time contestants of reality shows, the subjects have appeared on three reality series (in addition to the other guests spots noted in the articles), and Mirna was co-winner of Battle of the Network Reality Stars. Caknuck 02:56, 7 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Aves

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-05 09:05Z

Michael Kirsch[edit]

Michael Kirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 00:02, 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. No harm done; many of us have newly-discovered algebraic identities in our younger days. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:03Z

Andrei's Powered-Base Rule[edit]

Andrei's Powered-Base Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page consists entirely of original research. Additionally, it was created by the creator of the alleged "rule", which violates the autobiography portion of the conflict-of-interest rules. Finally, it's not notable; there are literally an infinite number of "rules" that can be derived from algebra and some basic mathematical first principles, and there's nothing special about this one. Sarcasticidealist 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - per the author's own admission, this is original research. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. Loniousmonk 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite the presentation, I am sure that this result, in correct, has been discovered and proved long ago. However, didn't we develop some kind of note or template to new authors whose first contribution was proposed for deletion, to explain the rules to them rather than just make them feel unwelcome? That would certainly be appropriate here. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Your suggestion to retain new users whose first contribution is AFD'd is a great one, and if no such note or template exists, somebody should design one. However, as to your comment about being sure that this "rule" has been discovered and proved long ago, it likely hasn't been just because nobody's bothered - the basic rules of mathematics are well understood, and finding new ways of making them interact with each other is generally just a waste of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • There are e.g. Template:AFDWarning to inform an author about the AFD nomination of his article and Template:Firstarticle for new users referring to a first article nominated for any type fo deletion referring both to speedy deletion crtieria and WP:NOT. --Tikiwont 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's true, but naming it after a high schooler who supposedly (no way of verifying this) wrote it out for the first time is just silly. I remember discovering in grade school that , does anybody propose we call this Veinor's identity? Veinor (talk to me) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Veinor's point is well-taken, but let's not belittle the article-creator, either. Brad's Theorem was that the last digit of the fifth power of any (base-ten) integer is the same as the last digit of the integer. :) It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I am sure that if there had been a Wikipedia then I would have posted it, and been on the wrong end of this discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 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.
  1. ^ Michael’s Random Thoughts » Microsoft patents BlueJ
More