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

The result was Moved as this is not a AfD but a move suggestion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear hunting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rename from Polar bear hunting to Polar Bear hunting

• Rename - The "B" in "Bear" should be capitalized as per the main article Polar Bear. Headphonos 15:43, 3 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandisk Sansa e260 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I propose to have this article deleted. There is already an exisiting article of the SanDisk Sansa and the Sansa e260 is actually the 4GB version of it. Enough said. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:CORP, redundant. MER-C 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly useless. Edeans 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ganfon 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Already covered in said article. z ε n  08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with SanDisk Sansa --Euzebia Zuk 10:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SanDisk Sansa. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect this stub as above Jeepday 16:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not comply with NPOV and is not notable.Tellyaddict 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judging by the responses to this AfD, I went ahead and made it into a redirect.--Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the redirect Veesicle has made. —siroχo 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes! Thanks a lot! I'm glad we don't need to merge it! --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 09:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing to merge. The information was already in the main article. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 5 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. There were a number of suggestions to merge to Masamune, however, there is already mention in that article of the naming of the video game swords and it wouldn't be appropriate to expand that section significantly with the material from the deleted article. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masamune (video game weapon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All this is, is a list of random unassociated weapons in computer games which have been named Masamune. I have no idea why the previous AFD resulted in Keep, that several video games looked to Masamune as a inspiration for weapons names does not an article make. It was previously split from Masamune for being too long, but this was incorrect, it should have been cut down, which it now has. - hahnchen 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I came here because I was interested in the article. I guess that shows that the article is relevant to some users? — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.110.205 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment — why not just merge a few major/notable details and delete/redirect (depending on how much info kept)? Either way, this article has no right to be kept. — Deckiller 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're already there - Masamune#Masamune_in_popular_culture - hahnchen 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing can and should be done with this information. — Deckiller 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge details as relevant to their video games. The weapons are a portion of the game and are notable directly within each game, but that's it. Since there are more than one so-named weapon, no redirect. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the swordsmith Masamune in an appropriate section, e.g., Masamune in popular culture or video games. ◄Zahakiel► 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Zahakiel ffm ^yes? 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge looks like the most constructive move to make. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate fancruft. MER-C 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is already a section in the Masamune article. Do you think the Masamune article should be expanded to include the in-universe commentary on disparate video game weapons as this article has? At most the video game swords should be a footnote list, which they are right now. - hahnchen 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MER-C 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem important enough to have an entire article dedicated to it. Ganfon 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge, also I don't like how was giving a subheading other than what it's actual name is. It throws in the editors bias/pov. As such I'm changing it to simply what the article is called. Mathmo ^Talk 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is AFD, it's all about POV. If you can somehow enlighten me to how the 2 titles used are fundamentally different, then I'll change it. But I am trying to make a point. - hahnchen 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that point is to attract the large portion of people who will vote delete purely based on the fact delete is used in the article title. Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Masamune. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Euzebia Zuk 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per suggestion. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems that most of the suggestions so far are to merge. If that is the case, then I recommend redirecting, not deleting, due to the GDFL policies. I'd ask for the closing admin to note that. — Deckiller 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a good article but if kept would need some very minor cleanup.Tellyaddict 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge doesn't need its own article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-notable gamecruft; having a weapon named "Masamune" in a game is no more notable than having a character named "John" in a game. - Chardish 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Unless the character is notably named after a famous John such as John Locke (Lost). Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a big difference between "John" and "Masamune" due to uniqueness, a more comparable comparision would be if called not "John" but "The Great John Barrington the Third" (if such a person existed and was featured in many video games). Mathmo ^Talk 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or keep, this is a verifiable part of the swordsmith's legacy. It should not be removed entirely from Wikipedia. —siroχo 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, fictional, indiscriminate, and original research (unless some third party documentation exists)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge back to Masamune under the "in popular culture" section as a notable tribute to him. So instead of Final Fantasy weapons, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and any other such articles each talking about the Masamune weapon's origin, they would simply have a wikilink. Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite as a disambiguation page. Video game weapons belong in the article on the video game. A disambiguation page is the best Wikipedia tool to get readers to the right information. If any material is in the present article but not in the article on the video game, that information can be transferred to the article on the game. Do not merge into Masamune. Keep the historical article sharply focused on the historical person. Fg2 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the video game information is pretty much explained either in Final Fantasy weapons (which will be cut down and overhauled anyway, but that's beside the point) and the plot summary on the Chrono Trigger featured article. — Deckiller 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either Masamune or the video game articles, but Keep the information around. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Masamune_(Square_Enix). The Masamune in the Chrono Trigger series is just as a weapon, but in many of the Final Fantasy games, it is a plot device. Deleting the article in its entirety would then lose the description of this plot device, unless the information is merged into the appropriate places... - Patch

• Merge and redirect - merge back to Masamune leaving a redirect in place. Mdcollins1984 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Merge and delete page - nobody will search for Masamune (video game weapon) will they? Therefore no reason for leaving a redirect in place.Mdcollins1984 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "merge and delete" pages, because it violates the GFDL. You always must merge and redirect pages to preserve edit history and emphasize merge. — Deckiller 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Masamune per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and Much Ado About Dicdef. Butseriouslyfolks 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge - this article exemplifies a bizarre notion native to Wikipedia editors that cultural references themselves are substantive fictions. Minute elements from videogames are given this grandiose and speculative treatment as if their continual appearance signified anything more than tired cliche. Such a stance is just flawed, deeply flawed and baseless. Sorry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge as little as possible. These things should only be noted in the Masamune article to the extent that they help the reader understand Masamune, rather than the various video games. Keep the article on topic! Dekimasuが... 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:BIO. Maybe a promo for his upcoming book Nv8200p talk 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no reason why this man would pass WP:BIO. Maybe if his book sells well once hes published, the page should be recreated. --Wildnox(talk) 00:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7, so tagged. I don't see anything that would qualify as an assertion of notability. Aplomado ^talk 00:30, 3 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 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod which gave no vaild reason to keep the article. The article violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY as the article only contains a gallery of fair use images of the BBC One logo, which were taken from the main BBC One article. The large number of images have no text alongside them to meet fair use policy or notability guidelines. The article is also redundant to the BBC television idents article, which provides a textual analysis of the logos used on BBC One. tgheretford (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally agree with nomination. --Wildnox(talk) 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination by tgheretford. S.D. ¿п? § 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Preserve the history of the logo on Wikipedia. 70.240.114.118 01:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Move to Commons Redirect - An article on Wikipedia is not just a group of images. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC) edit: BBC television idents is basically what the article -should- be. :-)[reply]
• Delete What a ridiclous article to have. I'am sure they could put all this under the main BBC article. Its just a blatant waste of space. delete. Retiono Virginian 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main BBC One article. MacGuy^{(contact me)} 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It seems sense to either merge this with the BBC One article and have a small section on it or maybe a gallery of the logos at the bottom of the article. Wrcmills 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (edit conflict) just to note, the "logos" (they are actually idents to give the correct term) were originally on the BBC One article, but were moved eventually to the BBC One section of the BBC television idents article. --tgheretford (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are websites which already have this content, and is merely repetition of this. As stated above some images have no detail so you cant learn anything from the article --PrincessBrat 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to BBC television idents. QmunkE 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a useful source of history for the BBC. Tellyaddict 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This page shows BBC One logos and should be part of the BBC One article. Some Person 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is just a copy of how the BBC One section of BBC television idents looked before the massive clean up. No need to redirect the page either, a straightforward delete will suffice here. Wikiwoohoo 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Sangak 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comments. - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could be part of the BBC One article and a bit of an abuse of the fair use system, we are trying to build a free encyclopedia and a whole article made up of fair use material is a bit "not good". It might be an idea to redirect to BBC Television idents and keep the main BBC articles free from fair use images, but that's not what this AfD is about. -- Heligoland 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with main BBC One article, per above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it was a for-profit company, we'd be calling it spam. Kla'quot 05:34, 8 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings Collectors Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one might get disputed a bit but the article reads like advertisement. As these two Google searches indicate [1] [2] neither the artist nor the publisher have much notability. There's no sign of reliable third-party sources about these figurines. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nom that it seems like an advert. If fact, it reads a lot like the "about us" section on a company website. Soltak | Talk 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Simply self-promotion, with no evidence of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability asserted either. There have been hundreds of LotR action figures, sculptures, and models and these do not seem to assert why these are different other than a limited number of countries in which they were released. If there were a broader LotR merchandising article or the like, perhaps this subject is better suited there. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Soltak. Ganfon 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, these are claimed to be "collectors models" thus surely there must have been reviews on them in collector's magazines? This is at least a claim to notability. Mathmo ^Talk 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. Keep if notability is asserted. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not relevant to wikipedia, wikipedia is meant to be a place of reference not about lord of the rings stuff.Tellyaddict 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• These models are inherently notable as unique and significant elements of the LOTR-universe figurine collection. In addition, they are mentioned in several fan guides, including one with an introduction by Christopher Tolkien. If we delete this article, we will have to delete all articles about figurines. Just kidding, Delete. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Call me stupid but you really had me there for a second... Pascal.Tesson 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd pause if this were an article about fantasy models or figurines in general or maybe even pertaining to a certain subgenre. But an entire advert-like article devoted to one particular line of models? As above, some of this could exist in a LotR merchandise article or the like, but not in its current form. Bitnine 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advertising article. Also, bravo Dmz5. - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement-it looks like an ad, smells like an ad so it must be.--John Lake 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Walks and talks like an ad Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether this is an advert of not, it fails the notability test. Delete. WMMartin 16:03, 5 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. DS 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. I don't think the league is even notable or may even exist Nv8200p talk 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, google hits show the baby exists, but it clearly isn't notable. 11kowrom 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, partial hoax. So tagged. Searching Draft Express shows that he is not, in fact, the number 2 draft pick, or indeed a projected pick at all. --N Shar 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google hasn't even heard of him, and I would think that something that notable would at least give -one- hit. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per N Shar as the only claim to notability, being a top NBA draft prospect, appears to be a hoax. Scottmsg 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , no sources, no references no verifiable content Alf photoman 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability asserted. Fails WP:BIO. Seems like a hoax. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much to say really, it's just generally not relevant.Tellyaddict 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proved by reliable sources: fails WP:BIO. Sangak 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO, hoax, WP:COI (check the baby image caption and contributor this is me my baby picture) --John Lake 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like it might be an autobio, judging from the image caption pointed out by John Lake Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:39, 4 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. Avi 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has some assertions of notability, namely the Scottish papers. However, they appear to be local papers and the coverage is minimal. Google hits for "Rysin Online" and RysinOnline are scarce, and there were no hits on the news database LexisNexis. Thus fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Icemuon 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - From the site's homepage: "With 8098 unique visits to the site and 26287 unique page views, Rysin Online is on course for an even better year." [3] - Seems notable for such a young kid to have made such hullabaloo, to me; however, I'll have to sit on the fence with this one. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this spam. Edeans 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources are reliable. Westenra 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.Tellyaddict 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author has made contributions (almost?) solely to files and pages pertaining to this subject. WP:CORP and spam Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article and the related material added to Anaglyph image is self-promotion. If the software lives up to its genius claims, then an article will be well-deserved. Until that time, this article should be deleted. TheMindsEye 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information on this article is correct and was featured in these papers, I am in no way involved with Rysin Online (as i think they are reffering to above), but most people round the Ayrshire Area are aware of it. DasPlan100 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't dispute that the papers are accurate, but the coverage is more along the lines of "a local teenager has released a popular software package" (and that's based merely on self-reported download statistics) rather than a non-trivial account of his company and its impact itself. If this company were notable, we would see more in-depth coverage outside of the local papers. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have tried to make an article on Rysin Online before it was featured in these local papers (although I knew nothing of this coverage) Fanta206 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you know of other sources about this company? This article continues to be created and deleted (I just checked the logs now) because no non-trivial sources have yet been provided. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I saw the site on several sites such as WaveStreaming, Stream Solutions, Talk ShoutCast (all of these sites are SHOUTcast related, Rysin Online's link is on all of their pages. each and every page on each site). When I saw the site, there was an article on "AboutUs" for the site, all of the content from that has now been removed by me and moved to the wikia article. (it will be in the history). That AboutUs Page linked to this wikia page. I have seen the site else where too, but that's as far as i'm going to go. Fanta206
      • I see a link to the Rysin Online site is on the footer of each of those sites, but that is not what is meant by a source. We need non-trivial, independent, and credible information about the company, such as from a detailed news article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I just knew about the site through that info that was on the AboutUs page :-) (Fanta206) 13:10, 7 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 as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was proposed for deletion. I'd rather see an AfD since there is some, albeit weak, claim of notability. I also want to make sure that Iranian Wikipedians have time to sound off on this deletion. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - being the relative of a notable person does not automatically confer notability. MER-C 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep need expansion from, say, Ayatollah_Ruhollah_Musavi_Khomeini#Family_and_early_years. Westenra 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article contains no content, and notability is not established.--Sefringle 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all that can reasonably be said about him is in his son's article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those advocating same. Beyond the fact that he was an Ayatollah and a Seyyed, there's nothing independently notable about the man (although I'm restricted to English-language sources in saying this). The facts are covered succinctly in a paragraph in his exceedingly notable son's article. In response to Westenra, if enough information on the man gets added to his son's article, there'll be a good case for splitting him off and giving him his own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced and cited i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not worthy of an article. Perhaps redirect here. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, no sources, and sub-stub Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:45, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Record label whose only claim to notability seems to be that its creators got 15 minutes of fame for staging a hostage beheading hoax. Articles on both creators have been deleted (the Robert Martin article now concerns an unrelated person). See also FIuorescent grey and Fluorescent Grey, articles on a band by one of the creators. Drat (Talk) 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - their fame is unrelated to the record label. --Eyrian 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edeans 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn notable fails WP:CORP.--John Lake 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:46, 4 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. But I will restore the content to anyone who wants to merge this (to an article that exists to merge it to) W.marsh 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor fictional character. No notability. No list to merge with. Content is just a plot summary and picture. 650l2520 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He is a character in a movie, but I think it would do better if a List of characters from the Lion King series was created. bibliomaniac15 01:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can be recreated as part of a list of Lion King characters per WP:FICT should someone care to create one. Otto4711 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. No assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MER-C. Edeans 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac --Jack Jones 11 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• He is a character in a movie? There is a character in Pretty Woman called "man getting out of elevator." Does he warrant an article? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That sort of arguement is flawed; that if an article for subject x doesn't exists, why should an article on subject y? Every subject has its own notability, or lack thereof, regardless of something that's related in some minor way. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with you. I am pointing out the flawed nature of the original keep vote, which is just a variation on "it exists, keep it." This does not advance an argument for notability. Similarly, "we have X, therefore we can have Y" is just as flawed as "we don't have x, therefore we can't have y."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I misread your comment. SuperDT 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a list for Lion King characters of some sort. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, and per MER-C. WMMartin 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not redirect. This was not the only film to have an "Uncle Max", and I doubt it would be a search term in any event. Agent 86 01:10, 9 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 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibe hoax. I can't find any information on this anywhere. adavidw 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability (the company isn't even mentioned) (CSD A7), reads like an advertisement (CSD G11), possible hoax. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Esoteric product with no notablitiy. Also reads like an Advert. z ε n  08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; may want to then consider redirect to Lou Piniella, even though it might not be that plausible as a typo. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep providing the article is rewritten (I started on this) and information about the company and the underlying university research is provided. Information about the actual marketing of the product would be welcome too. LHOON 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently fails WP:N it gets some weak ghits but most are not in english, so fail to support its notability for en.wikipedia.org it may be appropriate in another language or at a later time in English. Jeepday 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all delete comments Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like advertising to me. Not notable, anyway - it's just another packaged fruit, for goodness' sake ! WMMartin 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: one should note that this is Seshunkk's first article, and that he has added more information the last few days, a few steps on the long way to a good article. So please no inconsiderate deletion so he can learn and improve, and not be put off and leave wikipedia. (I stand to my position of weak keep). LHOON 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with LHOON that every consideration should be made to support new editors. The problem is that WP:BITE does not cancel Wikipedia policy and WP:V#Burden_of_evidence clearly puts the burden on the editor. As there is no Copyvio issues the editor could take it to User:Seshunkk/sandbox and work on it, and I would support this. Keeping in mind that the article has to meet Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if/when it re-emerges as an article. Jeepday 02:58, 6 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This gentleman does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Salad Days 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly violates WP:BIO. Icemuon 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added references. Bishops are usually notable. --Eastmain 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Bishop are normally notable, but I am not sure of this one. There should be more to say, considering he is also an MD--degrees, schools, etc. I deprodded because the reason given on the prod was a religious slur, though undoubtedly intended as a joke.DGG 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BIO requires: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person The current references do not appear to have him as their primary subject. Also they are internal denominational publications. One would hope that, if he is notable, the regular press would have covered him. EdJohnston 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is a reelected bishop of a major international church denomination, holds a four year senior position on one of the governing organisations (GCFA) within the United Methodist Church, and as a spokesperson for the orginisation has been named in many PR from the church[4]. Also bear in mind that reports of his local exploits are not likely to appear in Google due to language differences. John Vandenberg 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Edeans 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenberg. Westenra 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable --Abu-Bakr69 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenberg, seems notable enough. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's a high-ranking bishop in a major denomination.-- danntm ^T _C 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article could use some reformating cleanup, but the guy is notable. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Contrary to the statements above unless Google returns hits regardless of language published language (unless you filter) for instance Romano Prodi Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for "Romano Prodi") while Leo a Soriano Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "Leo A. Soriano") He does not pass WP:BIO in any language. While ghits in themselves do not indicative of notability it is an indicator, and other then primary source references and mirrors of Wikipedia no indicators of notability have been provided. Jeepday

• Google is not god!! Those smart buggers can not index pages that do no exist, and have difficulty mapping PageRank to languages they do not understand (e.g. Google is known to not perform well in Russian and Chinese languages; local search companies still have the edge on them). Your Italian fellow is lucky that he lives in a country that speaks a language that is understood by Google (refer to Google Translate and SYSTRAN); Filipino and Tagalog are not (yet)[5]. Philippines is a developing country, so much of its news isnt available online, and Google doesnt index offline material (well except for books and journals). Assuming that Google indexes every page is silly; once you accept that, it follows that pages with less utility are not indexed. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral. Change vote, per discussion below from John Vanderberg. - grubber 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I've amended the article to include a number of new factoids with sources. Leo Soriano is one of three UMC bishops that represent the Philippines, and for a while he was one of only two elected; the third position was vacant. We are talking about the 12th largest country here (by population), and he is one of three people who represents a major church for that population. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm gonna play devil's advocate here... The article talks about what position he has, but not really about anything he has done. You seem to know more about this than I, so I'll ask ya: Do you believe his actions and post make him a notable person? - grubber 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have voted keep becausse I believe he is worthy of note, and if he doesnt meet WP:BIO, we should be looking at why; I suggest that the reason is due to locality, and the fact the modern press (online news and blogs) dont care about people of this ilk. To make sure there is no doubt, I have no association with this man, the UMC, any other religious body or the Philippines. I am merely concerned that a major Bishop of a notable Church is being considered for deletion when a stub for a Bishop of Chicago would not be. In my opinion, the post and the mans actions should be considered synonymous (unless their term is cut short due to controversy); he is elected to those positions by his peers and parishioners, because of his actions. The problem in this case appears to be that the actions that put him there dont appear to be readily accessible outside of the UMC publications (some of them are not directly affiliated). So do we assume that he did nothing?? Or do we WP:IAR and leave it to be expanded over time. His Resident Bishophood puts him as one of three most senior in his Church in his country and his other positions appear to put him amounst the upper management of the international UMC. I cant see how Wikipedia benefits by having this article removed. John Vandenberg 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's easier to justify he would qualify as notable on the Filipino or Tagalog wikipedias. You could argue that since English is an official language of the Philippines that he could be notable here as well. I changed my vote to err on the side of caution. Something of a tossup in my mind. - grubber 06:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, on that, I can see http://tl.wikipedia.org is Tagalog, but Filipino language doesnt have one. Hmm, it was approved by ISO in 2004, after http://tl.wikipedia.org which appears to have been around since late 2003 Archived January 31, 2004, at the Wayback Machine. John Vandenberg 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I fail to see the notablility. Can this be explained? Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the bishop looks notable to me too yuckfoo 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bishops are notable per definition. --Soman 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article with only primary source references does not imply any intentional desire to create an un-encyclopedic entry or that the sources are inaccurate. It does say the encyclopedic content of the article would be greatly improved by the addition of reference.

The three core content policies of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, In general primary sources are created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied, and so provide a good foundation for beginning to building an article. But primary sources are by definition often orginal research and due to conflict of interest concerns may not be written from a neutral point of view.

The addition of Secondary sources which are usually based on primary sources and other secondary sources by a third party who is not connected to the source, provides for a more neutral point of view and being based on the combined research of others would not be orginal research. Here you see that the addition of secondary sources assists the editor to write (and readers to verify) an article that meets all three core content policies of Wikipedia.

Additionally, an article must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for it to remain on Wikipedia. One of the Rationale for requiring a level of notability is that a in order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. Everyday Multiple articles are proposed and considered for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy an article that is not clearly notable is not likely to survive the deletion process. Keeping in mind that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ignore your ((primarysources)) tag, but you have baited me, so I contest it. John Vandenberg 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you consider Newscope[6] to be a primary, secondary or third-party source? [7]
• Do you consider UMC "United Methodist News Service" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [8]
• Do you consider "Asedillo is a freelance writer and United Methodist deaconess who resides in Baltimore" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [9]

In my opinion; anything related to "Microsoft" that is published by "Microsoft" is a primary source document, even if it is not directly published by Microsoft but there is a connection it raises issues Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit — 'Microsoft landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles.' the same would apply to "United Methodist" Jeepday 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Newscope is not published by UMC, and UMC does not have the reputation for shilling. Please check each of those sources and assess whether they are a primary source or not. Also, in light of the other references that are now on the article, is ((primarysources)) still necessary? John Vandenberg 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Paste from http://www.umph.org/resources/publications/newscope/newscope_default.html Welcome to Newscope! - This is a concise, late-deadline weekly update on news of interest to United Methodist leaders. We provide up-to-the-minute reports on United Methodist Church news and other happenings of interest to United Methodists. Published by The United Methodist Publishing House, our four-page print publication is available by first-class mail ($28.00/year), periodical-class mail ($22.00/year) or, for fastest delivery, e-mail ($16/year). Jeepday 23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that The United Methodist Publishing House is the same as the organisation the runs the Uniting Methodist Church ? Could you elaborate. I'll happily eat my hat you you can prove that they are the same body, or have strong ties. Otherwise, the common element in the name would also mean that The New York Times would also need to be considered a primary source for any matter relating to New York. John Vandenberg 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While non-christians might not get it, bishops are usually notable as politicians are. The article itself has numerous assertions of notability, so that is not really the issue. As for verifiability, well the internet is western-centric when it comes to news, so just because he doesn't have that many "Google hits" mean he isn't in the news. What needs to be done is to find more appropriate references using local newspapers/tv news/etc. Shrumster 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the issue for me is that there's not much about what he's actually done, rather just what positions he's held. If the article talked about how he was instrumental in doing such and such or founded the thingy, then I dont think there would be much of an issue. As it is, it's a somewhat passive article. - grubber 14:41, 6 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. Note that the page Azure Solutions was also speedy deleted per WP:CORP as a result of this AfD as these two pages only referered to each other. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No establishment of notability per WP:CORP. Also a WP:RS failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom, and it reads like a biography. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. on camera 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per db-corp. Not seeing assertion of notability anywhere. JuJube 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:CORP; where's assertion of notablility? Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:51, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly non-notable adavidw 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "possibly non-notable"?! Very non-notable, as Google search will show. Fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MER-C. Edeans 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. riana_dzasta 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist. Sfacets 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable --JavazXT 11:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:52, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of clinics in japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR. Also, none of the hospitals listed are in Wikipedia. Saligron 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and encourage contributors to see about listing at Wikitravel or something along those lines (I know transwiki isn't an option, which is why I'm not advocating it). I can see the purpose of having such a listing, but it's not encyclopedic as such. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hospitalcruft? The fact that none of the clinics listed have articles at Wikipedia pretty much negates any usefulness this list would have. The suggestion that the "English-speaking community in Japan may benefit from this listing" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a directory. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Which reminds me... MER-C 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a complete waste of space. Doesn't seem useful, not to mention it's lack of sources and research. Looks like it was basically slapped together in a few minutes. Ganfon 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has virtually no content. And none of the content it does have is worthwhile. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is hardly a directory as it provides no contact information whatsoever to any of the clinics it lists. I can see this being potentially a useful list, but it needs to have at least SOME blue links in it before I'll vote keep. Jcuk 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is hardly a directory as it provides no contact information whatsoever... Which make is a worthless directory, but still a directory. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and indiscriminate info Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has no place on Wikipedia - and I'm one of the "English-speaking community in Japan" that this list is supposed to benefit! (I go to the hospital in Okinawa that's on this list.) — CJewell (talk to me) 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely worthless now (and I speak as a potential user and past customer of two of the listed clinics), and a mere directory if filled out. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable Wooyi 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or just redirect to Warriors (book series). Not independently notable. —Celithemis 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. No assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Slugger9066 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since the books themselves are highly notable and famous, I don't think that there is necessarily a good WP:N case against having an article about a character from the series. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks ?" test. WMMartin 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Warriors characters. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 15:08, 8 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. Copyvio. Teke ^(talk) 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable adavidw 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - copyvio from [10]. So tagged. MER-C 02:16, 3 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. Copyvio. Teke ^(talk) 02:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable performer adavidw 01:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - copyvio from [11]. So tagged. MER-C 02:16, 3 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character. Corresponding article on uber-Star-Trek-site Memory Alpha has scant content. Ditto for licensed Star Trek encyclopedia. EEMeltonIV 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Memory Alpha is mostly canon, and the Star Trek encyclopedia is canon-only. This character is notable because of his accomplishments in non-canon literature. TenaciousT 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case, he should not be here. Please see WP:FICT. --Dennisthe2 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Save - Jesus EEMeltonIV Who died and made you Wiki God? Drearwig 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drearwig, please observe WP:CIVIL. Personal attacks are out of line. Any user may nominate any article for deletion if they have a valid rationale.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero real world significance. Merely a plot summary. Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. MER-C 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...is the superior... Otto4711 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SAVE - I vote to save, for the following reasons:

• The character has a significant role in the TOS episode "Space Seed," which was the foundation for TWOK.
  
• Many film scholars have stated that TWOK is an allegory for Moby Dick, with Khan being Ahab. This being the case, Joachim is very much Khan's Starbuck; loyal, but questioning Khan's actins and motives. He is more than a mere "button-pusher." He is Khan's right-hand man.
  
• In non-canon Star Trek books, Joachim is a major character, especially in the Eugenics Wars and books about life on Ceti Alpha V. Yes, it's non-canon but many readers of these Star Trek books would come to this Wikipedia page to read a biography of the character.
  
• The point was made that if Michael Eddington doesn't have his own page, Joachim shouldn't either. Well, I think Eddington should have his own page! He deserves it just as much as Joachim.
  
• The rumors that Joachim plays a major role in Star Trek XI. As time goes on, people will want to know who this guy is and this article will help refresh their memories.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenaciousT (talk • contribs)

• • Please note that rumors he might be in a movie are crystal-ballery. Claims regarding another article fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in other words, are not a valid rationale either way.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Note that this guy does appear in both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, plus a gazillion books. Certain media franchises, such as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Simpsons, extend notability to even relatively minor characters and subjects therein. The article author hasn't provided WP:Verifiable sources to establish WP:Notability and therefore will probably lose this debate. Unfortunate, since for this character they certainly exist. Also, this editor doesn't seem to really understand "Wikipedia culture" and that won't help. - Shaundakulbara 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Add WP:Verifiable Sources & Keep -- if not: Delete - This article is a notable one that should be included, in my opinion, but all articles need to have verified sources. (For some reason the phrase "Verify or Die!" comes to mind. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. 80% of this article is a recounting of the plot of TWOK. Some of the rest is speculation or uninteresting fleshing out, for a character with relatively small screen time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT, and note that my mind can be changed. Please, find reliable and verifiable information for notability, and adhere the WP:FICT link as well. Note, he was indeed a secondary character - and they tend to lean toward unnotability. --Dennisthe2 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm going to go for a precedent set by Alien (film), and suggest that we Merge this and relevant articles into one article, with appropriate redirects. --Dennisthe2 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are less notable Trek characters with their own articles, and Joachim is a major character in ST II (which, as a primary source, should satisfy WP:V, along with Space Seed. 23skidoo 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? If other non-notable stuff exists, feel free to get rid of it, or ask me to do it. MER-C 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want a treasure trove of non-notability, the List of garage rock bands will keep you busy! -Shaundakulbara 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the existence of other data on Wikipedia that is otherwise not for Wikipedia does not mean that it should exist. --Dennisthe2 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a major character. If he wasn't in it, the film would be the same. He changes nothing, and only provides dialogue to show Khan's thinking. Totnesmartin 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 23skidoo--IRelayer 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability and indepented sources as already voted on the original discussion. In the film STWK, the main source for the current article, Joachim's part is actaully listed as not credited. (Personally I actually saw the film two days ago and did not even remember Joachim's name and was completely surprised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim referred to him.) BTW, Starbuck (Moby-Dick) is, of course no page but a redirect to Moby-Dick. Tikiwont 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirm also with respect to added sources, since the main point is NN. Tikiwont 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - this character no life outside Khan's activities, except at the end of the film. Not notable enough for an article. Comment What are these "gazillions of books" that he's in? Why aren't they in the article, and is he more than a spare part in them? Totnesmartin 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an easy answer for the question you pose (why aren't the books that he's in cited in the article?). It is because I wrote the bulk of this article Thursday 2/1 and it was marked for deletion not even a day later. I knew it wasn't perfect and had a lot of work to be done, but I decided to put it up in an imperfect state and let the Wikipedia community help the article evolve and grow. It never had a chance to do that. There's volumes written about this guy but I don't see anyone spending effort and time fixing this article when it looks like it's just going to be deleted, just days after it was put up. I'm not taking it personally at all that this was tagged, but I do think it goes against the Wikipedia sense of community to afd something before other people have a chance to let the article evolve. TenaciousT 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some things get AfD'd for starting as stubs. I once had an article (Sulk) deleted without even a debate because of that. However, if you wrote it a month ago you've had plenty of time to add to it. Totnesmartin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I wrote it on Feb 1 - two days ago. TenaciousT 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, British and American dating systems... apologies. In two days you have fair grounds to gripe. I would too. Totnesmartin 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

supplemental having read the extra material, I'm not impressed. His film and TV role still isn't big enough to keep the article - it's not how much you describe him, it's how important he is - and he isn't really. He's also mentioned as a book character, but what he does in the books isn't stated. Is he a major character in anything? That is, does he change anything? Would the book have a different ending, or even have been written, if there were no Joachim? These questions need to be addressed. Totnesmartin 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Unreferenced article that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as merely a plot summery of the character's action with no context or sourced analysis. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no evidence in the article that this extremely minor character satisfies the requirements of WP:FICT. Delete. Or should I say, "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee... For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..." --Charlene 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I frequent Memory Alpha for my Star Trek fix, but I just watched The Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan so I thought I'd pipe in. The character is very notable when you take it in the context of the movie AND the TV show. If one watches the Extended Director's Cut of TWOK along with the audio commentary and bonus features, you see the intent of the creators' to make a strong Joachim character. (The actor is uncredited because his agent screwed-up. He was supposed to have top billing!) This article can be cited, verified and cleaned up, but it will take time. To paraphrase Khan, time is a luxury this article doesn't have. Having said that, I think it's a shame this article was AfD'd the same day it was created. I agree with the author, TenaciousT, that it never had a chance for peer review. Some of Wikipedia's best articles started out as uncited, unverified, POV crap but through a long process, they get better. I say we give this article a chance, or move it to Memory Alpha. Loki44 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficiently notable character that does not warrant its own article. Doczilla 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, OR-based, and supported only by highly dubious keep arguments.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable character from notable movie. TonyTheTiger 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Keep. seems notable enough; if it was a stub I'd say delete, but there's substantial info there. - Grubber 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm impressed with the amount of change this page has gone through. I think it's a real article now. I've changed my vote to strong keep. - grubber 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable character, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Transwiki to Memory Alpha Could perhaps improve the article on MA Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't even meet WP:FICT, and those guidelines are pretty loose as it is. GassyGuy 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE NOTE: Many verifiable references have just been added to this article to establish notability. Please judge this article by its new condition, not its old. A relist for purposes of generation new discussion might be appropriate. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just took another look. My !vote, for one, stands at "merge and redirect" (above) on account of WP:FICT. Whether the character is to appear in an impending Trek film is, at this time, what I like to refer to as crystalballery, and from what I can tell, whether some of the stories he is in really are canon is highly debateable. Above, it's noted that, outside of canon, he really is notable - but here in WP, that straddles the line on fanfiction, if not actually crossing the line. See the WP:FICT link on why fanfic is specifically excluded. The agent's mistake for the billing is debateable, but I am making my decision and excluding that - because I don't have the DVD on hand. Here's the clincher that will change my mind: if there is clear cut evidence that he will, indeed, be a notable part of any upcoming movie, and that movie has crossed the line out of being crystalballery, then he gets an article. Until then, my stance is that he should be listed in an article that catalogs secondary (and maybe tertiary) Trek characters. --Dennisthe2 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References do not overcome the problem that this is a minor character who only appeared in one episode and one film. Should not have his own article, most of which merely rehashes the plot of TWOK. By all means merge to a suitable list of minor characters, but the present article is unnecessary. WJBscribe 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After looking it over again, reaffirm delete for lack of notability. Verifiability does not create notability. (And the "mostly canon" remark sure didn't help. "Mostly canon" means insufficiently encyclopedic.)Doczilla 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re:Cannon - Whether or not something is Star Trek Canon is an issue for Paramount Pictures. Canonality (?) is a requirement for the Memory Alpha Wiki...I see no evidence that non-canon sources are not WP:V sources for Wikipedia purposes. Shaundakulbara 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rework - I think the character is notable, if only for being Khan's chief henchman. The article, OTOH, reads like a loosely-tied together collection of trivia. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not clearly established. We're an encyclopedia, not Memory Alpha. WMMartin 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• readers of this AFD may be interested to note that in Cox's novels, the "Space Seed" character is the father of the character in The Wrath of Khan. The article makes no mention of this, and has an overlong in-universe biography that joins up these two characters without even a mention of the issue that some sources claim they are two different characters. (what sources claim that they are one and the same, anyone?). Morwen - Talk 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Okuda in the text commentary on the DVD version of TWOK Extended Director's Cut specifically states that the Space Seed character and the movie character are the same person and the misspelling is a production error. In the movie, Khan also says These people have sworn to live and die at my command two-hundred years before you were born implying that his henchmen were with him on Earth in the 1990's. The timeline is also established in the movie that the crew of the Botany Bay were stranded on Ceti Alpha V for 15 years, making Joachim an offspring of the crew very unlikely.TenaciousT 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Okuda's expanation is mentioned and cited in the article. They definately are the same character - that's canon. Cox's books apparently suck (tons of bad reviews on Amazon.com, and no, suckiness does not affect notability!). The article can definately mention that Cox makes Joachim Khan's dad if we can reference that (I don't have the novel). The fact that this character was given a different relationship to Khan in some non-canon sources seems like the sort of thing the article would be useful for explaining. I am cutting the summary waaaaaay back as it currently obscures Joachim's major part in the plot of Star Trek II, i.e. Joachim's refusal to cooperate with Khan's megalomania results in Kirk's victory. Shaundakulbara 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point. I have the Cox books here and I'm planning on going through them today. I also watched the TWOK bonus features off the DVD last night and there a lot more references I can cite from my notes. I'm looking at the article from a different angle; what would have changed if Joachim has not been in the movie?TenaciousT 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As Khan's "Spock", Joachim's character seem to have several functions. He shows the loyalty of Khan's followers but also demonstrates that this loyalty is a sensible one and doesn't extend to blind obedience. Joachim's ability to pilot the Reliant with no training enables them to escape exile. Joachim's later refusal to pilot the Reliant leads to Kirks victory. He's not so minor a character that he's not Wik-worthy. I've chopped down the article into about 1/3rd of its original length by removing unneeded summary. What's left is still an awful lot to merge. I know this guy is notable enough because my bf isn't a huge Trek fan but when I asked him if he knew who Joachim is in Star Trek he said "is that Khan's henchdude?" (that is an anecdote, I am NOT basing my claims of notability on that! Jeepers.) Shaundakulbara 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, excellent work. You really cleaned it up.TenaciousT 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaundakulbara, I caught myself up on the Cox books. Where do you think I should put this stuff? I can put it under "Description" or create a new section called "Non-canon."TenaciousT 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There may be misconception that minor characters should NEVER have their own articles. Note the following from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Noonien Soong is a minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." Shaundakulbara 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: Fancruft, as it says at Wikipedia:Fancruft, "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith...As with most of the issues of notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects...It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Shaundakulbara 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can also be used with reference to articles that are unencyclopedic and the result of an overly enthusiastic fan seeding WP with nn articles about their favourite subject, as in this case. Delete Eusebeus 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eusebeus, your message seems a deliberately impolite response to citation of guidelines about civility and good faith. People have spent time and effort on this article and are making intelligent arguments to keep it. Right or wrong, these editors deserve the same respect as any others. Thank you. --House of Scandal 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm probably biased, as a viewer of The Phoenix (apparently one of very few), but I think some deleters have oversold how "extremely minor" Joachim is. He is, as Shaunda has said, "Khan's Spock," with lines and screentime. Everyone who saw the movie remembers his death scene - even some of the people commenting on how NN he is have quoted from it! I also agree that the excessive rambling of the original article about the overall plot rather than Joachim's specific role, had the ironic effect of diluting his claim to notability by making him seem like a bystander carried along by general events. The reworked article is much better, and allows me to upgrade from the weak keep I originally planned to cast. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The comment immediately above this mirrors my own thoughts. Many of the Delete opinions were given when the article was in poor shape. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) gives an example of a "minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek...who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." This falls in exactly the same category and few with knowledge of the corpus of the Star Trek universe would make a contrary appraisal. Many of the early arguements against the article (crystal ballism, just a summary, etc.) no longer apply. As the good parts of this article have been very much expanded and the overly-long summary is reduced into an excellent new form, perhaps it is appropriate to give this a fresh debate? --House of Scandal 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment although I'll stick with my weak delete for now, I think the only barrier to keeping the article is the lack of information from the novels. If that part can be expanded to show him playing a major role, then it should survive. This article therefore needs more time. And, btw, does canonicity really matter here? Totnesmartin 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Canonicity is a non-issue here, it's an issue only over at Memory Alpha as they have a special relationship with Paramount Pictures. Shaundakulbara 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced using reliable publications. Addhoc 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still going with Delete even after the rewrites. The character is simply not significant enough under WP:FICT to warrant a separate article. Find an appropriate list of ST characters article and put him there but delete this. Otto4711 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question - Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character? --EEMeltonIV 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article details how Joachim's skill enables the augments to hijack the Reliant and how the loss of Joachim's loyalty at a critical juncture leads to Khan's defeat. Shaundakulbara 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character?" - emphasis added. --EEMeltonIV 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a silly request. We don't need an essay about how The Wizard of Oz would be different without the Tin Woodman to know he is part of the story. If someone were to write such as essay about Joachim they would say his death was Khan's motive for detonating the Genesis Device, an act of murder/suicide which killed both Khan and Spock. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep — I'm vehemently purist in most cases relating to the canon but this article is good enough in my opinion to be kept. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The character seems notable for Wikipedia. If necessary, maybe the sources could be improved to help keep this article in Wikipedia. Acalamari 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If one-off characters like Harry Mudd warrant a wiki article, than a character that has appeared in an original series episode, a film, and a book is fitting for an article as well. Seems to be a decent amount of info on the page, written well. No reason to delete. Tarc 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mudd, however, had two episodes center on him; the same cannot be said of the subject of the article up for deletion. --EEMeltonIV 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eston, my curiosity in your recent activities has brought me to this article that you have marked for deletion. I must say, I’m not surprised that you’ve managed to bring your elitist tendencies to web 2.0. Like the way you instruct your students, if they don’t fit your mold you toss them away with the trash. Even a well written article like this one isn’t worthy in your book. What will it take for you to learn that by telling people that their work isn’t worth publication you’re pushing potential Wikipedians to the fringes. Your personal page marks how many times you’ve been vandalized, I wish there was a way to track how many people you’ve single handedly turned into vandals. This is a Strong Keep and I urge my fellow alumni to vote the same. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.PiKA4EvA 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re Mudd. How is that even a logical argument? Two episodes isn't comparable to one episode and one motion picture? Tarc 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per TenaciousT's comment to nom, and because the article appears to be a casebook example of WP:OR in action. "Like Khan, Johachim was very intelligent, but lacked experience operating a starship. Presumably, Joachim's failure to find the override caused the Reliant to be severely damaged, and ultimately, cost him his life." That kind of statement can't be derived from a primary source. What's left after the original research goes is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE plot summary material, so there's no "here" here to fix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Your comment is actually based on the "old" article, because it was briefly reverted to its old state as part of a botched attempt at fixing a move debacle. I've just changed it back to the "new" version, that cleans up the WP:OR. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative. Thanks for pointing that out to me. This article seems like a perfectly good example of how to write about fictional characters. Keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: off-screen- I have added specifics about Joachim's appearance in the novels and went into more detail about how he was represented in 2 different Star Trek games. The novels and the games now have their own headings at the end where they seem to belong. BTW, before someone claims otherwise, the fact that Joachim is treated differently in Cox's novels does not decrease his notability, it increases the amount of encyclopedic information to present and explain. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 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:CORP. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable hard sell direct sales organisation that appears to have written the article themselves and are thus using Wikipedia as part of their marketing. Article contains no external references or links to it. Pretty blatant spam. Phaedrus86 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Reads like an ad. Icemuon
• Comment. If there are problems with the company or its sales practices, wouldn't it be better to discuss those sales practices in the article rather than delete it? --Eastmain 02:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nope. Far better to delete all spam. Edeans 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP appears to have WP:COI issues as well Special:Contributions/Virgil06 single article editing history over 6 months. Jeepday 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like spam/ad Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:57, 4 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 as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boxer who had 5 professional fights against nobodies [12]. Also a boxing trainer. The content of the article is verifiable because I believe boxrec.com is a fairly reliable source, but there's just nothing really to say beyond "this guy is a boxer". Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is nothing special ("article-worthy") about this guy. →EdGl 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Turgidson 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly referenced and sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources indicate passing WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:25, 3 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 kinetic art, then redirect to hand grenade. I think that there should be somethign mentioned abotu stick grenades in the hand grenade article though so that the redirect makes sense.--Wizardman 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable kids gadgetry, if it's popular, it probably has some other name. Looks like self-promotion by the guy from the external links. — Kieff | Talk 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Its other name is "stick grenade", as documented on pages 402–403 of ISBN 0807120111, which documents 7 different types of this grenade. Further information can be found on page 56 of ISBN 1855322889, and page 115 of ISBN 1574887602, where it is documented that Allied troops nicknamed one of these types the "potato masher". Fixing this article involves nothing more than editors using sources, such as the aforementioned books, to correct the article, and renaming it to a better title. None of that involves an administrator hitting a delete button, and can be done by ordinary editors using ordinary editing tools. I strongly urge editors to do the research before nominating articles for deletion, and before contributing to AFD discussions. It took me 1 minute to put "Stielhandgranate" into Google Books. Keep. Uncle G 11:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article is about some childrens game with popsicle sticks, not the hand grenades! (have you even read the article?) That's why I'm nominating it for deletion. If it was clearly about stick grenades I'd have just redirected. If it is some notable toy, the article should be renamed to a better title and rewritten with some sources. If not, we could just redirect it to stick grenade and forget about it. — Kieff | Talk 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I've read the article! How do you think I knew to search for "Stielhandgranate"? The article tells us in its second sentence that it is about the hand grenades.

      Now consider what you've just written. The two ways to solve the problem with this article that you yourself have come up with are either (a) to edit it into a redirect or (b) to rename and to edit it using sources. Neither of those courses of action involve an administrator hitting a delete button, and both can be done by ordinary editors using the ordinary editing tools that they have at their disposal. Don't nominate things for deletion where you don't actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. That is not what Articles for deletion is for. If you are unsure about sources, ((unreferenced)) is the correct tag (and looking for sources yourself is the correct action). Excising any unverifiable material and leaving the rest, if you were (say) to find that there are no sources about the art works, is also an ordinary editorial action that doesn't involve AFD. If you want a rewrite, ((cleanup-rewrite)) is the correct tag. If you want to open discussion of a merger, as editors are already discussing with the several other articles that deal with stick grenades, then ((mergeto)) was the correct tag, and joining in the existing discussions the correct action. If you want to open a discussion of what name the article should properly have, its talk page is the place. ((afd1)) was not the correct tag for any of the actions to fix the article that you envision being taken. Uncle G 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 2: check this video of what a stick bomb is and how to make one. — Kieff | Talk 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stick grenades, that seems to be the more popular name.--UsaSatsui 11:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I'm a dumbass, I just read the first paragraph. Still, my vote stands. --UsaSatsui 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only reason I would keep this article is if it was expanded enough to compare to Jacks. Otherwise, some of it could be merged into Popsicle, and the rest redirected to Stick grenades. Mdwyer 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kinetic art. The video of Tim Fort's long lasting train of released energy devices is priceless and inludes scads of stick bombs. I especially enjoyed how Fort animated the first motion picture on a strip of film, Fred Ott's sneeze. Edison 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the relevant parts to Kinetic art, then redirect to Stick grenade. The anecdotal children's game stuff is unsourced and not worth keeping. Sandstein 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Popscicle stick bomb, since the present "stick bomb" title unfortunately conflates with the WWII hand grenade. The topic is notable beyond the Tim Fort art device; an element of Children's street culture, a traditional child-invented amusement analogous to the entry for Gleeking. In my own experience, this traditional toy goes back at least forty years. --Wjbeaty 08:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kinetic art and switch the redirect to Hand grenade after merge per Edison and Sandstein. Note that Stick grenade is a double-redirect, and that there were more than one sort of stick grenades, so that a redirect to Hand grenade is less myopic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Angusmclellan and User:Sandstein. Some of the material regarding kinetic art and the children's game could be kept somewhere if written properly, redirect to hand grenade.Mdcollins1984 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of the simple stick bomb has been added to Popsicle for clarity. --Zeizmic 20:00, 10 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete utterly fails WP:BIO. Borderline speedy material(no context). i kan reed 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Turgidson 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible hoax, definately non-notable. Edeans 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO Jeepday 23:03, 3 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 per uncontroversial consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass: The Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-existent game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because it hasn't been released yet doesn't make it non-existent. Has a ton of Google results, and also was mentioned at E3. Ganfon 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The game is under development, but not a whole lot is available for the game at this time other than a few reviews of the previews. Not only does WP:CRYSTAL apply, but WP:SOFTWARE as well - and the problem with games in development is that until it's released or has an impending release, it should be considered vaporware. Unless a firm release date comes off, my !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Keep, after reviewing discussion. Did not realize the precedent here. Is now a good time to call WP:SNOW? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, was announced and shown at E3. That was pretty good notability. A game doesn't even need to be released (or even have a release date!) to be in wikipedia, take a look at Duke Nukem Forever. That is an article with the potential to be a featured article, though obviously in this case it wouldn't be happening before it is released... Either way, keep. Mathmo ^Talk 10:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• lol, just found out Duke Nukem Forever was put on AfD a couple of months ago because it didn't have a release date! So funny how far people can try to take this, it was a speed keep as it should be. No surprises there. Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of stuff is announced at E3 that never materializes. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point you are trying to make doesn't matter, we can already clearly see that the fact that something is not currently being sold is not a good enough reason on its own for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. Saying a game that hasn't been released yet isn't notable is just silly...if it vapors up, it can be deleted later, and there's a lot of notable vaporware out there anyways (such as, oh, Duke Nukem Forever). Even games with release dates sometimes never get released. For the record, I found a release date: 03/14/2007. --UsaSatsui 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where do you see these sources? Certainly not in the article. And you're right that having a release date means nothing. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources? Easy as [13] [14][15]. I'm not counting the web forum or the company page, but those 3 are third-party. --UsaSatsui 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of those (#2 and #3) are the same article posted on separate sites. And none of them establishes notability. Valrith 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Multiple sources print the same article all the time. And according to WP:SOFTWARE, the product needs to be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)". That's what they have. What further proof of notability would you like? --UsaSatsui 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep notability asserted. Has been displayed at E3. Definitely a keep. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though not referenced, the sources needed for the article to pass WP:SOFTWARE existed in the article days before it was listed for AFD, under External Links. I fail to see the problem. QuagmireDog 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs a lot of work, yes, but I brought it up to the standards of WP:SOFTWARE a while before this AfD was even processed. It's verifiable and notable by any standard you'd care to put it to. While some might be tempted to make the argument that the game wouldn't recieve as much coverage without the Jackass brand name on the cover, the fact of the matter is that due to this brand recognition the game is going to recieve a fair amount of attention almost by default. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think we can WP:SNOW this one, guys. Or more correctly, I'd prefer if we did not. Valrith has a history with this article and seems to be determined to take it down, and I'd prefer if it were to go through the full AfD process right now. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:01, 5 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 Speedied. Sarah 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-i-C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable band adavidw 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has already been deleted and is being recreated. I will put a speedy tag on it. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy Deleted this page without any consideration. the page falls under all of the rules wikipedia states. rockgod89 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish guy didn't delete it. I did. You say you want to work on the page to "make it fit the criteria". The mainspace isn't the place to do this. Sarah 01:39, 3 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cb the great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Foreign fictional book" that gets 0 relevant Google hits [16]. Either totally non-notable, or a lengthy yarn spun by none other than the page creator himself/herself (whose username is the same as the alleged author). Flyingtoaster1337 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without verification because it seems quite hoaxy. i kan reed 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aove. MER-C 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is this a hoax, this sounds distinctively of something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unverified likely hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 21:28, 3 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 speedied Opabinia regalis 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable metal band -- adavidw 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete if the article is correct then it will pass WP:BAND in a few months, but wikipedia isn't a crystal ball i kan reed 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - an upcoming album is not an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:27, 3 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 significantly improved version. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Stavoren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Either a fairy tale or an essay, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Magichands 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete patent nonsense. i kan reed 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - obvious WP:NFT material. MER-C 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a blog is perhaps a more appropriate place for this. Westenra 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the story is a well-known Dutch legend (see Het Vrouwtje van Stavoren) but the article is unacceptable in current form. - Jvhertum 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have done some cleanup of my own and am changing my vote to keep. - Jvhertum 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for cleanup. Apparently this is a genuine folktale or regional myth. It does need to have some context added, but per Jvhertum, it is real, and this text is not useless for someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have attempted to improve the article, adding a paragraph of context, a couple references, linked to the Dutch Wikipedia, and related the tale to the Ring of Polycrates from Herodotus. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Those seeking to clean it up should seek reliable, cited sources, which the "article" in its current form is most certainly not. - Chardish 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As this appears to be a real legend and not nonsense, the article should not be speedily deleted. If it's not improved by the end of the AfD process, then Delete. --Charlene 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I searched for, found, and added significant references including Cornell University, and the BBC. While the Ghits are low for the article they are notable and wide spread.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)
• Keep This appears to be a well know folk tale, and with the new references it meets WP:RS and WP:N. Edison 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per article improvements. Thank you for your efforts, Your Holiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, check the Dutch article linked; even if you can't read Dutch, this folk legend is well-known enough to warrant a statue. >Radiant< 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice cleanup work! This is a much better article, and I now agree we should keep it. Magichands 18:10, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of Reverse Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prod'd the article because the only "reference" refering to an actual verifiable article does not mention the subject of this article, thus it had verifiability concerns. Overall, a non-notable web-based organization (would not pass WP:WEB. Prod was removed without explanation i kan reed 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was not able to verify notability on Ghits, did find a number of hits with the phrase as part of a sentence but nothing found supporting the articles assertions. Jeepday 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A google search gave ~700 results, and many of those were for the simple phrase "the challenge of reverse engineering". Does not appear to be notable. - grubber 01:06, 4 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 Patrick Flanagan. (A.k.a. I redirect it, someone who cares merges the material from the history.) - brenneman 01:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No valid sources, subject is not notable, article has not been improved since the last AfD, the primary editor appears to have left Wikipedia. This device falls into the same category as perpetual motion devices, except less likely to work, and without the same knowledge of scientific principles as those employ. Also, there have been famous attempts at creating perpetual motion devices. Tenebrous 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether a device is likely to work has no bearing on the "delete-ability" of its article (cold fusion, anyone?). The key questions are: does the article cite sources; is it verifiable? (NPOV can be introduced via cleanup once citations and verifiability are given.) I see a link to the relevant patent which means someone did patent such a device. "LIFE Magazine, Sept 14, 1962" is also cited as a source so the existance of this device (working or not) can be verified from reliable independent sources. I can't see the relevance of the 1991 research paper section to the rest of the article, but it too is backed up by a reference to Science magazine. Hence keep because the article has at least two sources cited. Flyingtoaster1337 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine articles aren't generally reliable sources. The Science article has nothing to do with the device, it's only a stab at proving that the principles behind it are sound. That someone has patented something is in itself meaningless. People have patented lossless compression algorithms that compress all data to a given size, but it doesn't mean those exist either. Tenebrous 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the device also fails under notability. The creator of the device is notorious as a crank, but more notoriously crank-y for other things, and he does not have an article on Wikipedia either. Tenebrous 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Magazine articles aren't generally reliable sources..." - says who?

"The Science article has nothing to do with the device..." - I acknowledged that in my previous comment, when I said, "I can't see the relevance of the 1991 research paper section to the rest of the article". In other words, the section based on that report doesn't fit in with the description preceding it.

"Further, the device also fails under notability..." - repeating the same unsubstantiated claim multiple times will not get you anywhere. Besides the prior mention in LIFE magazine which you seem so eager to dismiss, there's this 1996 article in The Anchorage Press, written by its editor-in-chief. It describes the device as not having been tested by conventional science. We have here at least two non-biased, mainstream sources which mention the neurophone in detail. There are lots of patents for weird things that aren't operable or implementable, sure, but I'm also sure that not many of these failures get as much mention as a magazine write-up and a dedicated newspaper article. Those that do would be notable, no?

All in all your reply serves to confuse your reason for nomination even further. If the device is really non-notable, why do you add that "its creator is notorious as a crank"? If someone is notorious, it implies they are notable, not that they aren't (see the Wiktionary definition if you're unsure). By the way, it's not true that the device's inventor has no article. Flyingtoaster1337 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see that Mr. Flanagan has an article on wikipedia, but clearly I was mistaken there. I still do not accept either of those sources as being good enough to base an article on; The Anchorage Press is unheard-of even in Alaska and does not carry a reputation for good journalism. I see that WP:RS has been lengthened since last I read it, but I still see no reason why minor articles in either of these publications should be treated as works upholding the scholarly standards of what purports to be an encyclopedia. Is it really so confusing to you that the person responsible for creating this can be more well known than the device itself? And I would not consider him notable in a wider sense, either; perhaps a tiny fraction of the United States population has heard of him, and very few others in the world. Further, I see that this device is mentioned in Mr. Flanagan's biography, and given there a few sensibly short lines. Given that the information in this article is duplicated elsewhere, save what is wholly speculative, why do you feel that this article must be retained? Especially when the only other article that references it is---guess what?---Patrick Flanagan. Tenebrous 13:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am disappointed to see that Mr. Flanagan has an article..." WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't decide what gets deleted or kept around this site. Just as "I like it" is not a valid reason for keeping an article, "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deleting one.

"I still don't see why minor articles in either of these publications..." - can you tell us where the division of minor/non-minor articles comes from? Last I read WP:N the distinction was not there. All that's required is that the source be independent of the originator(s) of the device/idea.

"perhaps a tiny fraction of the United States population has heard of him, and very few others in the world..." - I guess you came up with that conclusion after a survey of the U.S. populace?

"why do you feel that this article must be retained?" - I don't. I'm not very kind to fringe science articles, but I'm not very kind to fluffy deletion rationales - ones that require tortured interpretations of WP:RS, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT - either. Flyingtoaster1337 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I think a good Wikipedia article on a pseudoscientific concept is important. If Wikipedia doesn't have an article then the only sources are all the web sites touting it as a device that others are trying to repress. It seems to have enough references, and saying that LIFE magazine is not reliable is disingenuous. Perpetual motion has an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or , just possibly, merge into the article for the inventor--That article is so full of unsourced statements and wild claims that this material will actually move it a small distance in the general direction of verifiability. What evidence is there for the notability of the invention--not the boy who invented it, but the invention itself?. Most patents are for devices never actually realized, and do not show notability by themselves. There is zero evidence that any products were actually produced--the Life photograph shows him holding what might be a model, but does not say what it is. If something never existed, the claim can be notable either as an idea or a hoax or a presumed fraud, but the object cannot be N as there is no object. WP is not a crystal ball.

The Science paper though cited is totally irrelevant, as it was not about the device, and even the article here makes no such claim. The website phisciences is a personal website. The website neurophone.com is a non-independent website. Worldtrans is the very model of an unreliable site, including dreams as well as ideas, to quote themselves. The Life reporter should have been ashamed of himself, but that does count as a source that is often reliable; however, what was notable to him was the youth of the inventor, not the object. Ditto for the older of the newspaper stories. Calling this nonsense RS would show technicality trumping common sense. To meet the technicalities, I assert that local newspaper stories on scientific topics except by well-regarded science correspondents are inherently unreliable. If it is kept, the article certainly needs NPOV. Unfortunately, from the edit history, this was recognized earlier, but every effort to remove the personal sites etc or to call them what they were failed. NN self-delusion. if major news sources wrote about it , then it would be a N self-delusion.

cold fusion, a much more notable example of nonsense, had very much wider publicity and was notable on that account.

perpetual motion has been talked about in numerous sources for centuries. It is much more widely known, and thus N. DGG 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Patrick Flanagan - maybe the redirect will avoid yet another discussion on this topic. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Patrick Flanagan - Cannot see much notability independent of its inventor. Edeans 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Patrick Flanagan this is a short article and the in the inventor article is short, put them together. Jeepday 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeto the article on the inventor. As for it being impossible, or nonsense, or pseudoscience, I disagree. There is no evidence that it produces sound in the subject, but the Science article says that external ultrasonic audio signals can pruduce such souond sensations in the profoundly deaf, and early telephone research showed that electrical currents at audible frequencies could be heard, by mechanisms that are not clearly understood. High frequency electrical signals could produce mechanical vibrations at the same frequencies, which could be then heard by the same mechanisms as in the science article. Edison 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, merge to Patrick Flanagan. Would be better incorporated there as length of article unlikely to grow independent of the inventor. Mdcollins1984 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, in order to end this argument over its notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Merge to Patrick Flanagan. People are unlikely to come looking for the device, but the inventor seems to be notable as a crank. He hasn't died yet, so he just might be immortal . . . -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:25, 10 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 because Cupboard aquarium baseball said so. Note that although it was not included in this AfD, the article List of common Persian surnames has been speedy deleted also based on this AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Persian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Persian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". Shrumster 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except in Japan, where "cupboard", "aquarium" and "baseball" aren't on the Jinmeiyo kanji list! ;) Seriously, I would totally support something like that in the Western world, to stop people naming their kids ridiculous things... --Candy-Panda 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edeans 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  07:32, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Hungarian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". Shrumster 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edeans 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Make a category if anything. - grubber 01:07, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most common Russian names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Russian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". In addition, the addition of "common" to the title muddles the scope and reach of this list. Who determines what's common and what's not? Ivan probably is, Balabaduversky might not...but I don't speak Russian, so where's the line? Shrumster 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edeans 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there are no reliable sources for the assertion that these are common names. If a Russian magazine or vital statistics department announced the most common baby names in Russia, and if the list were published somewhere reliable, an article could be created referencing that (as I suspect has been done with the most popular American baby names). But there are no references in this article to reliable sources. (Note: This is not a "list of Russian names" but a list of "common Russian names". It's therefore a bit different than the other AfDs because it seems to refer to a specific subset of names only, so in my opinion the "cupboard aquarium baseball" argument doesn't really apply.) --Charlene 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Make a category for the name pages themselves if anything (like Category:German given names). - grubber 01:08, 4 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. - Daniel.Bryant 05:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this page, and I want to delete it because it is pointless, somewhat immature, and could become a future target of vandals. Jtllry 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete db-bio Wooyi 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete pointless, indeed Turgidson 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - basically, nobody cares. So tagged. MER-C 04:26, 3 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 W.marsh 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo_XC50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The car appears to have been scrubbed, and/or replaced with the XC60. Unless there's something that I'm not seeing online, I say delete. Bduddy 02:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - mild WP:CRYSTAL inflection z ε n  08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. --MaNeMeBasat 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, and how the hell is this a speedy delete? I'm also turning up over tens of thousands of google hits on the name, including [17] [18] [19] [20]. This isn't speediable, and if canceled should be redirected to whatever article describes its development and cancelation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to pass Crystal Ball, since the info there does not seem to be speculation and is fairly concrete. I did a brief search, and the vehicle does not seem to be canceled. Though I would say that it needs to be sourced. -Freekee 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, or redirect to Volvo XC60 in due course; current online sources are saying the XC60 will come to market instead of the XC50, but I think we'd be crystal balling a little bit if we redirected just now before everything is clarified. Thousands of online references though; so speedy delete gets a "?!?" from this user. --DeLarge 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- James086^Talk 06:59, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC Mallanox 02:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 09:22, 3 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 Snowball Delete - almost a speedy. Tawker 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Country Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails both WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Article was originally a redirect and now only contains non-notable elementary/middle school info. Is Wikipedia really the place for articles on non-notable day schools? Bobo is soft 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I agree it should be deleted, I don't think a proposed guideline should be listed as a reason. It should be struck through or deleted from the nomination reason. John Reaves (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWikipedia does not have a process for a proposed guideline to become an official guideline except by citing it here to show it is used and useful, and claiming that there is consensus on the article talk page that it is ready to be a guideline. So it is appropriate to quote proposed guidelines here if you want them to be official ones. If you don't, then go to the talk for the guideline and say so, or slap a "disputed" tag on it. Edison 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:SCHOOLS3. Edison 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SCHOOLS3 is a proposal I entirely support, but here, no reliable nontrivial secondary sourcing is provided, meaning subject also fails an existing guideline, namely WP:N. Seraphimblade 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Seraphimblade without prejudice to re-creation. If an article about a school consists primarily of quotations from the student handbook, it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability; possible partial copyvio; inadequate references. WMMartin 14:43, 5 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. Much the stronger argument, as well as numbers, to the Keep commentors. The idea of nominating this one article to try to set a precedent for other, perhaps stronger, articles also seems a bit fishy. Herostratus 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, to plagarise from the initial debate, "I am not entirely sure whose bad idea this was. We do not need a list of every non notable hosptial in the entire world. Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

Yes, I know there's 160+ of these lists in existance and a mass deletion was attempted before which failed due to procedural reasons but only one article is nominated here to set a precedent. MER-C 02:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this approach worked nicely for towers. Time to start on these. DGG 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, no vote Keep - I see you chose a particularly weak article (none of the hospitals are wikilinked). Although I may favor the deletion of some of these articles, I am ambivalent about your deliberate exclusion of the rest from this AfD (although I thank you for being honest and noting it). Why not bundle this nomination with the other articles? Black Falcon 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because that was tried last time and it didn't work. MER-C 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that itself not a pretty clear indication that there is no consensus for deletion? I have no problem with you nominating this individual list for deletion, but I think it might be inappropriate if you use this as precedent for other lists. If the same criticisms apply, nominate them all at once--especially since you know about them. If the same criticisms don't apply, then any claim of "precedent" in the future is inapplicable. Black Falcon 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is better dealt with as a category, with only the notable/major ones getting articles. Shrumster 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a particularly poor example of these hospital lists (possibly why it was chosen as a test case?), but the same principles apply. Many hospitals have wikipedia articles, and the number of them that do will no doubt slowly increase with time. A complete list, with both red and blue links, is the best way to keep track of which have yet to be created - a category cannot do that. This is no worse than many of the other similar list categories. DGG's reason for favouring delete actually casts doubts as to the efficacity of deletion: "This approach worked nicely on towers". What happened with towers was that individual articles on towers were turned into just such lists as these. These should similarly be kept as lists, so that any hospitals which may be deemed not worthy of having their own articles have somewhere where any information on them cound be merged. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this may be a poor example of an article, but the principle idea behind it is sound. Hospitals are reasonably capable of being notable. Grouping them by geographic region is also a reasonable method of sorting. I am not surprised this article is in poor condition, Jamaica is probably far behind in priority to most Wikipedia users. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm with DGG and MER-C on this one. Edeans 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is useful as a development list, a valid use for a list. As per notability, some are notable, some may not be, that is not reason for deletion of the entire list. —siroχo 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The arguments of MER-C and DGG seem predicated on the assumption that hospitals themselves, like radio towers, are not notable. I'm not sure I agree with that assumption.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see how a hospital CAN be not notable Jcuk 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because what differentiates one hospital from another enough to make them encyclopaedic? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't advocate the "we have X, why not Y" argument, but a precedent of sorts is the somewhat ridiculous decision to keep school articles. There are far fewer hospitals than schools, hospitals are large, very prominent within their communities and surrounding areas, etc etc. I am not strenuously arguing for intrinsic notability, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question of differentiation between hospitals: History, location, services offered, events that happened at the hospital are a least some of the criteria I would apply. Probably more, but I just figured it was worth answering. FrozenPurpleCube 07:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  07:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Black Falcon, don't agree with the reasoning whatsoever behind the nominator using this as a test case to set some kind of "precedent" by preying on the weak. Mathmo ^Talk 08:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike masts, which usually evoke feelings of antipathy, hospitals, by virtue of their nature, services, and their quality of care are usually of great interest to the public, and so are often subject of public information and/or news articles. Their building structures are usually well known beyond their catchment locality. I would draw the line at "clinics" (definitions may vary). The underlying subjects are notable, and the lists are capable of so being too if they impart useful additional information so I would vote Keep However, the system of these lists is a hotch-potch. The Jamaica list would benefit from being sorted by geography or by specialty, like some of the others. Ohconfucius 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sorted it according to counties and parishes. Black Falcon 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A country's health service is a very notable and encyclopedic part of their social services, and lists like this are a good aid in covering the topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, different hospitals are not "loosely associated topics" so MER-C can't base his deletion request on "WP:NOT#DIR". Besides, Jamaica seems a quite discriminate selection. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 10:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article updated - Article has been updated with proper reference to Newpaper Articles and Websites. WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO JeremiahJude 13:50, 4 February 2007
• Delete. Nice professional website, but has not charted or won any major awards. Being aired on BrunFM is not "placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". 217 unique Ghits, most of which in fact hit upon "Stine, Richard". In short, little known artist. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:30, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks notability. Nice story, but there are thousands like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs)

• Delete - likely conflict of interest, creator was MVCOL (talk · contribs). Article used to be his user page. MER-C 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a reference to a yet to be published article is totally against WP:V Alf photoman 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Looks like an homage to one of the poster's ancestors. Edeans 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Copy of unpublished work - Delete as original research. Ohconfucius 08:33, 5 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.