< February 3	February 5 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Špaček[edit]

Delete. Absolutely non notable blog owner and citizen. Article created long time ago by his friend and in the Czech Rep. notorious poisoner Ross Hedvicek. ~~The article is currently undergoing AFD process on CS Wiki with overwhelming majority of votes for deletion~~ The article was deleted on cs.wikipedia ( Cinik 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC) fixed), see [1]. Darwinek 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable person. IMHO it is possible this person does not exist. Cinik 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ...writer and author, founder of several literary movements... - with 616 Google hits, most of them blogs, net profiles and wiki and its mirrors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, not verifiable, etc... — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AntOnTrack 13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jan.Kamenicek 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Founder of Literary Cubism :-o Maybe he should be listed in the article on Cubism prior to Guillaume Apollinaire and Gertrude Stein ;-)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not literary expert (that's why it's not important that I never heard about this man) but I seriously doubt he could be "the founder of literary cubism" because it existed several decades before his birth. Any ideas as to what else he supposedly "founded"? The article dubiously claims "founder of several literary movements", without being specific. Also, the sentence "His writings... are target of vandalism" doesn't make much sense to me. Should it be "target of parody" instead? --Fuxoft 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Aktron 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think it is beneficial to Czech culture and Czech reputation altogether to organize these RAIDS on articles on currently unpopular emigres. You should be ashamed of yourself. Ross.Hedvicek 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well known person in the Czech Republic. --Semenáč 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Why some strange guys or who is trying to "edit" or even "clean" our recent history in this particular area ? One of others. 8 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.160.5.222 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- (this vote is not valid, it is the only contribution of this IP. strong suspicion of being Mr. Hedvicek's sockpuppet) - Darwinek 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent another attack by Darwinek at me. I do not use other identities, as a matter of fact I am the only one here who uses his real name here - not anonymous nick. I request that Darwinek is called to order. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Darwinek's cancelation of that vote and reasons for doing that. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: well known ?! Who is that man ? What did he write ? He is not notable only because he emigrated< that means nothing for his notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An emigration itself is sufficiently notable - otherwise it would not be submitted for VfD. Ross.Hedvicek 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that everyone who left country should have an article on wikipedia ? Are you kidding ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, vice versa. Your ilk hates him, BECAUSE he emigrated. That'swhy you want him to be deleted. Ross.Hedvicek 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Internet (and Wikipedia) is here so we know about the interesting people and not to pretend that they do not exist. Ivan Kuhn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.168.242.64 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- (this vote is not valid, it is the only contribution of this IP.) - Darwinek 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Ivan Spacek was expanded since AfD input. I suggest vote to be cancelled as a non-issue. It was ridiculous to submit it as AfD in the first place. And I also object to Darwinek's postings of derogative and offensive messages on my personal pages. Ross.Hedvicek 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your typo, the sentence in the article "he actively participated in exile's communisty activities" doesn't make it clear if he was active in the community or active communist. Please fix. Thanks. --Fuxoft 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ross Hedvicek you are that one who attacks us, this is your addition at jan.kamenicek talk page:

To uz vam vsem mladym v Cesku uplne jebe? Ty vase neustale najezdy na emigranty uz nejsou ani ubohe, ani trapne - jsou vyslovene ostudne. Ross.Hedvicek 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Are all youngs fucked up in Czech ? Your permanent attacks on emmigrants are not only miserable and embarassing - they are shameful.

Stop personal attacks immediately, if you will continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tulkolahten: please handle personal attack by Dawinek on me. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one ? That sentence full of irony about Paroubek ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as personal attack. Ross.Hedvicek 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all non-Czech users. Mr. Hedvicek is a well-known internet spammer, vandal, wannabe and Czech far-right exile living in the USA. See article on him on CS Wiki [2]. He is known for disparagement of the Czech Republic, his politicians, people etc. He hates country that gave him life and does everything here to damage its image. He thinks we all living here are communist indoctrinated filth and all exiles (even fraudsters) are heroes. - Darwinek 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is FOURTH personal attack by Darwinek within just a few hours! Ross.Hedvicek 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By writing this, you are kinda lowering yourself to his level of filth. It doesn't matter if it's true. It's enough for anyone to have a logical look at the article and on the defense Ross uses for its existence, to see who is right and who is not. Even as a psychopath, Communist or Nazi, Ross could've written a worthy Wikipedia article. But it seems it didn't happen this time... --Fuxoft 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another personal attack by Fuxoft. Hm. What is wrong with those young Czechs? Why they are so angry? Ross.Hedvicek 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote yourself: "That's only your personal opinion. Who made you a judge?" Yes, it sounds kinda stupid, desn't it? --Fuxoft 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up page. Ross.Hedvicek 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop all personal attacks against exiles! It is uncivilized! Ross.Hedvicek 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually attack came from you only. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any. Ross.Hedvicek 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's exactly the problem. You probably honestly think that you don't attack people. Which is kinda sad... --Fuxoft 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. You attacked jan.kamenicek. Any editor could nominate any article to AfD process and you can't send him offensive comments about that as you did. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your patronizing comments towards me as a personal attack. Ross.Hedvicek 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notice on Darwinek's talk page to be upright, but his edit is rather uncivility but yours is an obvious personal attack. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your opinion against mine. Or somebody made you a judge? Ross.Hedvicek 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should report your personal attack and his uncivility to some administrator requesting your block, we will see ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do just that - and identify yourself correctly as a Czech with prejudices against exiles - so everything is clear. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do just that - and identify yourself correctly as a blatant prattler with predujices against nappies - so everything is clear. Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit having prejudices against local tyrants. Ross.Hedvicek 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Ross.Hedvicek 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Cinik, Aktron, AntOnTrack, Fuxoft and possibly others do not have enough editations on EN Wiki to qualify for vote. I am requesting their votes to be disqualified. Ross.Hedvicek 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. I have over 200 edits here on en.wiki. Just check the contributions list before shooting. --Aktron 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote can be disqualified only and only if it is IP address, single purpose account, sockpuppet or if it was created after the AfD debate beginning. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is one of the RH's untruths. Like usually. A request to block him has been already written at the admins noticeboard. --Aktron 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right man. My c. 40,000 edits is way too little. - Darwinek 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40,000 edits only ? No way, you are obviously singlepurpose account ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross.Hedvicek edits stats:

User:Ross.Hedvicek

run at Thu Feb 8 21:59:29 2007 GMT

Category: 2

Mainspace 346

Talk: 24

User talk: 36

User: 63

Wikipedia talk: 2

Wikipedia: 26

avg edits per article 2.48

earliest 15:07, 3 March 2006

number of unique articles 201

total 499

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Founder of Literary Cubism"?[edit]

Do you still stand by this statement, Mr. Hedvicek? Although challenged, you didn't retract it from the article (while making other edits to the article) and you didn't offer any explanation as to how could anything be founded by someone who was born several decades after the existence of given movement was extensively documented. If you meant something else than "literary cubism", your correction is also needed, of course... --Fuxoft 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it. Ross.Hedvicek 00:14, 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 result was delete. Bucketsofg 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Social Dynamics[edit]

This is where new discussion should go, not on an old page. Please continue here. Last version before I put it back to the archive was here (discussion is suppose to be preserved as an archive, not edited). No opinion -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, my !vote remains as a ~~Delete~~ - however, there are two links that reference hardcopy publications, and if a weblink can be found such as a Google cache or a bugmenot, I will review the information and revisit my !vote from there. --Dennisthe2 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've revisited my vote, and have decided to give a Keep under the circumstances. User:SecondSight has done an...well, an amazing job of asserting notability on the two sources there that have been transplanted under the References section, which seems to be a much better home for them. My previous statement, though, still stands - a link to the articles, if you can find one offsite (i.e., not so COI-ish), will do wonders for the references. I'm thinking like a Google cache or something. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to definitively pass WP:CORP, one hit on Google News Archive in a more general article, no hits on Find Articles, etc. Just the book isn't really enough, and it only looks like it's part of the book anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And Google New Archive and Find Articles are the only places to find sources since when, exactly? Also, you act is the book is the only source for this article, which is simply incorrect. See below. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:CORP is merely a proposed guideline. As such you typically shouldn't be trying to force a deletion based on that. Though in any case it still meets the proposed guideline. Mathmo ^Talk 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nobody is trying to force the deletion here. This should be quite evident from the discussion that is taking place since this AfD was closed with a Delete consensus. Just because WP:CORP is not policy yet does not preclude it from being used as notability criteria. Luke! 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Two sources have been provided (I won't restart the discussion of whether two sources counts as "multiple") but they need to be checked for validity first. I am very concerned by the small number of Google hits for something that you'd expect would be overrepresented online. Also, not all sources are equal -- without seeing the sources, I would be willing to guess that these are tiny blurbs in a "News of the Weird" section or something like that. I agree with this quote, from the deletion review: "Is there no end to the overweening vanity of these "seduction community" people? The whole business is vanity built on vanity built on vanity." --N Shar 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Instead of guessing, why not look up the sources and actually find out? (See list of sources below.) Is it so much to ask that people review the sources before voting in an AfD instead of just following their preconceptions? With Google hits, I am getting 22,600; maybe that's small to you, but it isn't to me. As for the subject of vanity, I've already acknowledged in the earlier AFD above that "Part of the problem is that people affiliated with the company have often engaged in vanity-type whitewashing of the article." Yet disruption from those people doesn't mean that a balanced article cannot be written on the subject. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have looked up the sources. The two sources provided are copied (probably illegally, but that's not the point) to the RSD website and seem only to be available there. I agree that they don't appear to be "News of the Weird" items, but since the context is gone I can't be sure. Incidentally, simply searching "real social dynamics" may return extraneous sources; I searched it with names of the founders and found very few hits. And the comment on "vanity" was not meant to be a valid argument for deletion anyway, though the possibility of a conflict of interest has not been ruled out. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for reviewing the sources. The Edge Magazine article isn't only available from the RSD website; there is a link in my previous comment and on the talk page of this discussion. You say that the "context is gone." Could you explain exactly what context are you looking for? --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Soltak | Talk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you like to provide some reasons why? --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to review the sources for this article so we can all be on the same page in this discussion. Some of the editors above either haven't reviewed the sources, or aren't addressing all of them. They might have just missed my comments on the talk page, and on the talk page of the closing admin. Here are the prospective sources for the article:

The Times article
The Game
The Men's Health article (not linked to, though the text is available from the publication section of RSD's website)
The Edge Magazine article (here's a link to a website that archives the magazine since it is now out-of-print)
The San Francisco Magazine article[3]; it's only a paragraph, but I think this is nontrivial coverage, because it discusses the appearances of instructors for the company and it characterizes their methods:

“

But then, eerily, I run into two guys from Real Social Dynamics, another local pickup group that hosts trainings every weekend. I watch as the short, unshaven guy with an annoying accent and his friend sporting black nail polish and lots of jewelry—classic peacocking—approach two Scandinavian-looking girls who have already been hit on by PickUp 101 guys. I’m with Daniel, one of Mason’s assistants, and he explains how their techniques differ, as if they’re from a rival kung fu school. “We don’t try to entertain the girl as much. They’re acting like it’s a club in the middle of Union Square.”

”

The Times article doesn't mention RSD by name (it mentions Tyler Durden running a seminar, which can only be RSD), so let's throw it out for sake of argument. I agree with with an above comment that not all sources are equal, so let's say that The Game and the San Francisco Magazine article together are worth about one source (The Game is good for notability but not for verifiable information on the subject; the San Francicso Magazine coverage is non-trivial but admittedly small). Still, there are two other sources for the page: The Men's Health article, and the Edge Magazine article. The burden is on voters for deletion to explain how these sources are inadequate. None of the voters so far have done so. User:N Shar above "guesses" that they are "tiny blurbs in a 'News of the Weird' section," but admits not having read them. Yet if you read them you will see that they are both men's magazine articles (not "news of the weird") which both have RSD as the main subject.

I would like to point out that of the three users voting for deletion in the re-opened debate, none of them really address the sources in this article which are supposedly inadequate. User:Dhartung doesn't address sources for the article other than the book, User:N Shar admits not having reviewed the sources, and User:Soltak only offers a vague reference to WP:CORP without providing any explanation. I would ask that subsequent voters in this discussion fully address the arguments and sources offered. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How could I have reviewed the sources? They weren't linked to. As for their reliability/applicability, the two cited on RSD's site seem good, though the context is now unavailable. The other sources have been critiqued by other users, and in general do not satisfy the criteria because they do not feature RSD as their subject. As I've said above, not all sources are equal. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I objected to was the way you seemed to have judged the sources as inadequate prior to reviewing them. A link to the Edge Magazine article has been available on the talk page of this discussion, and a Google search for "real social dynamics" edge magazine found it as the first result. --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on account that the article seems rather spammy. If it can be rewritten and the sources (above) included (are they reliable and establish notability?), I'll likely change my mind. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd advise all editors to check what version of the article they are reading. Because various editors are constantly editing it, either massively cutting it down and in the proccess removing claims of notability and sources etc... Or adding large quantities of unsourced text about their methods. These combined forces lead to a very unstable article. Mathmo ^Talk
Keep satisfies WP:CORP, sourced, etc. —siro χ o 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a wikipedia article.Telly addict 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Sources have been supplied, again and again. Rather than saying "not notable" it would be better to address any claimed problems you may or may not have with them. Mathmo ^Talk 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of sources provides verifiability, not notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Multiple nontrivial reliable sources provide notability. —siro χ o 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And too many of the sources here aren't non-trivial, as has been pointed out in a number of places. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? enough of them ARE non-trivial, that it passes, doesn't matter how many are trivial as long as there are multiple nontrivial sources. —siro χ o 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notability of this article is not questionable, because The Game is usable as a source to establish notability (it just isn't a good source for facts on the company). Furthermore, there are at least two non-trivial sources other than The Game. Nobody voting for deletion has supplied any real arguments against those sources except for hand-waving about "puff pieces." --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it passes WP:CORP, (multiple nontrivial reliable published works...) so this is not a valid reason for deletion. —siroχo 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Puff pieces are trivial. The two "references" are puff pieces. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No they aren't, if they are independent and reliable and have some reasonable degree of focus on the subject. That is the requirement, puffery or not. —siro χ o 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Possible Keep In definate need of cleanup. Notability appears shaky from reading the article itself, but i'll trust the judgement of those above, as well as the opinion that WP:CORP is worthless since both sides use it as a reason and neither side can seem to explain how it applies here. Just H 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I've added an "Ideology" section. It took me a few hours to write it up, and it keeps getting deleted. After reading this whole thread of debate on the spammish tone of the article, I took it upon myself to offer some tangible content. When I first wrote it the entire article had been deleted, so I offered this content as the start of a new article. If you wish to revert the article back to it's previous state that's fine, but please leave up the "Ideology" section which I have spent my time to contribute. Thanks very much.

Comment Section was totally unsourced. Removed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Tyler Durden (pick-up artist) (and possibly articles on other principals). The reliable sources presented thus far establish Tyler Durden, and possibly one or both of the other principals, are notable as individuals, but they do not establish that their company, the Real Social Dynamics company, is notable as a company. The sources refer to the individuals, and they make clear that it is the individuals, not the company, who possess whatever notability/notoriety exists here. Tyler Durden currently redirects to Fight Club; Tyler Durden the PUA doesn't currently have his own article. Starting with that (and adding a disambig page) would appear to be solider ground for a Wikipedia article. --Shirahadasha 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mended the link; hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would support merging into a page on Tyler Durden, but first I would have to see that page created (and I do not have the time to write it myself). --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's just reliable source - The Times article about pickup artists. That article has 2700+ words. Tyler Durden gets 110 words almost at the end of the article -- see for yourself.[4] That's not enough for notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course it isn't. Nobody is claiming otherwise. See my comments above, where I list the other sources for the page, and I stipulated that the Times article is not the main sources the article relies on. How many times must I ask for voters for deletion to actually address all the sources for this article? Virtually none of them have done so, which is turning this AFD into a kangaroo court. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you acknowledge the necessity for notability, right? As far as the other stuff, I see a book on Amazon, and a blog. Nothing more. Come up with more and we have something, perhaps. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are more sources, but either you are ignoring them or you haven't fully read this discussion. There are two more sources I mentioned about that have the company as their subject, the Men's Health article and the Edge Magazine article. There is also a third that I didn't mention, an article in the Sunday Telegraph (text is available at the bottom of RSD's news page). The Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are cited on the page, plain for everyone to see. Of course I acknowledge the necessity for notability; both Siroxo and I have argued why the subject is notable in the above discussion. --SecondSight 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the accusations. Stating that I'm merely ignoring them does absolutely, positively nothing to prove your point to me, and is, quite frankly, offensive. For the links to MH and Sunday Telegraph, you might want to provide links to the websites that the articles actually originated from - hanging these on the website in question raises eyebrows, and tends to speak strongly of conflict of interest. Finally, I should point out that the book you site - The Game, &c - is itself lacking in resources to tout its notability. My vote, currently, stands, with my commentary above. --Dennisthe2 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Earlier in the discussion, I made repeated requests that people voting for deletion address all the sources involved, not just one or two of the weak ones. Your above comment failed to address the relevant sources (though I guess I shouldn't speculate about whether you were ignoring them, or simply missing them, or... actually, I can't think of any other reasons why you didn't address them). I can see why you object to my tone, but it comes out of frustration due to my perception that many voters for deletion either aren't reading this discussion, or aren't participating honestly by addressing the proposed sources. As for links, the Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are not available on their websites (at least for non-subscribers). It's unfortunate the RSD's website is the only place those articles can be found, but nowhere does wikipedia require that sources be linked to on the websites they originated from. The Edge Magazine article is available online, and its text appears to agree with the text on RSD's website. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this, then, the important thing is that they're available - albeit with a membership. What I've seen traditionally is the link being provided, with a note on the side that membership is required - at least, that's on Slashdot. I wonder if there's a precedent for such a convention here.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

...and the bot beat me to it again. =O.o= --Dennisthe2 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea here - use of Google Cache and "bugmenot". If you can work around it with these, depending on the content, it may work. --Dennisthe2 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentStop removing the "Ideology" section. It's all common knowledge from the RSD community. If you like, I will email the RSD staff personally and ask if they ratify the ideology section as being, in fact, a synopsis of RSD ideology. If you want to delete it again, let me know what would be a satisfactory "sourcing" so that you would stop coming on here day in and day out and removing the section. The Mystery Method page has Mystery Method ideology on it and it has not been deleted. Shall we delete all ideology out of every seduction community based page? Why the double standard? Keep it neutral. Thanks.

Comment. To the above user, now is not the time to be adding any content to the article other than new sources. This is a deletion discussion. Hold off for now, because anything you add will just raise the chances of the article getting deleted. If the article is kept, then you can work on the article. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief, that there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits other editors from editing any article that is the subject of an AfD in any way. Your preceding comments show that you inherently have a bias towards keeping this article. Furthermore, your preceding comment does not act in the best interest of fair process as AfD's are to proceed - it may be construed upon as influencing other users to argue in favour of keeping the article; hence the above warning template. Luke! 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit that I should have phrased my above comment as a request, not as an imperative. It was not intended as a reference to any kind of policy. You say I "inherently have a bias towards keeping this article." This fails to assume good faith, and is not an interpretation of my comments that you have supported. My comments show that I have a "bias" towards keeping long, unsourced, WP:NPOV statements out of the article during the deletion debate. The worst that can be read into my comments is an attempt to influence the user to not edit the page for now (which I have retracted), which is different from trying to influence people to keep the article. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to assume good faith. What I meant with my statement is that after previously taking a look at your userpage, the reader can gather the impression that you may lean towards keeping/creating articles relating to the seduction community. However, it is also noted on there that reliable sources are needed to support articles - of which I and most (arguably) editors believe this is one of the main issues surrounding this AfD debate. I hope that you haven't taken offence to this or my previous statement as it was not meant to come across as a personal attack. Luke! 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read SecondSight's comments was that it is unhelpfull for everybody here on this AfD to have an unstable article, which is what is going to happen if that content keeps on trying to be inserted by that IP address. Mathmo ^Talk 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the existing content of the article is deleted or not is not my concern. I agree that it is somewhat spammish, which is why I took it upon myself to add some TANGIBLE CONTENT to this article. Why should a ceaseless debate about this article (some of which has been by people who shown emotional and possible commercial involvement) hold up the IMPROVEMENT of the article? Leave the "Ideology" section up. Unless you can offer me a valid reason for why it should be removed I will keep adding it. In the meantime I will email Real Social Dynamics and have them ratify this article so that it can be sourced. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.208.141.138 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. See my comments on Talk:Real Social Dynamics. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of problems with this article. First, it reads like a promo piece, right down to discussing the services the company offers. Second, I don't see sources for most of it. The ideology section doesn't seem to have anything to do with the company and should come out entirely as failing WP:NOT an instructional guide. But, it does get mentions in some major media, so very weak keep and attack with an editorial chainsaw to get the promo stuff out of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete Obvious commercially motivated article, except cluttered with product information way beyond most of the genre. The arguments of its promoter demonstrate the nature of the article--he thinks the most promotional parts of it to be essential. if kept, it will be easy & obvious how to stubbify.DGG 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not assert notability. "Real Social Dynamics (RSD) is a dating coaching company based in Los Angeles. It was founded by two "pick-up artists", Nick "Papa" Kho and Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook. In addition to its claim to teach men how to be more successful with women, RSD provides image consultations and offers advice on a variety of social dynamics. RSD now markets its techniques and strategies through its website., via his book[1], DVD sets, audio recordings, and live seminars and coaching with various instructors, including Cook." BFW. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, the page has been in the middle of an edit war during this AFD. A user has been adding a massive section that is not written from a neutral point of view. Even without that section, I agree that the article reads as an advertisement. As I mentioned before, we have had problems with people affiliated with the company white-washing the page. Still, POV alone doesn't mean the article should be deleted, just that it should be rewritten. --SecondSight 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes but. It's not just that it's spammy, that the sources are a bit borderline, it's that it doesn't really say that they've done anything. They've had 5 minutes of fame in the press, but that's because picking up is interesting, not because they've made any great contribution to the art thereof.[5] Spam and NPOV we could fix if it was worth doing so. Notability, that's the issue here. I'd like to suggest a merge to somewhere, but I don't know where. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merging to the article about "Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook"? Though really that isn't so much merging as renaming. I'd disagree greatly with your claim that they have not made "any great contribution to the art thereof". Plus having made "great contributions" is not part of what is required by wikipedia under notability. For the very good reason that what is a "great contribution" can be highly subjective. Instead notability basically requires coverage by others (newspapers, books, tv, etc...). Which this has.Mathmo ^Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be continuing to re-add the "Ideology" section until someone can tell me why it doesn't add value to the article for the end reader. In the meantime, let's end the ceaseless debate and start improving the page. Come on guys, add some content. Don't be deleting the content that others like myself have spent time to provide. If you don't like it, edit it, improve it, add totally new content, but don't just go deleting it. That only hurts the end reader. Thanks.

Hi, various people including myself, SecondSight, and Mel Etitis have explained why to you at numerous places (such as your various random IP's talk pages and the article talk page). If you still have seen any of them then I can always later link to them. Might help if you start of editing less heated topics? And read various pages such as Wikipedia:Bootcamp to get yourself up to speed in understanding wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a nutshell, very very thin sources for a very very detailed advertisement. The only real solution is judicious application of napalm. Part of a walled garden by a small group of participants in the so-called Seduction Community. And no, I will not respond to the bullying here of the walled garden's bricklayers. Don't like my opinion? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep per SecondSight. Mathmo ^Talk 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — my mood not improved by the latest playing around, in which the new discussion is moved here, minus the first part, without the courtesy of informing those involved. I've informed the two editors who contributed to the original discussion but whose views don't appear here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Royalguard11 did a good job of informing past voters, he didn't absolutely have to go around informing everybody but he did anyway. The fact he only missed out on a couple of people, by accident I'm sure, should not be misused as a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A peculiar implication, and one that assume bad faith against all the evidence. As for "only missing a couple" — not informing three people is a big omission in context (and I've not exactly been low profile in all this). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Secondsights argument about the sources is compelling, but the article still reads very much like an advertisement. And how about this for a notable claim to fame: Cook gained prominence in the seduction community as a result of his many, very long posts to Internet web sites outlining his observations on seducing women. THE KING 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete spam. The critical sources don't meet WP:RS, the trivial ones make up too much of the core of the article, and the entire article fails WP:N. Multiple whitewashes and edit warring only compound the fact that, at best, the article should be deleted and if solid source can be found, created as a stub. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete spamvertisement with a thin gloss of trivial media coverage. This is non-notable, unencyclopedic, and the rest of the walled garden should go as well. Pete.Hurd 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- rest of the walled garden should go as well?! Do I need to remind you There Is No Cabal! As for "Unencyclopedic topic", please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo ^Talk 12:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Twenty pages of talking for a THREE page article? Is this a hobby or something? I understand that you want to be as accurate and neutral as possible. It's a valid concern. But I also understand that it shouldn't take this long to decide to improve upon an article. Let's start gathering sources for a new article and get this underway.

Comment. Yeah, it is a hobby, actually :) At least for me. --N Shar 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability seemed pretty well established here, but everything currently uncited needs to get cited pretty soon. Everyking 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, which is not a proposed guideline but an actual guideline. Neither of the sources that work even mention "Real Social Dynamics". --Core desat 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look at the history of WP:CORP indicates that only very recently (i.e. last day or two or there abouts) has the guideline tag been added, and since then it has been under dispute with people removing it etc... Mathmo ^Talk 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's sufficiently notable. It could stand a good trimmming, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources, e.g. The Game which was one of the best-selling books of 2005. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:03Z
Delete. Non-notable, unsourced. Nardman1 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Lim Bo Seng. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:24Z

Lim Bo Seng's Downfall[edit]

This article reads like an essay or news report and is entirely unreferenced. It has major POV problems and is likely unverifiable. We could also question the need for an entire article on this man's "downfall." N Shar 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could be improved, and a good start has been made on this. There is a main article on Lim Bo Seng and as he is a national hero in Singapore he is a noteworthy person. Some simple re writing of sentences should help. It is a useful addition to the main bio article --PrincessBrat 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Whilst there are many writing and POV problems with the article, the article seems notable enough to keep. Otherwise, it could be merged into the main Lim Bo Seng article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lim Bo Seng. This topic does not appear notable enough for its own fork, but should be included in the parent article. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no reason for this to stand alone.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Soltak Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup This article only just meets the guidelines but if kept would need some major cleanup and ot take away NPOV problems.Telly addict 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and shorten! This is longer than the Lim Bo Seng article, which is just plain ludicrous. Totnesmartin 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lim Bo Seng per Soltak. There isn't enough content here for separate articles. Article could use some clean-up to reduce hagiographic tone. --Shirahadasha 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per Telly. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:25Z

Erlu[edit]

Possible CV (ordered list with creative effort in determining the order), on the other hand it's just a list of TC postures and if you've learned the posture (without which this is uninformative) you've probably learned the form that uses them. RJFJR 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyvio, I don't think, as I picked one of the routines at random and got zero non-wiki ghits. Delete as a non-notable Tai Chi routine with no assertion of notability. MER-C 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list provides no assertion of notability or any reason why it belongs in an encylopedia. It also provides insufficient context for readers. Heimstern Läufer 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, minus CV assertion Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable and a fairly pointless article tbh. DannyM 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant and the article does not contain enough info for somebody unfamiliar with the subject.Telly addict 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to lacking sources, article doesn't explain its subject sufficiently even to define it, let alone explain why anyone might find it notable. --Shirahadasha 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, un-verifiable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. DanielCD 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Robertson[edit]

Reason Wirth.christian 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I am tired of people playing "GOD" on wiki.[reply]

Note Please try to fix up the article and give some additional indication of her notability. Why is she important? If you can make it into a solid article, it will likely survive the AFD. But as it is now, it really needs some work. --DanielCD 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:CSD#A7 as a biography with no assertion of notability - Peripitus (Talk) 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we can let this one go through an AFD to give this new user a chance and not turn them off to Wikipedia. I would happily change my vote if some sources were provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author requested speedy deletion on article's talk page. --DanielCD 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Thaden[edit]

Appear to be a non notable music teacher. No sources provided and I could not find any through the usual avenues. Daniel J. Leivick 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Thaden is notable for many reasons if not the least of which as teacher of American composer Randall Poshek-Gladbach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgbach (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2007

Being the teacher of a a famous person does not make someone notable, in any case Poshek-Gladbach doesn't have a article so maybe we should start there. Please see WP:NOTE. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. So tagged. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy is contested, so I change my vote to Delete. Non-notable music teacher. Soltak | Talk 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote at this time.Comment. A user has asserted that sources are available that confirm this person's notability -- I will withold my judgment until I can review the sources. Delete. I can't find documentation of this person's specialization in 18th century music, which is the only real assertion of notability. If sources are found, I may change my vote. --N Shar 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poshek-Gladbach is widely known in the world of New Music as found on the internet as well as Dr. Thaden is noted in the article on Ernst von Dohnanyi herein. It would be useful if persons who have at least a minimal background in music were passing judgment on Dr. Thaden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgbach (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2007

Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which recital/concert programs would you like? Would his 18 appearances with SLSO, 4 appearances with the LAPO, would his 11 appearances with the NYPO do? Or perhaps we should consider his recordings of the complete keyboard works of J.S. Bach and Couperin. Or would a list of his students since 1956 (including 2 Pulitzer Prize winning composers). Or would a list of journals in which his writings are published help? Again, it would be helpful if just one reviewer knew anything about the music world. I'm sorry, a degree in engineering does not qualify one to evaluate the notability of a musician. At the rate we are going, I'm surprised any musician has ever made it onto Wikipedia. And I'm rather perplexed by "I could not find any through the usual avenues." What are the usual avenues? Obviously, they are not music journal databases. Perhaps had Dr. Thaden pursued engineering instead of music he would qualify for Wikipedia. Fortunately for the music world, he did not do so. Perhaps we should re-evaluate Nadia Boulanger's article. She was only a music teacher.

Delete unless sources are provided to meet WP:N. Teaching famous people is not, in itself, notable. janejellyroll 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it would help if you would provide a list of journals in which his writings are published. What are the music journal databases we should be searching? --N Shar 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jelly Roll, as I said, let's delete Madame Boulanger and every other teacher of music.... the sources have been provided, JOST will provide you with every citation to every article of Dr. Thaden. So what if he changed music in America. And certainly having recorded the complete works of JS Bach and Louis Couperin is not important... so let's delete Rubinstein and Horowitz. In fact, let's delete every musician and artist starting with JS Bach. In the mean time, let us inform the mainstream media that only nerds and engineers need apply to Wikipedia. God forbid should we permit an article of a teacher who has changed music in the world. Again, it would be nice if someone who know what the hell they are talking about would evaluate entries in Wikipedia. As of yet, no one with any qualifications has reviewed the Dr. Thaden article. What a sad day it is to find the Wikipedia is controlled by those who have no qualifications to determine what articles are or are not posted to it.

- It's called JSTOR.ORG.
Delete I have voted to save similar articles before, but I don't think this one is worth saving. Searching on Amazon and Alibris turns up no books by Prof. Thaden; Google Scholar has no listings for articles; searching on "Thaden Bach" and "Thaden Couperin" on Google comes up with no relevant hits, as far as I can see. I have a hard time believing he is more notable than the average long-time professor of music. --Brianyoumans 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid if we might look to RCA Victor or CBS or Bell Telephone Hour or Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians.... I think the appropriate approach for me is to advocating the deletion of all musicians because they are of obviously no importance.... a Google, Amazon, Alibris search is only as good as the searcher.... it's interesting that I find 11 references on Amazon.... again, it might be helpful if we had real musical authorities reviewing articles rather than self-appointed computer nerds... thus far, no one with any creditials has reviewed Dr. Thaden's article.... In the mean time, I believe this discussion would be of great interest to the NYT or to John von Rhein of the Chicago Tribune who have both reviewed the performances of Dr. Thaden. Still waiting for someone who knows the difference between and accented grace note and an unaccented grace note in Bach's WTC to respond. At this point, I have to say my first experience with Wikipedia confirms everything negative published about it including its anti-arts bias.

Comment You need to provide links or citations! Every argument presented here for deletion will fall apart if links are provided, but without them the arguments make a great deal of sense. Please LINK to your amazon search results. Please LINK or CITE a NYT review! We would love to keep the article, but none of us know how to find sources -- we've asked for your help. --N Shar 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. User Rpgbach needs to cool down a little (maybe read WP:CIVIL, I am not really up for having my engineering credentials come into this debate or being called a nerd repeatedly, if user Rpgbach would like I can create a new account and and write that I have a PhD in music from Stanford on my user page maybe then we can stop hearing about how no one knows anything about music. I have been nothing but friendly and civil with this user from the beginning. When he or she contested my first speedy by deleting the tag I nominated it for AFD and left a very friendly note on the user's talk page. I recommended then that Rpgbach take a look at WP:NOTE and did so again at the top of this discussion. It is obvious that this user has not read this or any policy as he continues to call into question the credentials of those who oppose him and refuses to offer any sources not to mention threatening to expose the monster that is an AFD debate to the NYT (I would like to see a story on this debate in the NYT though). Not understanding policy is very common problem for new users and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Rpgbach hostility is not acceptable, if this user where to relax a little they would find Wikipedia to be a friendly and very reasonable place. There may well be a place for this article on Wikipedia, but there is no place for threats and hostility. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also mention that there is no such thing as "Western Kentucky State University" - WK State College became WK University, and searching their web site gives no hits for Thaden. And neither does the web site of the University of Missouri at Columbia (which is what I assume is meant in the article). I assume that Prof. Thaden did teach at these schools, but it appears he is not memorialized there by scholarships, chairs, etc. - the sort of thing a distinguished professor generally leaves behind. And since you are so enthusiastically calling us art ignoramuses, I suppose the assumption of good faith here is suspended somewhat and I can point out that the most obvious notability that Prof. Thaden has is as the teacher of Randall Poshek-Gladbach, who is "widely known in the world of New Music", according to Rpgbach. I understand that you may have a great deal of respect for your former teacher, Mr. Poshek-Gladbach, but we can't accept your word that he is worthy of an article, or your word on your own notability. Please give us references, ones that we can check. Mr. Thaden may have been a very well-known performer at one time, but it appears his fame has faded. --Brianyoumans 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable plain and simple. Randall Poshek-Gladbach is not a prominent composer by any stretch of the imagination, and even if he were it would take more than that bare fact to confer notability on Thaden. I don't feel the need to throw my credits around but I know what I'm talking about in this regard.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very slight correction: doing yet another search, I did find a reference to Thaden on the Western Kentucky University site, in a PDF (probably why the search on the WKU site itself couldn't find it.) He is named on a list of WK State College music department faculty as of 1964. --Brianyoumans 10:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not appear to meet WP:BIO.Telly addict 12:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the record straight: It is Dr. Poshek-Gladbach and Dr. Thaden.

Wait an extra week or so for reliable sources, delete if not provided by then. Wikipedia is run on the assumption that volunteer editors aren't experts in specific fields. To permit this, the folks proposing an article must provide sources showing that the subject is notable and verifiable. So instead of complaining that it's a sad day when a famous person is challenged by folks who don't know squat about the classical music world, the article's proponents should accept that yes, we ignoramuses and cultural dufuses (is that ignorami et dufi?) don't know squat, so please produce the sources needed to enable the article to be kept. If this individual is really this famous, they won't be difficult to find. On-line sources are preferable if available but not necessary. Citations to print publications would be fine. --Shirahadasha 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reviews in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune might establish notability per WP:MUSIC, however I could not find them in the archives of those newspapers. If such sources are found and an article is written based upon them, though, I would be inclined to change my opinion. JChap2007 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. User:Rpgbach has had plenty of time to find us citations. I left a message here and on his talk page encouraging him to do so. Since the time I left those messages, the user has left an unsigned comment here to indicate that we should refer to the subject as Dr. Thaden (rather than Mr. Thaden), but has declined to provide citations. This is despite his assertions (see above) that they are easy to find. I, for one, am approaching the end of my good faith. --N Shar 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JChap2007. google cant find Thaden's name on the http://sehks.org site. btw Ernő Dohnányi appears to have taught Thaden, and performed with him. No google scholar hits and no confirmed reviews. John Vandenberg 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD A1. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DefCon Delta[edit]

If the article is about the upcoming book, then I do not think it is notable. If the subject is DEFCON then we should merge it there Alex Bakharev 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I think I'm going to tag it as nonsense, in fact. Reads like the back of a book cover... Logical2u_Talk 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Spam. Also, the DEFCON article does not support the use of greek letters to describe DEFCONs. --N Shar 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention WP:CRYSTAL. --N Shar 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, uh, technically you COULD argue that Delta, as the fourth greek letter, is "Four", or it describes a triangle, meaning "Three", or finally (And in my honest opinion, most obvious), what the heck is Delta doing in a numerical system anyways? (IE: Nonsense). Logical2u_Talk 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Delta has five letters in the name, so it must be "Five." It also has two vowels, so it might mean "Two." Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to think it means DEFCON 1 (witness "highest security point in the nation"), which is obviously not supported by the obvious arguments presented here :) --N Shar 02:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus - merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 launch[edit]

As per the reasons why Wii launch and Xbox 360 launch need to go: better suited for a video game wiki. Just because it's a recent launch, doesn't make it more notable for staying here. Relevant information should be put on the PlayStation 3 article (if it's not listed already). Also: all 3 of these launch articles probably should be grouped together in an AFD, since they are similar articles. RobJ1981 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. For PlayStation 3 launch: merge to PlayStation 3; for Wii launch: merge to Wii; for Xbox 360 launch: merge to Xbox 360. Big top 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now...Merge. Most of the info seems to already be in PlayStation 3; unless there's a need for a few more paragraphs, it's not long enough that it distracts from the PS3 page. Same comments for Wii,etc. per discussion below... event not done and PS3 is already too long - grubber 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bigtop's suggestion. --Candy-Panda 07:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bigtop Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as another nominator said themselves "a launch is a big deal". Add onto that this is one of the biggest launches of last year, you get an article that has had massive news coverage and is highly notabile. There is a already a section on the PlayStation 3 page, with a link to PlayStation 3 launch as the main article. Naturally the three newest would have articles about it, while older ones were launched in the early days of wikipedia (or even, long long before wikipedia existed). Thus this is just one reason why claiming "older consoles don't have and article for launch and thus this one shouldn't either" is not an argument at all. Mathmo ^Talk 08:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. While merge is the obvious solution, the parent article has grown to a very large size, and has a section for launch that is not as long as this article. This is a valid reason for a separate article existing. —siro χ o 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two article have nearly identical text; the tables are differnet, but I'm not sure that justifies a whole new article - grubber 10:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather an indication the articles were recently split, and the PlayStation 3 section needs to be pruned down with most of the content being merged into PlayStation 3 launch. PlayStation 3 is already very large, needs to be made smaller not larger as you are saying. See Wikipedia:Article size. Mathmo ^Talk 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues I think we both agree on: the PS3 page doesn't need to become longer; if the two are going to be identical, then one or the other needs to change. Since the PS3 launch isn't even complete yet (lots of stuff happening in March), there is a chance the article could be improved and lengthened. Perhaps we could wait and see what else there is to say about it and hold off a merge/delete until then. - grubber 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge Should be merged into Playstation3. Tellyaddict 12:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information, certianly notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and merge the other "launch" articles as well. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All three articles into one as "7th generation console launch. SYSS Mouse 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure if any of them called themselves "7th generation" and I'm fairly sure not all of them did. Plus although they are all roughly of the same "generation" (remember another problem is this holds certain POV problems) their launch dates were all at quite significantly different times to each other. Mathmo ^Talk 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii launch. --- RockMFR 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revamp Too big to merge, but lack of sources somewhat disturbing. Unless we want to make a "7th generation launches" article, I think that'd work too. -Ryanbomber 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this article may need a bit of work, the Playstation 3 launch was by itself the subject of dozens of major media pieces, making it easily notable enough for its own article. An agglomeration of launches for Xbox360/Wii/Playstation 3 is unnecessarily arbitrary, especially considering that the 360 was released a year earlier. The article for Playstation 3 is already large enough that children articles such as this are warranted. — brighterorange (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a significant news story. The things people did to get one on launch day were all over the news. Joelon 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, much to say. Everyking 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.39.169 (talk • contribs)
Keep it up In the United States the PS3 launch came with a minor crime wave. There is an interesting article in that, and this would be the header page to put it in. Normalphil 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and cleanup--Hu12 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark DeBono[edit]

Prod tag was removed. Sources don't back up assertions of notability. Claims about involvement with Lance Bass are completely unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:N and has WP:BLP concerns. janejellyroll 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per total lack of any evidence of notability. Otto4711 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily per nom's concerns. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:BLP concerns. This is, I think, an attack page. Even if it isn't, delete because it's not verifiable and not true. --N Shar 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not quite a speedy as there are sources. MER-C 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sources have absolutely nothng to do with the subject, though. The Camp Caribou site is for a real camp, not a TV show. The other provides no information about the subject. --N Shar 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BLP issues Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for wikipedia.Telly addict 12:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cute, but not quite. RFerreira 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Marriage and delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:30Z

Marriage (post modern)[edit]

Article appears to be some form of POV fork. Post modern marriage does not appear to be a recognised concept. The article contains no information not already in Marriage and Same-sex marriage. WJBscribe 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask first? Nkras 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with marriage. This article doesn't explain the concept of postmodern marriage enough to justify its own article, and includes nothing that couldn't be said in the main marriage article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe a response to Traditional marriage movement. But no one talks about a Post-modern marriage movement. The world is simply not that symmetrical. (If I'm wrong and people do use this term, the article needs to cite reliable sources for it.) Sdsds 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing the point of this at all, but if there is one, I'd love to hear it. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, seems to have been created by a proponent of the "traditional marriage movement" to further his own agenda. Krimpet 02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Goldfritha 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—maybe this article could be written? Although, what has been written so is included in the marriage article so there is no need for a merge, and no justification for the duplication of information. Unless something is added to this article that explains how this post-modern marriage concept differs from marriage it should be deleted--Riferimento 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect information already in other articles, seems redundant. Wooyi 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Nothing to merge that I can see. Jeffpw 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Semperf 06:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does the title even include "(post modern)"? Where is that even mentioned in the article? Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems a "traditional marriage" advocate spun off the current Marriage content into a new article, probably to facilitate defining his preferred vision of "marriage" there, and to be able to claim that same-sex marriages etc. aren't real marriage, but "post modern" marriage. Krimpet 09:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to redirect, no need to pretend that this is even an actual topic. See WP:POVFORK, and specifically the nomination argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage (Judeo-Christian), which applies equally to this article, as they were both created at the same time to avoid consensus at Marriage. — coelacan talk — 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, and also because it contains absolutely no references to the postmodernism in the title. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such thing as a postmodern marriage concept Flammingo^Parliament 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a POV fork. Marriage can and should incorporate this information. Mango juice^talk 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. No evidence that the term is in widespread use as required per WP:NEO. My only issue here is notability and verifiability as shown by sources. No comment on the inherent existence or legitimacy of the concept, or on reason for article creation. --Shirahadasha 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A strange piece of redundancy. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork, sort out the differences on the Marriage talk page --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NEO _SUBWAYguy 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. Cyde (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary "CSD A7". James086 ^Talk 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgrove OGs[edit]

quoting my removed prod: "unreferenced, non-notable, probably a recreation of a deleted article (see author's talk page), I was unable to verify the existence of this gang online." Brianyoumans 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:NFT. Krimpet 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unremarkable street gang, founded last year. So tagged. MER-C 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:31Z

Pool Party House[edit]

I do not think the short-lived venue house is notable enough Alex Bakharev 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unremarkable. No notability whatsoever, as a Google search (filter myspace) will show. MER-C 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page has no incoming links from actual articles. - grubber 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that if/when this closes with "Delete" that the closer also considers Speedy Deleting the three images included in the article. This article and the three images are the only contributions of this red-linked article and I dont believe any of them have any legitimate merit. - grubber 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, no sources. Nuttah68 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and to the creater, is this a joke?--Sefringle 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-corp _SUBWAYguy 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-n per nom DaveApter 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. Jersey Devil 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Band[edit]

Nonsense claims, can't find any evidence that anything mildly like this has happened RB9 7 2 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reverse evolution in a matter of 5 minutes? You'd have every biologist on the planet converging on that cage! Though morbid, I do appreciate the creative methods of death. A good candidate for WP:BJAODN, I think. Black Falcon 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. This is complete bollocks. --N Shar 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:32Z

Olaf Sporns[edit]

Olaf Sporns seems like a vanity page. This person is relatively unknown, has not made significant contributions to neuroscience, and is not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to say WP:COI at this point, but the subject is clearly not notable. --Dennisthe2 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a prominent neuroscientist, also you can find something here. Wooyi 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. This guy is a light-weight in neuroscience and does not compare to neuroscientists like Karl Zilles, Andre Parent, or Wolfgang Singer, none of which have Wikipedia pages. Brainsynth 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Dennisthe2 about WP:COI. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 1ne 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Robots in Disguise. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:33Z

Dee Plume[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.148.103 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Robots in Disguise. MER-C 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per MER-C. Madmedea 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Daisy-berkowitz 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in my opinion. At least notable enough for me to try to find info about her on IMDB and then Wikipedia. I-baLL 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Robots in Disguise and redirect Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robots in Disguise. That article is small enough that this can go in it. --Scot ^t 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing decision on this AfD was contested at deletion review. Per that discussion, the contents of the article were merged with President of the United States and the article was made a redirect to preserve the edit history. Jerry lavoie 16:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Presidential trivia[edit]

This article is a collection of trivia. All of the content is either already contained in the individual president articles, or it should be. Jerry lavoie 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination for this article for deletion is available at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Presidential_trivia

Please see the reasoning by editors on the current debate for a similar article for Philippine Presidential trivia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine presidential trivia. We obviously have a double-standard problem here. Please either vote for deletion of this article or keeping the other, or explain here why the duality. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grouping them all into one article doesn't make them any more worthy of being kept than they would be if sent to their respective articles. If they aren't good enough for those articles, they're not good enough for Wikipedia, period. Other concern is indiscriminate information; that the trivia happens to involve presidents is a very loose thread. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Strong Keep because this AfD seems to have sprung out of the other AfD. Perhaps this article is inapppropriate for Wikipedia, maybe not, but nominating articles for AfD in response to other articles being nominated for the AfD process goes against WP:INN and possibly WP:POINT. Shrumster 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand the WP's you cited. The first one says "If you think another article is of equal notability to one being considered for deletion, you are welcome to nominate that article as well". And an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point would be nominating an obviously notable article for deletion to try to leverage your vote AGAINST deleting another article. Here, I am saying we should delete both, for the same valid deletion criteria. Jerry lavoie 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to let that first comment slide per WP:AGF. This AfD was most likely influenced by the other AfD. If you look at WP:INN, it clearly states that "If you think another article is of equal notability to one being considered for deletion, you are welcome to nominate that article as well, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Intent aside, it is clearly in WP's interest not to have this AfD while the other one is on-going as it may be interpreted as a spillover effect. Shrumster 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for assuming good faith. My comment was indeed in good faith. Above you say "clearly" as if it was clear. It is not clear to me at all. We often nominate several articles at the same time, sometimes in the same AfD... each article stands on its own merit, but reasoning used by the editors is often a spillover effect. How is this counter to the best interests of the project? For us to achive consistency and to have standards for inclusion that make sense, would be a good thing? No? Jerry lavoie 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obvious subarticle of President of the United States, could use more references. I'm being consistent and voting keep on the other article, which is splendidly referenced although I don't see the need for every section. It would have been better to wait until that AFD completed, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with their respective presidents' articles. A list of common characteristics from a number of articles doesn't merit an article of its own. Flakeloaf 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasonings outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia. --Chris S. 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, if you wouldn't mind, could you outline a bullet point or two that you are speaking of? You did not vote in the previous AfD, and several reasonings were outlined in the AfD discussion, most of which were countered by other reasonings. Which ones are you saying have merit? I would be interested in seeing your point of view on this. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Flakeloaf Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more than trivia about multiple presidents, this is trivia about the office of the president, with examples taken from particular presidents. It is therefore a valid subarticle of President of the United States, and while a merge would be obvious, the pages together are very long, so this should be kept separate. (Edit) Note: This is not just trivia as well, this is indeed notable information, organized for the context of the Office rather than the persons. (thereby failing to be considered trivia by Wikipedia) —siro χ o 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me try to follow that... "this is more than trivia about multiple presidents, this is trivia about the office of the president, this is not just trivia... thereby failing to be considered trivia?" Is that it??? Jerry lavoie 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Trivia lists are acceptable in rare cases, see Lists of trivia.--T. Anthony 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the article you cited Lists of trivia. And read the talk page as well. This seems to be an "inside joke" among some editors. ~~None~~ Few of the lists on the page are actually trivia lists. ~~They~~ Most of them are subject lists. The person making the page move to "Lists of trivia" has a whole discussion about this on the talk page. That aside, it is an article, and not a policy or guideline document. Jerry lavoie 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, to me, means I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter. I think it's justifiable, but it's not something I'm going to think about if it's deleted.--T. Anthony 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said that list contains links to the following: List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia, Albuquerque Trivia, The Beatles trivia, and Pink Floyd trivia.--T. Anthony 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I revised my comment above (note the ~~strikethrough~~ text.) But the vast majority of the links in the article are to content lists, not trivia. Seems a strange article name, and even stranger to cite it, as if policy, in an AfD debate. Jerry lavoie 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons I nominated the Philippine presidential trivia article, although this one does seem better structured. There are a number of other list articles relating to the US presidency where this information would be better housed, making this list redundant IMHO. Otto4711 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's any trivia about any American president that is honestly worth keeping, put it in his own article. Jcuk 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a centralized list of trivia is not a good idea; not really helpful to anyone (I simply can't see someone searching for such an article) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a classic example of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The very purpose of this article is to provide an indiscriminate collection of information about presidents rather than to provide meaningful summaries. --Shirahadasha 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not a discriminate information. indeed. But I woudl also prefer several articles listed at the template "Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States" deleted: like height, longetivity., etc. SYSS Mouse 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia is inherently unencyclopedic. Whatever is encyclopedic can be merged into the articles on the individual presidents. Agent 86 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, these facts aren't entirely trivial, and they're probably worth putting somewhere, the problem is that this article is just a loose collection. I'd rather not lose them, but I'd prefer to disperse them to better places. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say, then, that your vote is really Merge then Delete? That's what your comment seems to say, but you put weak keep as your vote. Jerry lavoie 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is salvagable into the articles where they are supposed to be found, delete the rest --Howard the Duck 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - what Howard the Duck said. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and this is indiscriminate in the truest sense of the word, just a random collection of facts. Merge where necessary, but cruft collections are a bad idea and set a shocking precedent for the rest of Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvageable material with the relevant articles then delete. --Folantin 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia is unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful, delete the rest. --- Tito Pao 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. self-incriminating title, rather disorganized. Merge. --Vsion 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine presidential trivia. It is okay to have trivia if we make some sort of attempt to explain why it is significant. Is there any assertion that these pieces of trivia are notable? I don't see one. Dekimasu が... 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as I "voted" keep in the companion AfD). While I have mostly supported the current push to delete subtrivial presidential lists (both American and Filipino) and have personally carried out some merges toward that end, I think that these particular articles should stay. The articles on individual presidents contain their own facts but not the agregation of facts that this one provides. Much of this info is interesting and/or encyclopedic but doesn't fit well in the basic President of the United States article and so splitting it out makes sense. Eluchil404 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking more closely at a couple of comments above, I see a few Merge then delete "votes". This is not common practice (merged articles are kept as redirects) becuase it destroys the edit history and thus is incompatible with the GDFL which requires that proper credit be given. If sourced facts are incorporated into a plethora of individual articles or lists, it may be the only way forward, but if a significant amount of content is moved to a specific article (like the main president article) the history whould be kept behind a redirect. Eluchil404 09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the GFDL as it applies to Wikipedia is that the wikipedia editors who contribute the article text do not have a license, and do not have protections for being credited for sourcing on subsequent use of the text within wikipedia. The concern you mention would only be applicable if the original article cited external documents as sources, republished previously-sourced external GFDL information, and such source citation did not occur in the article into which the content is merged. As long as the merging admin is privvy to the policies relating to merging content within wikipedai articles, I believe this concern will be addressed. But as I said, and as you pointed out: if User: SallyJaneDoe contributed significantly to this article, and we merge the content into another article, Sally has no evidence that she ever worked on it, and the merging admin would get all the "credit". But getting "credit" is not what wikipedia is all about, so its really a mute point. Jerry lavoie 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that this is incorrect (see Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors' rights and obligations). I own the copyright on the material that I submit to Wikipedia as its author and I agree to lisence it under the GFDL when I upload it. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. from the edit page. Thus Wikipedia is required to give me credit (in a history section) for any page in which my contributions occur. That this is a technical and pedantic requirement subject to de minimis exceptions is not in dispute, but it is still a requirement and should not be violated unnecessarily. Eluchil404 08:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - move to Trivia section of each article where appropriate. Some of this info, like age, is already covered in the various List of... articles. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the List of Philippine presidential trivia has been already deleted, so what are we waiting for? Delete United States Presidential trivia now! -- Kevin Ray 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to White hat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:34Z

Anti-Hacker[edit]

Not-notable neologism, no references Alex Bakharev 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I put reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhiteJordan (talk • contribs) 03:38, February 4, 2007.[reply]

Delete per nom. Reference provided is not independent. --N Shar 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definition given applies as much to a hacker as an "anti-hacker." No reference is provided just a set of independent wiki-links. ◄ Zahakiel ► 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Found some stuff documenting some anti-hackers but not the term itself. MER-C 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN as per WP:NEO. Ronbo76 05:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White hat, reasonably plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Serpent's Choice 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The concept may exist, but the term does not. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki , possibly, to Wiktionary Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Redirect to White hat per Serpent's Choice reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are they the same thing? I thought a 'White hat' was a hacker who worked for a legitimate organisation, whilst a so-called 'anti-hacker' is someone who hacks other hackers. I could very easily be wrong though. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not precise synonyms, but appear to share substantial similarities. Especially given the lack of context at this article and dismal prospects of expansion with currently available references, it seems the best I could offer. Serpent's Choice 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are similarities, as the last comment has said, but I think the terms are different enough that a simple redirect might be misleading. If the White Hat entry were expanded to include mention of an anti-hacker, that might be acceptable; but even then we are still dealing with a neologism. I still think deletion is the most reasonable option. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsensical neologism - what exactly is the opposite of a hacker? A White hat hacker isn't. A computer secrity expert isn't. Artw 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect or delete. If the redirect doesn't constitute OR, then create it, otherwise delete. (Tough decision here) —siro χ o 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White hat. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and for reasons stated above--SUIT^-n-tie 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:35Z

Acar (2nd nomination)[edit]

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching google for acar salad reveals more hits than for "sweetbread" (a random, definitely notable food I chose for comparison purposes). --N Shar 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Acar salad per N Shar's Google reasoning Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd be hesitant to delete this, as its notability in English is on the edge, and it is not native to an English-speaking country. For notability, consider news archives, this provides strong evidence that this dish is in the English speaking worlds canon of salads. —siro χ o 10:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first three voters. Mathmo ^Talk 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it's a stub and needs sources, it seems to be accurate and encyclopedic. eaolson 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, seems to meet all inclusion guidelines -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco salad[edit]

Keep This article can clearly be expanded upon. I think just about anyone who's ever visited a Taco Bell or an On the Border has heard of a taco salad. --NMChico24 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching google for "taco salad" reveals more hits than for "sweetbread" (a random, definitely notable food I chose for comparison purposes). --N Shar 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable food, though the article could use expansion. Heimstern Läufer 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable enough. Wavy G 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Article could use expansion, but this is a popular food Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This signature is horridly long and sorta messing up my browser window. GassyGuy 13:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first two voters. Mathmo ^Talk 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to salad (under the "other types of salad section). Yes, they're popular, and yes, I'm sure they have Google presence (in no small part because a lot of folks want to sell them) but unless it can be expanded well beyond where it is, there's really no point in having a separate article. GassyGuy 13:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The history of Taco Salads as an inauthentic yanqui fast-food abomination gives this a lot of potential as an article. Artw 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've seen this in almost every food court -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article shows promise for expansion. Perhaps history and culture sections may be appropriate. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into either salad or taco. There is no reason why taco salad should have its own article. It's merely a deconstructed taco. Something that is a derivative of another food that is non-notable enough to be described in one sentence does not need its own article. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since "taco salad" is neither a taco nor a typical salad. It is a notable dish in its own right, with 582,000 Google hits, so there should be lots of material to improve and extent the article. It already has enough references to satisfy the basic requirements. Inkpaduta 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Taco salad is important and delicious. Bigpoogenerator 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and afk, going to Taco Bell. This made me hungry. Nardman1 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per the comments above. If possible, speedy keep and put an end to this procedural-yet-pointless listing. RFerreira 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:36Z

Ambrosia (fruit salad)[edit]

Merge/Redirect to Fruit salad. --NMChico24 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but must be Rewritten, a potentially good article that is badly and insufficiently written. Wooyi 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Different from fruit salad. This article can be expanded. Wavy G 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per Wooyi and Wavy G Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its certainly notable, a rewrite may indeed be necessary. —siro χ o 10:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic and distinctly different from generic fruit salad. eaolson 14:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambrosia is as notable as it is delicious. Beginning 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A delicious article, seasoned with references, but not too filling. A notable end to a meal. Hardly mere "fruit salad." That's what they serve out of a big can in school cafeterias. Inkpaduta 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's different than just generic fruit salad, subject is notable, but the article could use some rewritting. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per eaolson. The level of delicious-ness is not relevant, of course. Personally I think the version with marshmallows sounds rather nasty. WMMartin 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being delicious. Bigpoogenerator 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:36Z

Piyaz[edit]

Rewrite as potentially useful Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 08:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable (per news article cited, and existence within the English-speaking canon of foods). The fact that its notability is "on the edge" is okay considering the dish is not native to an English-speaking country. Deletion of such articles may lead to systemic bias in our food articles. —siro χ o 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo ^Talk 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because its delete has no good reason. Hevesli 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:37Z

Bonjan salad[edit]

Expand -- I could say to SD because of my aversion to eggplant ;), but this is a potentially cultural article that would complement the encyclopedia. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. This dish is not from an English-speaking country, but the dish has made its way into the English-speaking worlds canon of recipes. I cannot find specific examples of notability for this dish, but so many recipes exist online, that I'd be hesitant to delete for worry of systemic bias. This dish seems culturally significant. —siro χ o 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo ^Talk 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:37Z

Karedok[edit]

Keep - either keep the article or merge it into a more general article, ie. Indonesian salads. (Caniago 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Expand Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Caniago's. — Indon (reply) — 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, for similar reasons to other salad articles. —siro χ o 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo ^Talk 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:38Z

Fattoush[edit]

Expand Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The number of restaurants in the United States named Fattoush [6] suggest a strong cultural significance. I'd hesitate to delete based on systemic bias worries. —siro χ o 10:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo ^Talk 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - strong component of Lebanese cuisine, and appears in "ethnic" recipe books fairly often. Yes it's a stub, but that's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for salad-related reasons. Bigpoogenerator 05:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:38Z

Raheb[edit]

Expand Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for reasons similar to other salad articles —siro χ o 10:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo ^Talk 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability, and no content after a year.--Sefringle 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because salads are important. Bigpoogenerator 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:52Z

Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1[edit]

Notability in question. ghits: [7] NMChico24 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that this group doesn't act under the authority of FEMA, but any individual USRTF does not necessarily carry its own notability. --Dennisthe2 06:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah. Delete per my above comment. --Dennisthe2 06:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your observation, however, all of the FEMA task forces are sponsored by localities or universities (Texas) and South Carolina's task force is one of the first to be declared necessary by state law (SC Law, Chapter 49, Section 23-49-10). Also, as one of the founding members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, which is a grass-roots organization with over 40 member states and Puerto Rico, this increases notability (especially as the inception of this organization happened as a meeting between South Carolina and New Jersey Task Force leaders). I also added references to non-TF sites to prove notability since this was all first posted. I am quickly learning. But thanks for the input.--Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please prove notability. --Dennisthe2 09:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he just do that? Look at the references provided. The team was created by an act of the South Carolina State Legislature, and is a founding member of SUSAR. What more do you want? If you look at my comments below, according to my reading of WP:GTD I don't understand what the problem is. Can you please be specific as to what the problem is? I think Mick has answered all of the concerns that have been raised. MoodyGroove 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

No, it doesn't prove notability - it just tells me that there is legislation that calls for the implementation of such a group. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: "Rep. Bob Inglis page on SC response to Katrina". Rep. Bob Inglis. Retrieved February 9, 2007.. I'm trying to get some of the rest to come up so I can add them to the article, but I get the impression that these won't be good enough either.--Mick 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC) and here's one from when we sent our first big group of team members to Texas to train at Disaster City: "TEEX 2005 Highlights". TEEX. Retrieved February 9, 2007.. and here's another: "SLED Wants Money for Rescue Teams". The State. Retrieved February 9, 2007. I'll have more, just give me a few minutes.I'm not trying to be smart, but I used the template established by the 28 FEMA teams listed on here. Since they don't seem to be in any danger of having their articles yanked, I thought I met the notability question first posed and apparently there's not sufficient evidence. I'll move all of the references over to the article, but since there should be enough here (which exceeds many of the FEMA team articles) I won't be moving the references tonight. I'll send more if you like...--Mick 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's significant, but he did more than that. He showed that the group actually exists, and that the group was deployed to a national emergency: SC-TF1 was one of the first state urban search and rescue resources to be deployed into St. Tammany Parish and St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina in September, 2005.^[1] MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

OK, provide your references. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what he's provided so far isn't enough (link to Title 23-49-10 and the WJWJ TV coverage of the deployment to Katrina), then I hope Mick can provide more. Otherwise, I guess we'll have to wait until SCTF-1 goes on more deployments or gets more press coverage. It's a shame because SCTF-1 is a very professional, highly trained, and well equipped state USAR team. Mick himself is Secretary of NFPA 1006 - Professional Qualifications for Rescue Technicians. MoodyGroove 03:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

I hate to say it, but that link isn't going to be enough, unfortunately. If we can find more - newspaper articles that mention them more than just in passing, that sort of thing - we'll have a winner. --Dennisthe2 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"South Carolina Search Team Sent To Louisiana" WYFF Chanel 4 - Sept. 6, 2005. MoodyGroove 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
"South Carolina Continues To Help States Affected By Katrina" Office of the Adjutant General - Sept. 5, 2005. MoodyGroove 05:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
"An Open Letter To the Citizens of St. Tammany Fire District No. 1" From Larry Hess, Fire Chief St. Tammany Fire District No. 1 - "In all, firefighters assisted in the moving of more than 2,800 people to safety. Approximately 250 of those were in immediate peril. During search and rescue missions with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office, South Carolina Search and Rescue Task Force 1, Alabama Search and Rescue Task Force, your firefighters conducted door-to-door searches of over 25,000 homes and businesses in only nine days. To describe this as a Herculean effort is a gross understatement." MoodyGroove 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
South Carolinians Who Went to the Gulf Coast to Aid Hurricane Katrina Victims Spotlighted in ETV Special "Care From The Heart" Documentary Aired Thursday, Sept. 29 at 7:30 p.m. MoodyGroove 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Annual Accountability Report - Fiscal Year 2005-06. "SC Carolina Firefighters, in response to the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, were deployed to Louisiana under the S.C. State Emergency Operations Plan, Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Thirty-six members of the S.C. Task Force I Urban Search and Rescue Team, along with 22 members of the Greenville County Emergency Response Team, were activated on September 4 for a 14-day deployment to St. Tammany and St. Bernard Parrish, Louisiana. The entire team, which consists of 220 members and is a component of the State Firefighter Mobilization Plan administered by LLR, responds to natural and man-made disasters to provide search and rescue, medical support damage assessment and assist in the coordination of relief." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoodyGroove (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The first and fourth ones will sort of work - the others can go into a references section. They don't mention the team by name, but...hmm... I need to ask questions. I'm going to switch to Neutral for now until we can build more of a consensus.

Thank you. I found out this morning that SCTF-1 was on Good Morning America while they were on deployment for Katrina. I'm looking for a proof source. If necessary I'll call ABC on Monday. MoodyGroove 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

This may have actually been CBS's The Early Show. MoodyGroove 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

"Lending a hand from home" CBS's The Early Show with Tracy Smith - Sept. 8, 2005. "We're brothers and we take care of our own," the team's Kenneth Bell told Smith. "We look out for each other. And we try to help each other. … We've had hurricane issues in South Carolina, and people have come and assisted us from all over the country. So it's our turn to pay back for the help that we've received." MoodyGroove 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
URL for the Video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Janet Smith. MoodyGroove 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
SC-TF1 in the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Delete until such time as the non-FEMA SAR teams have greater notability. FEMA only underwrites a limited number of these as part of the national callup system, other municipalities that want one have to self-fund or operate on a contract basis (layman's interpretation & terminology here), limiting non-local deployments and thus notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that observation as well; because of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, any asset that meets the requirements of the requesting state can deploy to that emergency and therefore, this state team (which was formed by legal mandate) can cross state lines to answer that request. The FEMA system underwrites those 28 FEMA teams, but there are over 40 states that are now members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, some of which have teams that meet the proposed NIMS typing requirements for task forces, and some who don't. If anything, this team does not respond to "local" incidents, because of the tiered response system; first the incident is handled by the local jurisdiction, then regional teams are summoned, then state, then federal. There are cases when the incident escalates quickly (a la Katrina) when federalization early on might have been more beneficial, but regardless, emergencies are supposed to follow that chain of events. --Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to delete a state USAR team? State sponsorship isn't enough? You have to be a federal team to be notable enough for the wikipedia? That's shocking to me. SCFT1 was deployed after Katrina and did a hell of a good job. I need to read the deletion policy and see what the problem is, but I think you should reconsider. MoodyGroove 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Here's what it says in WP:GTD: Non-commercial organizations: 1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. SCTF-1 has been deployed on a national emergency (one of the worst in US history) and this is easily verifiable. 2. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. SCTF-1 is a state USAR team, and not a chapter of a different organization. 3. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. By definition, state is not local. It seems to me that your decision to delete SCTF1 is arbitrary and against the clear text meaning found in WP:GTD. I don't see the rationale, except perhaps a poor understanding of what FEMA is and what national v. state responsibilities are. MoodyGroove 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

You're actually referring to WP:CORP, not WP:GTD, which here, doesn't enter into the debate. CORP also states the following:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company, corporation, organization, or group, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, itself, and reliable.

The stipulation per the non-commercial guideline therein still applies per said guideline. We still need verifiable proof of notability from reliable sources - and a piece of law doesn't prove that this particular USAR group is notable, it just proves that there is legislation calling for the implementation of the group. I'd also like to point out that lawyering isn't going to help prove notability, which is, per the nomination, what is at question. If you can prove notability, you will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, although Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! does specifically link to WP:GTD which specifically links to WP:CORP. These guidelines are confusing to new editors, and it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that I'm lawyering when I make a good faith effort to read up on the process. MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provide with the "findsource" command aren't exactly accurate. The news archive search yields 0 hits because it puts "urban search and rescue south carolina" in quotations instead of conducting the search with the + sign between search terms. MoodyGroove 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Comment - if you're indicating that you've searched for references using different parameters and found reliable sources, then I would suggest including them in the article. Addhoc 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided several (enough for User:Dennisthe2 to go neutral, at least for now), and I'm hoping to add others. If it would help to add them into the article, I'd be happy to do that, too. I wasn't sure whether or not that was allowed during this process. I haven't been an editor for very long, and this is my first AfD process. MoodyGroove 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Please note that I just added an article and video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Tracy Smith. MoodyGroove 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Also please note the URL for the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Keep per above and this search. Addhoc 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MoodyGroove 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Unfortunately, when I was writing this, I couldn't pull up some of these links and used the FEMA team templates thinking that those were sufficient enough to get those articles published. Thanks to all of you who have helped make this a good article. It's a learning experience, but even if the article doesn't get published, the links you all have been digging up are going to prove very useful. As it is, in a few weeks I will be speaking to the SUSAR group (all 40 states attending) and will talk to them about this and how to get involved.--Mick 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now article is sourced, and by it's association notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once there are sources. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:50Z

Ashen Empires[edit]

Webgame without reliable sources. A Google search only brought up one review. Not enough reliable sources for verification, doesn't meet WP:WEB Wafulz 03:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa = 313,814: [8]. You'd expect more. MER-C 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:WEB. Flakeloaf 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-still matters — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP204.108.246.2 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Inclusionism Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, the Web criteria are still disputed, and this has a huge presence on blogs of all types, so I cannot decide one way or another. If there was even one major independent source, I'd say keep though. —siro χ o 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not a vote. "Inclusionism" is not a guideline, and the Web criteria are not disputed- it is an accepted guideline. --Wafulz 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the WP:WEB criteria are disputed if you check out the project page and talk, keep in mind that guidelines are not sent down from on high but rather created via consensus of editors. —siroχo 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The part being disputed isn't completely crucial to this discussion. See here. It's also been quiet for the last four days. --Wafulz 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a google search for "dransik" turns up more notable websites, such as this one. note also that the game has had many more users than it does now; many of them have left and migrated to lothgar.com. Bob A 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand- this looks like a blog and all it says about Ashen Empires is that the game exists and was made. --Wafulz 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - you mean that i just mentioned? look at the bottom. Bob A 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I mean it's still basically a blog/personal website. --Wafulz 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have two co-workers that were talking about this game today. I wanted to know more about it, so I came to Wikipedia and did a search. I was astonished that it's nominated for deletion. There's a lot of buzz surrounding this game and it's growing by leaps and bounds. TenaciousT 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address lack of reliable sources. --Wafulz 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - sources for what? the game obviously exists/existed, so if you mean that the content of the article isn't sufficiently sourced, that's not a ground for deletion. Bob A 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, yes it is. See verification policy. This isn't a question of whether the game exists or not- this is a question of whether there are reliable secondary sources about it. --Wafulz 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - firstly, no it's not. i see nothing in WP:V suggesting that nonverifiability per se is grounds for deletion; if that were true, i could simply remove the unsourced material and we'd be done with it. secondly, what exactly are you saying isn't sufficiently sourced? Bob A 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I meant this link, which states a lack of reliable sources and verification is grounds for deletion. If multiple reliable secondary sources about a topic do not exist, then the article will be original research or inherently non-neutral, or both (both of which are grounds for deletion). --Wafulz 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        wp:dp seems to say quite the opposite. it also says that it constitutes abuse of the deletion process to use it to protest specific content of an article which meets the criteria for existence on wikipedia. the relevant example given is that its central information be verifiable, which this one's certainly is. Bob A 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article!

Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates.

If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted.

Later on, in the abuse section, it says an article should be kept if it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship, which I believe is not the case here, because the material is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. --Wafulz 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, you didn't follow wp:dp, namely, you didn't look for sources yourself, put anything on the talk page, or add any citation request templates. secondly, why do you say that the central information isn't verifiable? just ashenempires.com itself should be more than enough. Bob A 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough indents. I did look for sources - I did a Google search and did not find multiple independent reliable sources. I have asserted that multiple independent (separate from the subject) reliable sources do not exist. The only source you have presented is a personal weblog, which does not have an editorial process to make it reliable. The only way to keep this article from being deleted is to cite independent reliable sources. Every single other article must follow these rules. --Wafulz 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

independent from what? Bob A 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the website/subject itself. --Wafulz 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the subject itself? how is that possible? Bob A 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources cannot be derived from the subject itself. No press releases or on-site stuff. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh? and who said anything about secondary sources? not wp:dp. the information is verifiable. Bob A 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for WP:WEB (currently disputed because some want to tighten the allowable sources) and the fact that using almost entirely self-published sources is inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 08:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability. Bob A 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as we've been having a circular argument for a week now, let me simplify: An article must meet WP:WEB, must be neutral, which is attainable from having multiple reliable sources from independent sources, and must not contain any original research. Directly from WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . --Wafulz 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_weak_ Keep: Ashen Empires was listed as Online Game of the Week at http://www.gameogre.com/onlinegames.htm (this page currently displays this weeks game, scroll down to Past Games of the week, you will find it near the bottom). Additionally there is a review at http://www.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=52, and a press release at http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dransik/news.html?sid=6086405. It appears verifiable to me. Or did I miss something crucial, somewhere along the line?-- Balcerzak 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The OMGN review is already in my nomination. Press releases are really borderline since they're basically a reprint of what a reviewer has been told to say from the company itself. The Game of the Week thing is a selection of user-submitted reviews. If I were presented with another source, I would likely withdraw. --Wafulz 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry, I had missed that you'd already linked that review. And you're right, I'm hard pressed on finding anything else, so I'm changing my vote to a weak keep.-- Balcerzak 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Technicalities. The game does exist. It's even free to play, so it's not hard for many to find out themselves how real the game is. But, if it helps any... There used to be a review of this game back in '03 on a site called player2player.net. The site is still technically around but hardly maintained. Archives aren't available past july '04. I don't know if it can be called a legitimate source today, but it used to be an active site with news and reviews like any other gaming site back in '02-'03. If the admin can be contacted, maybe she'll put up the older archives. 71.113.30.183 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing the game's existence. player2player.net appears to be a user-submitted material website. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [9], [10], [11], [12]. I would look for more, but I'm in a bit of a hurry here. VDZ 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the only one of those links which is an actual article about the subject is the one I provided in the nom. The "feature" from MMOsite is copied directly from Ashen Empire's website. I'm starting to believe nobody is actually reading what I'm saying. --Wafulz 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:48Z

Daphne Braythwayt[edit]

Non notable minor character on Wodehouse books Wehwalt 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuppy Glossop. Walton monarchist89 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think the thing to do is to be bold with redirects rather than listing umpteen articles for deletion, when merge is the appropriate outcome.--Wehwalt 17:56, 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, Cbrown1023 talk 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a suitable list of minor characters on Wodehouse books. I agree with Wehwalt- editors should be bold and change to redirects in these cases. If someone then objects and recreates the article, it can be brought here. WJBscribe 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walton monarchist89 and WJBscribe Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt dojny[edit]

I originally prodded this article with the following explanation: "Total, complete, utter nonsense and hoax." The text has since been changed, but the claims of notability seem to be gone. I couldn't re-prod the article (that's not allowed) so I brought it here. N Shar 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article was tagged for speedy. I didn't want to do that since deprodded articles should probably go to AfD, but I support speedying. --N Shar 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one way or another. Original version cited no reliable sources and was most likely a hoax. New version is more plausible but makes no assertion as to notability. WJBscribe 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete No assertion of notability. Contains nonsense. Poorly written. No context to the reader. And the subject comes up with ZERO ghits. ^{[Check Google hits]} Jerry lavoie 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I tagged the article for a speedy, because it falls under CSD-A7, person with no assertion of notability. Michael Greiner 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, fails google hits [13].--John Lake 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN per WP:BIO and the bit about washing his hands reads like nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)

The result was Merge to Huntington, New York. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:46Z

1946 Huntington Planning Map[edit]

This is a map that was produced by the town of Huntington, New York in 1946. It's no more notable than any other map. I tried to explain to the author on the talk page how the article is original research, but was unsuccessful; I would appreciate it if someone else, who may be better at communicating, could try. However, this research may be useful, so I think this should be transwikied to Commons. --NE2 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the actual images itself are already at Commons... MER-C 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clearly OR no matter how interesting and Wikipedia is not the place for publishing same. Would make a good urban planning magazine article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this is not OR. The map itself is the original source, and the article describes the map. A physical description of a map is not OR. Nardman1 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at best, that would allow us to keep a description of the map. The conclusions about what it shows about suburban development patterns utterly fail WP:V. Without that, the map has no apparent significance outside of Huntington. Who, other than the author of our article, has deemed this a significant map? --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nardman1 Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article makes a case for notability, and its mostly verifiable by the map. Also, clean a little, and some sources other than the map should be listed for things the map does not defend alone. —siroχo 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Governments have produced millions of maps just like this one. Should we have an article on each one? --NE2 15:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point, unless there are sources about this map in particular, the conclusions are unsupported. --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The map is at commons so can be used in articles. There are no sources, references and this is just an indistriminate set of information. No more notable than hundreds of other survey maps, ordinance maps etc. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. This is simply a source media file and does not merit an article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siro χ o. Mathmo ^Talk 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no claim to notability, does not explain why this map is significant and offers no sources. All we have is the authors opinions on what the map demonstrates and observations on what is on, and not on, the map. Nuttah68 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly add map as a link to Huntington, New York. Assertion of notability appears to be a combination of original research and WP:ILIKEIT. The article claims with no supporting sources that the map has a significant role in urban history and points out features as "notable" without relying on Wikipedia's notability policy requiring evidence of coverage by independent publications. These claims need to be sourced or this article needs to be deleted. --Shirahadasha 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did anybody actually read the talk page before voting? Many people have voted to delete because there are no sources to support notability but the talk page clearly states that expert sources are available and were offered. The Huntington Town Historian and the Long Island History Museum have both stated notability so this shouldn't be an issue?. You don't delete an article that just needs a little fixing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, yes I read your comments on the articles talk page and nowhere do you offer any evidence of notability. The fact that an organisation chooses to archive something does not impart or even infer notability. I advise you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Nuttah68 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I advise you to read it again. I did say that the LI history museum only chose to add it to the archives, but I clearly stated that the Huntington Town Historian (the most reliable expert on this subject you can possibly think of) has indeed confirmed the map's historical notability, in writing. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Nardman stated, the verifiable description of a map does not constitute original research. If so, you would need to delete most movie articles for the same reason that they too are just describing the available source material they saw. Fife Club 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or 'transwiki' somewhere. To be 'notable' the map would need to have been written about in multiple publications. All we see is the map and someone's original research of examining it and writing about it. Having a bunch of real places on a map does nothing to make the map itself notable. Also, did the city grant permission to reproduce it? Otherwise it is a copyright violation, since a high resolution copy is not any kind of fair use exception. As for the previous comment about movie article having to be deleted as original research, feel free to nominate a bunch of them and see how it goes. Inkpaduta 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a copyright violation, since it was published before 1964 and its copyright was not renewed. --NE2 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WTF!? Who the hell do you think you are to override the copyright information with your own personal opinion? Here's the history of the original file I uploaded to the commons, and you see NE2 (the same user who began this debate) removed the actual reason it is public domain with his own "real" personal assessment. There was previous discussion on in the Village Pump about how it the file absolutely would have fallen under copyright. I don't know why you assumed the copyright ran out in 1974 because you tend to never explain your edit reasoning but it never expired. I personally got written permission from the copyright holder, that fact was clearly stated on the files copyright section, and you decided to remove it without any discussion, which is your M.O. This is why so many people are confused, because you keep giving false information and I keep having to explain the truth. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The copyright of any work published first in the U.S. before 1964, whose copyright was not renewed, expired 28 years after publishing. --NE2 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a place article. It's an interesting bit of local history. Everyking 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, this article has the most un-interesting "interesting facts" section I've ever read. --193.166.15.251 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been a speedy - this isn't an encyclopedia article. The image can be at commons, but all content requires sources. Addhoc 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Addhoc, Dhartung, and WP:NOR. "I've got emails from the Huntington Town Historian", as stated on the talk page, is the definition of original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:39Z

Hooty Sapperticker[edit]

Delete - does not appear to be the subject of multiple third-party sources. The one source cited in the article, Dave Barry's column, mentions the song in passing in less than a paragraph. Otto4711 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a Dave Barry fan (sigh... I was hoping not to have to admit this) but even a mention in a Dave Barry column does not guarantee notability. --N Shar 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a song by a non-notable band generally cannot be notable. Wooyi 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dave Barry is fun, but Dave Barry talking about how silly something sounds doesn't make it notable, it just shows how silly Dave Barry thinks it sounds. Though I have to agree, it does sound quite silly. --Dennisthe2 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barry even refers to the song in his column as non-notable. Krimpet 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, From google there is a result for 340 at least. Quite a significant number for a very old song from the 50's. Could be something worthwhile there. I'm very tempted to vote Keep, but to tired at the moment to search around and find anything that supports my gut feeling. Thus for now, I Abstain. Mathmo ^Talk 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those google results appear to be someone on one or more message boards who uses "Hooty Sapperticker" as an ID. Otto4711 13:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment, there seems to have been a range of similar names (i.e. hootie rather than hooty, or three words rather than two words in the title, etc...) this song has been called. Perhaps an alternative search would produce better results (though I do believe this is the most common/correct name that we have here already). Mathmo ^Talk 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:40Z

Fight Club in popular culture[edit]

Delete - a completely indiscriminate list of every time that a particular phrase or sentence from a book or movie was used in another movie or TV show is unnecessary. Something in the main Fight Club and Fight Club (film) articles along the lines of "the book/film has been referenced repeatedly in other popular films and television shows, especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I completely agree with Otto4711.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT#IINFO list of passing mentions of cliched lines from the movie. Krimpet 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An indiscriminate collection of plot summaries and OR fan interpretations. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the first rule of Wikipedia is that you do not talk about indiscriminate information like this. MER-C 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOT#IINFO per MER-C and Krimpet. Semperf 06:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, the fact MER-C couldn't resist refering to it shows just how very common and notably this has become. Widespread usage. Mathmo ^Talk 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, did anybody check the main articles first before listing/voting here? Although the nominator said "Something in the main Fight Club and Fight Club (film) articles along the lines of...", if you actually go to there they refer you to this very article that is up for AfD as the main article for that section. This is a very good idea because it drastically reduces the size of the main articles. AND at the same time avoids duplication between the articles of having each popular culture reference being on two articles it is instead only on one article. Thus the deletion of this article will cause more harm than any supposed good it might do. Mathmo ^Talk 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at the main articles before nominating this and I agree that removing large trivia sections from the main book and film articles is a very good idea. However, removing a trivia section from one article so that it may be relocated into another article is not a good idea. Passing references to every book or film or TV show that mention another book or film or TV show are not in themselves so notable as to require separate articles. Otto4711 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list concerning notable works, especially relevant in this case as Fight Club is about popular culture. Any original research/fan interpretation problems can be cleaned up. Per Mathmo, if it is deleted then cultural references will be unknowingly added to the main articles, which is counterproductive. The scope isn't so big that the list will become an unmaintainable mess. The nom's example "...especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" does sound like original research - can you back that claim up without the list? Would you argue that any "in popular culture" or "cultural references" article is an indiscriminate collection of information as well? If someone could please guide me to a policy that discriminates between passing references and notable references, then I will work on improving the article in that sense. Pomte 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I would argue that any similar article to this one is an indiscriminate collection of information. I would categorize any article that seeks to capture every single reference to a film or a book in every other medium as indiscriminate. Otto4711 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most notable -- and verifiable -- examples into either the novel or (more likely) film article. A quick glance revealed far too many speculative and/or NN examples. I mean, just because a character in Dead Like Me sort of dresses like a character in the film doesn't mean the film had any impact at all on that costuming decision; it's the same as suggesting that someone wearing a tuxedo in a film is doing so because of James Bond. 23skidoo 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bordering on indiscriminate, I'd like to see it pared down and possibly merged, but the fact is Fight Club has had a huge effect on pop culture for over 10 years now. When a movie does that, it is notable. This cannot be done away with without some merging, because the Fight Club article relies on this as a sub right now, so note to closer if this article is deleted, please find some way to notify those upkeeping the Fight Club article and give them a way to fix that section. —siro χ o 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz has been a cultural influence for almost 70 years, including amassing a significant body of scholarship amongst film historians, yet that article manages to limit itself to a few references. Otto4711 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison is not a reason for a decision, not every article in Wikipedia has been "finished", let a lone created. If there were a long list of references to The Wizard of Oz, I'd probably vote exactly the same way, perhaps even allowing for a longer list considering the 7 decades it has influence pop culture. —siro χ o 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the sole basis for a decision, certainly, but when one makes the argument that a film's ten year history of cultural influence is justification for an article then it's reasonable to point out other examples of far more influential films who handle the issue differently. Moreover, I would argue that the article in question is not a documentation of the "cultural influence" of Fight Club. It's mostly a collection of one-liners from a variety of sources bunged together with things that likely have nothing to do with Fight Club at all (the aforementioned similar clothes item). Otto4711 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as explained above by Krimpet and others. The policy says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trivia manual. A basic problem with this level of trivia is that editors can't possibly verify it. Whether a work alludes to another work is often a matter of interpretation, and editors' efforts to suppy their own opinions are essentially WP:OR. Can we manage this information reliably? --Shirahadasha 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, split off content warranted. Everyking 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fight Club is very influent in the modern culture, worldwide. I even think that the article should be expanded with more generic information, I mean, this article is like a trivia article, but need information of how Fight Club has influenced nowadays: philosophy, cult, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AVeRY! (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken heart[edit]

Due to the nature of the subject, there are no reliable verifiable sources, so the subject matter is not suitable for Wikipedia. Rosemary Amey 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Plenty of sources are listed on this fairly well written article for a very common metaphor. Discussion of popular metaphors is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is reasonably sourced. And the topic is definitely notable. Not to descend into counting ghits, but "broken heart" gets 1,430,000. WJBscribe 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources, in literature and otherwise. --N Shar 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced particularly regarding the medical aspects. Also a very widespread subject and metaphor. Krimpet 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very notable social/cultural phenomenon, not just a metaphor itself, should be in wikipedia. Wooyi 05:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all of the above. --Candy-Panda 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, and ridiculous nomination. Wavy G 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to List of political parties in Aruba. Merge already completed by Black Falcon. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aruban Democratic Alliance[edit]

It's hard to argue for the deletion of any political party, but the Aruban Democratic Alliance (ALIANSA) really is not notable. The article itself says they won nothing in the election five years ago. An internet search turns up about 100 nonwiki ghits, which is too low even for a country where English is not the primary language. Maybe someone can check if there are notability criteria for political parties. YechielMan 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom: 3.5% of the vote in one election five years ago does not pass the threshhold of notability. Also, verifiability is a problem. Semperf 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the information contained is verifiable (see [14] and [15]). The problem is that there is apparently no readily-available online source that treats the party in a non-trivial manner. Perhaps there is some information available in Aruban newspaper print sources (I will post a message requesting sourced information to the Carribean WikiProject). I really don't want political party articles to be deleted, but I agree with the nom that, as it stands, the article fails WP:Notability. Black Falcon 06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no moral problem with deleting the articles of non-notable political parties. The line has to be drawn somewhere; this party is worth at best a parenthetical mention in the page describing the election it lost. Flakeloaf 06:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect to List of political parties in Aruba. The merge will require nothing more than typing the name of the party and maybe a sentence about its one-time participation in the 2001 elections. I can do this in 2 minutes if the idea is supported. Even if a merge is not supported, the article should be redirected rather than deleted. Black Falcon 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's done -- all that's left is to turn this page (the article, not this AfD) into a redirect. Feel free to revert my edit on List of political parties in Aruba if you think it's inappropriate. Black Falcon 06:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:41Z

City Creek Center[edit]

~~removal of db because more info provided, but this article violates WP:CRYSTAL.~~ With enough information and references provided, and notibility verified, I no longer support deletion. Wooyi 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) are numerous and easy to find. --N Shar 06:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per N Shar and under-construction developments are not being CRYSTAL Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable development in the heart of Salt Lake City. It truly is occuring and not WP:CRYSTAL. Good references provided by N Shar. --Oakshade 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious reasons already stated. Jaksmata 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Manhattan streets, 1-14. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:43Z

1st Street (Manhattan)[edit]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Manhattan streets, 1-14 per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N. These pages have near identical information with no claims of notability. These are relatively unremarkable streets in Manhattan and very few edits have been made since they were created last ~~October~~ November, and it's unlikely that anything of note will be added. talk to Ytny 05:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that while the streets themselves are not notable on their own, the grid and the component streets as a whole are. talk to Ytny 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable street. wikipedia can't contain all streets in the world. Wooyi 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to Manhattan streets, 1-14. Keep 13th, since it is the southernmost one that follows the grid all the way across. I can add details on a streetcar line that used part of 13th (since 14th was taken), but that would be pointless if the article is deleted. --NE2 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. Template:Manhattan Streets should go too, it's huge, indiscriminate, encourages the creation of articles like these, and is better served by the Streets in Manhattan template. Krimpet 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the case for keeping 13th, though it might make more sense to merge it into Commissioners' Plan of 1811. And something like Manhattan streets, 23-42 might work for sub-14th Streets. talk to Ytny 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds more useful than individual pages for every street. - grubber 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support, agree with Ytny's suggestion. Mathmo ^Talk 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up question - One of the reasons I nominated these articles is I wanted to get a consensus of what constitutes a notable street. I believe West 4th Street (Manhattan) is notable enough on its own, 2nd Street (Manhattan) likely is not, but there are varying degrees of room for debate for 8th Street (Manhattan), 47th Street (Manhattan) and 50th Street (Manhattan). What are the criteria for a standalone article for a Manhattan street? talk to Ytny 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment has nothing to do with whether the street is notable; the current status of the articles are not useful. As for your question, at the very least the streets that are wider than the norm, and probably the ones with crosstown bus routes, should be notable. --NE2 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - W. 4th is definitely notable. The criteria should be historical, cultural as well as utilitarian. Not all Manhattan streets are notable, but quite a few are. There is probably a place for a List of Manhattan streets or ...minor Manhattan streets if need be. Delete 1st/2nd/3rd, Keep 13th per NE2. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted not sourced. --Shirahadasha 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:N. If it were notable, there would be lots of published articles where it was specifically the subject. Notability is not about "All streets are notable" or "I firmly believe it is notable." Madison Avenue and Broadway in New York City are notable, because they have ben the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources. Other streets are too, They have been written about. Find several nontrivial articles about this street and cite them in the article and it could be kept. Edison 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Width and bus routes are hardly the criteria in Manhattan (or London or San Francisco, etc), though they may be in lesser places. I'm not aware of anything particularly notable about (or on) this one, and the article doesn't tell me of any. Place on the grid is NN, especially when the infor repeats for many streets without anything more to say. An encyclopedia article needs some content. DGG 06:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way indiscrimate, and I forsee the day when they get clogged with trivial bits like "So-and-so lived on West Eleventh Street in the book Such-and-such" or "The Furshlinger Building is on the street." And the implication of that huge template is scary. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, specifically per Edison's reasoning. I have to say, if I were seeking to destroy Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia ( as opposed to a directory ), I'd start articles like these ( along with all the Pokemon stuff ). I also feel that Calton's immediately preceding comment can probably be recast as the core of a solid case against at least some forms of eventualism. WMMartin 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Guinness World Records. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:44Z

Features of Guinness World Records Books[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than abandoned, unwikified list. Page has been unmaintained practically since its creation and is just a target for vandals now. RJASE1 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Merge to Guinness World Records, redundant to have it as independent article. Wooyi 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and Merge with Guinness World Records. The article on the book is supposed to explain the content of the book, not read it to us. Flakeloaf 06:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful per above. The fact Guinness has added and abandoned categories over the years is a notable fact, but I don't really see a need for a separate article, especially one so incomplete; to be viable a survey of the books going back to the 1950s would have to be undertaken. 23skidoo 06:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Merge per Wooyi. Mathmo ^Talk 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're describing a World Records book here, which is itself a collection of information. Anyone see what's wrong here? Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Per WP:N and WP:V, only records that have a confirming independent source (in addition to the Guiness World Records should be merged into other articles. Guiness World Records as a whole has notability, but this doesn't mean that each record does individually. --Shirahadasha 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Wooyi. It's indiscriminate and unmaintained on it's own, but fine as an inclusion. Whilding87 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:46Z

Pickled punks[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as 'in bad taste', which is a bad speedy reason. Google bears out the usage of this phrase, though not with any reliable sources that I can find, and it's non-notable in any case. Opabinia regalis 06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, irrelevant neologism. Krimpet 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Freak show Delete as neologism, no place for it exists in other related. Flakeloaf 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being in bad taste, the article is unsourced. It's probably not a neologism (it's probably an old term), but it is not a notable phenomenon. --N Shar 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article text was by a red author whose only contribution was that one and a link to it. - grubber 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for deleting this article, but "the author didn't write anything else and never made a user page" is hardly a reason to delete something, and thinking that way is a bad habit to get into. Opabinia regalis 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with new guys. But when it comes to trying to guess whether we should take a controversial page seriously or not, the fact that the user had only two edits and he hasn't been back in 11 months -- that seems like reasonable evidence to support that this page is not legit. It's not the only evidence, nor is it sufficient to justify deletion. But it should be considered. - grubber 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That I can agree with. Opabinia regalis 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and non-notable... and "ewwwww". --Candy-Panda 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. "Disturbing" is not a reason for deletion. This was a common feature of circus sideshows, just as a "Lobster boy" and a "bearded lady." And (purely speculative, here) this may have possibly led to the term "punk," as it is used in popular culture today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wavy G (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't suppose you have a reliable source to support this claim, do you? Opabinia regalis 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, a reliable source for something I said was "purely speculative" on my part? No, it was just a hunch, hence, why I said that. Perhaps somebody who knows something about the etymology of the term could answer that. Wavy G 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So your whole post was speculation, and not just the last sentence? Opabinia regalis 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wavy G; "ewwwww" is not a reason for deletion, either. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above two editors. Mathmo ^Talk 09:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Freak show. Totnesmartin 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DICT, should belong to wikitionary. Wooyi 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, unsourced, neologism Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Freak show. Not a neologism, but a frequent attraction in traditional freak shows. Also gets about 193,000 Ghits. Edeans 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Lost Cousin[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion, and does not appear to be notable, referenced, or even written at all. It is my guess that this is supposed to be a song, but given the poor writing and two SPDel noms, I say delete. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Flakeloaf 06:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Literally patent nonsense. --N Shar 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:BALLS. Krimpet 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:46Z

Bin Shabib[edit]

This article about a family makes no claim that they are notable and has no references. Inkpaduta 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. The article doesn't describe anyone within the family who is actually prominent or notable in any way, thus, the family itself is not notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Turgidson 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:47Z

List of Lithuanian given names[edit]

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:Lithuanian 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 07:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shirahadasha 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:47Z

List of French given names[edit]

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:French 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 07:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.--Shirahadasha 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:48Z

List of Armenian given names[edit]

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:Armenian 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 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though one should note that the previous debate ended in no consensus. Consensus has changed on these things. MER-C 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shirahadasha 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:48Z

List of Portuguese given names[edit]

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:Portuguese 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 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I say this from a Portuguese speakers viewpoint, I am a native born speaker of Portuguese (born in Brazil), but this list is not for wiki-pedia Pernambuco 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shirahadasha 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:43Z

Chen Ji[edit]

No refs to show whether this is a hoax, has been tagged as 'possible fiction' for some time. No references, could be just mentioned in another article about the period if he actually existed. Inkpaduta 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More research is necessary. Can we get in touch with the original author? Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author, Darin Fidika (talk · contribs), is notorious for creating fiction-filled articles with no distinction between fact and fiction. I don't think contacting him will be at all helpful. --Nlu (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve. This search leads me to believe it is not a hoax, but obviously could do with being improved. Mathmo ^Talk 12:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information needed I went to see the Chinese Wiki page of this artile, it turned out to be an unrelated Chinese athlete, which is bizarre. Wooyi 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see talk page of article creator [22], who is blocked indefinitely, and where someone noted that this article was based on a novel, but is presented as history and fact. Inkpaduta 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for same reason as Mathmo. --queso man 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the search by Mathmo leads to a novel and/or game called "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," hardly a reliable source for a claimed historical character. Inkpaduta 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RTK is not "a novel"; check the WP article-- it is one of the great masterpieces of world literature and widely acknowledged as such. As for the history/fiction aspect, it's an historical novel, and its characters are the same as the historical ones, and the descriptions of their role apply to both the novel and the history. The game references appear because multiple games, video series, manga, etc. have been based on the story. It's quite a long WP article, with a long subsidiary article on the characters. Chen Ji is in the list. Most of the characters have separate articles, though it some cases they lead to other people with the same name.

I wish people would not conclude that things arent real or important without at least searching Wikipedia. For further edits or changes, someone who is more familiar with the Chinese sources is obviously needed--I know only the English translation, which is not enough to disambiguate Chinese names. DGG 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's notability is suspect (although I acknowledge that historical personalities' notability is fuzzy), and in any case there is no usable, salvageable article here. After deletion, if someone else wants to write a proper article that properly shows notability, he/she is welcome to. --Nlu (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after 10 minutes of searching, I was only able find this trivial mention. Addhoc 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The interwiki link to Chinese Wikipedia goes to an article on a current Chinese athlete with the same name. Therefore, if deleted, and someone with sufficient knowledge on the subject (and actually, that wouldn't be me since my knowledge as to the Chinese sports scene is limited) hopefully will restart the article, but about the athlete. --Nlu (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 10:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar Pedram[edit]

Notability in question. Page author disputes deletion by repeatedly removing the speedy tag, so I've decided to bring it here for community consensus. ghits: [23] NMChico24 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom, but there is insufficient information available in the article Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 09:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uberfic[edit]

Article about a category of fanfiction. No reliable sources (WP:RS) for the article, fails WP:V and is original research (WP:NOR). Article was kept in a previous AfD and was later deleted by WP:PROD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article has already survived an deletion review on 20/09/05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan D. Parshall (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but all of the sources presented in that AfD were fanfic sites; none were reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per previous afd. Mark talk page so it doesn't get deleted again. Nardman1 08:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is still unsourced original research. Where exactly are the reliable sources covering the use of this word? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The application of WP:V has changed considerably since 2005; AFDs from that period make poor precedent. The article does not cite reliable sources, and, moreover, does not address the demands of WP:NEO. A merge to Fan fiction terminology is also a possibility, although given the state of that article, such a course of action may just be postponing matters. Serpent's Choice 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Serpent's Choice. --Linear Model 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Linear Model is new created vandal account. Hevesli 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nardman1 Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serpent's Choice, neologism with no proven notability outside of forums and fanfiction websites. No reliable sources; one of the sources cited is the one that claims to have invented the term. Krimpet 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that automatically disqualify it? Would an article by Steven Colbert which inlcuded the claim to have invented the word truthiness not be okay? —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 10:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Truthiness was also the Merriam-Webster word of the year, the American Dialect Society word of the year, and was directly addressed on network television and in The New York Times. As of this comment, the truthiness article has 41 sources, many of which are from major newspapers and news services. That is substantially different from posts on forums, blogs, and fanfic sites without editorial control; the distinction is an essential part of the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability proven by two sources added to article —siro χ o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence from reliable sources that WP:NEO is met, nn neologism, 879 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability proven by two sources added to article —siro χ o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable genre of fanfic. Mathmo ^Talk 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX and Serpent's Choice. This is silly. JuJube 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Silly is not a reason for deletion, and notability is now proven by two sources added to article. —siroχo 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do everyone a favor and don't nitpick. My vote says "Delete per NeoChaosX and Serpent's Choice", not "delete because it's silly". JuJube 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "uberfic" won't find everything because it's more often just "uber". There are several good sources for its existence: a Genders article; an article from Reason (magazine); and a paper in the Journal of Science and Technology Law. Those just give dictionary definitions, but there's more in this master's thesis and quite a bit more in this doctoral dissertation -- the only diss I've ever encountered that has annoying background music, but authenticable by following the breadcrumbs from here.

I list all these sources because they may meet some people's keep criteria. My own !vote is for a merge to Über, where there's already a short section on the term's use in fanfiction. —Cel ithemis 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may make more sense to minimize the piece in Uber and move most of it to this article (assuming it is now kept due to sourcing), as that has little to do with that article a whole. —siro χ o 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't seem to find a mention of uberfic in either one of the thesises you've supplied. Searching for "uberfic" or "Überfic" in the pdf of the Master's thesis comes up with nothing (mind pointing to specific page it's on?) and while I admire the reason the doctorate thesis is laid out the way it is, I can't seem to find a mention of the term in it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; found couple paragraphs about uberfic in the master's thesis. Almost there; if there is something about uber fic in the doctorate thesis, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination (since there would be multiple independent reliable sources). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the dissertation is hard to navigagte. The direct link is here; it's definitely a nontrivial discussion. —Cel ithemis 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If it's been discussed in two peer-reviewed thesises, I can't argue against that. Withdraw nomination, but this article definately needs some major work to intergrate these sources into the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean non-notable or non-verifiable, notability proven by two sources added to article (thereby verifying —siro χ o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ~~two~~ three independent nontrivial reliable sources added, so it satisifes N reqs. —siro χ o 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply because an article managed to "survive" a previous vote does not give it immunity from deletion forever; such arguments are ridiculous. In any case, I would like to point out that the previous vote was 2 - 2, hardly a landslide decision. "three independent nontrivial reliable sources added"? Hardly. A local newspaper and a magazine are not really nontrivial reliable sources. Try NYT or Time magazine or something with substance. In any case, any good article can be backed up by much more than three sources. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per siroxo there are multiple sources for it yuckfoo 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has references now. Reason magazine is a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:50Z

Sympatheon[edit]

Article about a non-notable neologism. No coverage of this word in reliable sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NEO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My professor, Prof. Tung, at Kean University just taught a whole class on the subject. It's in my textbook, New Developments in Film Theory by Patrick Fuery, chapter 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclosmithy (talk • contribs)
- Comment - my professor taught a whole course about him having sex with your mom too. Should I write an article about that? --Linear Model 08:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment. Linear Model is new created vandal account. Hevesli 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, keep things civil here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - lol, some uni courses do teach how to have sex (guess it could be with your mum too, is she willing?!). Hah. Anyway... do agree with your general feeling about though, Linear Model could have had a touch more civil intent. Oh well, such a nice username too. Mathmo ^Talk
Delete - non-notable. --Linear Model 08:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only google results are some guy who uses it as his Everquest 2 in-game name --⁪froth^T 08:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability can be found. The fact that the concept exists doesn't automatically confer notability, since cultural theorists have a tendency to name everything they see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 7 ghits. MER-C 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons above, plus a super duper bonus reason of only 7 ghits. (with a triple bonus of none of them being relevant to this article) Mathmo ^Talk 12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, good for a literary term glossary entry but not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wooyi 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Go away sympatheon, and take aspargeon with you! Non-notable thing someone made up. Inkpaduta 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from incivility. Wooyi 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from bogus incivility warnings. Expressing dislike of bogus neologisms and wanting them removed from Wikipedia does not constitute incivility. Per the essay on incivility, "The word "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen". I see it as a duty of a citizen of Wikipedia to express disdain for articles about non-notable neologisms. Worry more about personal attacks than disdain for neologisms. Inkpaduta 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just expressing concerns according to the policy WP:CIV, nothing to take personally and no need to take out original definition of the word. And I dont understand whats up with "aspargeon", some neologism you invented to criticize neologism? plus, my view on this article is delete too. Wooyi 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Aspargeon" is mentioned (albeit terribly defined) in the article as a kind of opposite to "sympatheon". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Focus (band). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:51Z

Cyril Havermans[edit]

Non-notable musician. Speedied once already. adavidw 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From WP:MUSIC, a sufficient criterion for notability is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Havermans meets this criterion, having a credit on the single Hocus Pocus, which reached #9 on both Dutch and American charts. Aiwendil42 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his band's page, since a member of a notable band deserves some information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Focus makes sense to me. Aiwendil42 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted as copyvio. W.marsh 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark D. Poindexter[edit]

non-notable, original research, autobiographical, prod tag was in place for more than 5 days and removed by anon, possible copyright vio (see talk page Nardman1 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but how is it original research? MER-C 09:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting autobiographical content is not OR? :P Self-publishing material in a non peer-reviewed forum and then copying it to wikipedia is still OR. Nardman1 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all autobiographies are OR and this seems to be one of them. MER-C 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as autobiography Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it my imagination or did we have some Poindexters a few days back? Alf photoman 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia sounds like a guy who handles traffic tickets or housing violations[24]. Not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all of above. Definite copyvio from http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,A,3,Q,594919.asp and so tagged for Speedy Ohconfucius 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.

Girard Tecson[edit]

Only assersion of notability ("Critically acclaimed") is completely unverified, and verification was not provided before prod was removed, so I'm nominating for deletion i kan reed 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- fails WP:BIO, WP:V, 452 google hits and his show's "site" is a myspace. Enough said, really-from K37 08:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber delete. Seems self written: "Girard is currently in love with Jing, and hope she feels the same way. She puts a smile in his face. Her presence makes his day brighter and his feelings towards her grows ever stronger ... In school and in the privacy of his home, they shared very intemate moments. Even in Biology, the professor asked them to separate because they always showed their affection toward one another during lectures." heh --⁪froth^T 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete surely this ought to be speediable, no claim of notability, CSD A7. Pete.Hurd 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I felt the same way, but being "critically acclaimed" as was stated in at least one version of the article, does meet WP:BIO, I'm just incredulous as to the truth of the matter since there are no refrences. i kan reed 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- completely non-notable. Turgidson 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete- not notable, vanity page. --queso man 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just The Shoe Of Us[edit]

a youtube movie with no assertion of notability. i kan reed 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone can make a youtube video. That does not make it automatically notable. Wavy G 08:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - ~~obvious copyvio~~. So tagged. MER-C 08:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't even think to check that. Thanks, i kan reed 08:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The structure of the page is from IMDB, not the content, while this may be a copyright violation, it's not an uncleanable one. I've removed the speedy template, i kan reed 08:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about for being unremarkable web content, then? MER-C 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is definately not notable, it's just someone's backyard project --⁪froth^T 08:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the only google hit for this is on YouTube. Not notable at all. Krimpet 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:52Z

Kjata[edit]

Minor summon in one Final Fantasy game. Nothing can be merged, because we don't cover every single magical spell or summon; if we do, it's as an example. — Deckill er 08:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP isn't a game guide --⁪froth^T 09:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of real world significance per WP:NOT. MER-C 09:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is WP:OR. Mathmo ^Talk 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kuyutha. - Gilgamesh 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Let Go. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:53Z

Let Go (song)[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Candy-Panda 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Definately notable but there's no way it has enough content for a full article. Redirect to the album's article (Another Journal Entry) --⁪froth^T 09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as "Title (Song)" is a common format for song article titles. —siro χ o 09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is the Lead single. Mathmo ^Talk 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect because there are more notable songs called "Let Go" that merit articles, such as Frou Frou's. JuJube 13:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Let Go because several songs have that title, so no article should be located at this particular title anyway. GassyGuy 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:54Z

The Way (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, unsourced claims such as "Their dual guitar solos could have given the Allman Brothers a run for their money.". Candy-Panda 09:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:BAND by having 2 albums on a major label. Style of writing is not a reason for deletion, remove the unsourced claims instead of nominating the article for deletion —siro χ o 09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep, "unsourced claims such as "Their dual guitar solos could have given the Allman Brothers a run for their money"" is not in itself a reason for deletion. Next time I encourage you to instead be bold and improve it yourself by removing the claim (I'll go do exactly that myself now). Mathmo ^Talk 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and Keep per above Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A statement with POV is not a reason to delete an article. The band released two albums on a notable label and meets WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:55Z

Verbs (rapper)[edit]

Unsourced stub article about a non-notable rapper. Unsourced claims such as "has achieved respect in the industry". Candy-Panda 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the nomination, an article being unsourced is a case where deletion may not be necessary. Unsourced claims within the article is not a reason for deletion at all. This artist satisfies WP:MUSIC by having multiple works released through Gotee —siro χ o

Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliabls sources that WP:MUSIC is met. Added his albums to the nomination. MER-C 10:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has multiple release on Gotee, so WP:MUSIC is indeed met. —siro χ o 15:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, does claim notability (less clear from previous current version, but merged back now with an older version). Mathmo ^Talk

Decided to dig around a little, came across this:

In 1994, Knowdaverbs moved to Nashville to link with Gotee Records' hip-hop group, GRITS, as their dancer and hype man. He soon began guest appearances on several of GRITS' songs and videos including "Hopes and Dreams" and "Plagiarism" the latter of which charted to #8 on BET's Rap City's Top 10. His talent caught the eye of Gotee Records CEO, Toby McKeehan, who soon approached Knowdaverbs to record an album.

The video for the title track received a great response with rotation on Fish TV, BET's Lift Every Voice, Jam Zone and Rap City.

Would appear that it does too meet what is required. There is probably a lot more out there that can't be found easily through use of google because this is from pre-internet days (or at least the widespread use of it). Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found reviews and news articles on Cross Rhythms [25]. Even ignoring the significant amount of coverage I'd expect there would be offline it would appear that there is still enough to be found online for notability and sourcing to be covered for this. Mathmo ^Talk 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom-from K37 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the topic, as he has multiple release for Gotee so he satisfies WP:MUSIC, however, the article is currently a copyvio from allmusic.com [26] so must be dealt with apropriately. —siro χ o 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Releases on Gotee satisfies WP:MUSIC, has worked with a number of othe notable bands/artists also (GRITS, DJ Maj, Jennifer Knapp, KJ-52). --Will Mak 050389 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please satisfies the music like said above yuckfoo 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per G12. Not quite your usual copyvio, but it still is. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Muslims studying overseas[edit]

nn and limited interest Nardman1 09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The text there is better placed in the main Islamic education in China article. Galanskov 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio from [27]. Searching for the first few words in each paragraph makes it obvious. So tagged. MER-C 10:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by CJLL Wright per CSD R1. BryanG^(talk) 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese muslims studying overseas[edit]

per above Nardman1 09:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion proposal. I moved the page to Chinese Muslims studying overseas, as failing to capitalize the word 'Muslim' is disrespectful to the followers of Islam. It really dosen't have any value as a redirect because nothing links to it and it's unlikely that anyone will type the phrase into the search bar. Galanskov 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - somewhat redundant, as the article will be deleted CSD R1 once the target is deleted. MER-C 10:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:57Z

Titus (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, the fact that the "official website" is their Myspace page is a dead giveaway... Candy-Panda 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, they claim to have notability on the article. So you can't demand deletion on that basis. Use the fact they are using Myspace is a disturbingly weak argument. Myspace has had a huge uptake in the music industry and many many notable bands/musicians/etc use myspace as their site. Mathmo ^Talk 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand per Mathmo's reasons Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 10:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless reliable sources are found to demonstrate their notability. Claims of notability mean the article can't be speedily deleted, but they do need to be substantiated. FreplySpang 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Striking my recommendation after Mathmo's comment below. There are various news stories at the link he mentioned, but I'm not sure whether they're Reliable Sources or not. It would probably improve the chances of keeping this article if someone would sort through these news stories and add links to one or two of the most reliable. FreplySpang 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FreplySprang. MER-C 10:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, did anybody check the links that are already on the article before voting?! (yeah, I'll admit to only looking at them afterwards. But still did it anyway to double check my first intial feelings about this, seems to be confirming it so far). Anyway, if you check one of them you see it contains an article about them along with links to a heap of news stories mentioning them. Sourcing for this article is looking strong so far. Mathmo ^Talk 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references establish notability but the band also satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #4 as they have toured the UK as per the references cited by Mathmo. Ccscott 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments. (Myspace is often used by bands for promotion) - grubber 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo. Being on MySpace is not a deletion criterion. (Being sourced only to MySpace is, as it is not considered a reliable source.) --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage (Judeo-Christian)[edit]

From WP:POVFORK: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines.... POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion."

And, in fact, this article was created at the same time as Marriage (post modern), about 15 hours ago, out of a content dispute at Marriage, and the content needs no separate coverage besides that main article. The article author has said: "To re-iterate, the article is NPOV within it's own context.... I will edit the article to protect it's credibility, and will remove any edits that are attempts to push a POV and violate the NPOV of the subject matter."[28] Apparently WP:NPOV is going to be different inside of this article, and the article author will enforce this. Wikipedia does not allow walled gardens, nor article ownership, nor unnecessary content forking. The content of this article can and should be handled at Marriage, instead of creating yet another minor battleground. Delete. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- IZAK 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- very good reasoning Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 10:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, note that this guy is claiming that the "GLBT SSm POV pushers" are imposing their POV on the main Marriage article. Krimpet 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article also includes irrelevant statements which could be considered POV - 'traditional' attitudes to homosexuality, whatever they may be, seem to have no place in an article on marriage of whatever kind Chrislintott 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Marriage (post modern), this fork was clearly created to advance Nkras's POV, so that he/she can avoid following consensus on the main marriage article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is the comparison exactly? Seems like stab at a neoligism hence a problem with WP:NEO IZAK 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Redirect(or I guess delete). I'm supporting the concept of articles splitting off from the main article Marriage. Have you seen how long it has become! There should be a short summary in a lot of the section with a link to a main article, as is done in most articles long before they get to this length. Mathmo ^Talk 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm Mathmo: There are already articles such as Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage (as well as a series on Religious aspects of marriage: Buddhist view of marriage; Confucian view of marriage; Islamic marital jurisprudence; Hindu view of marriage) which explain the concepts clearly. What is the point of an article that will only add confusion? IZAK 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh, thanks for pointing out it is time for me to go to sleep soon... how had I forgotten about those articles? Yeah, obviously now it should go. Thanks. Still believe however it would be good for the marriage article to be made shorter, but obviously going this way is not going to do it. Mathmo ^Talk 12:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another POV fork of marriage. We know that some people have a problem with same sex marriage, they need to take that up with their local legislatures, Wikipedia is NOT the place to fix this "problem". Guy (Help!) 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Glad to see that this is up for deletion along with Marriage (post modern). Neither add anything to the encyclopedia, except strife. Jeffpw 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. I tried on the talkpage to get the author to explain why this article was necessary in light of the numerous other marriage articles mentioned above, but the hostile respose was pretty unpersuasive. Editors' problems with Wikipedia's NPOV policy are not solved by creating new article after new article ad infinitum. WJBscribe 15:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork, possible speedy G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Marriage, which was posted by the same user.) Mango juice^talk 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as was created to push POV. Creator Nkras has now been indef blocked for disruption. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge any appropriate content into Marriage. See comment below. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unlike the situation in the Marriage (post modern) AfD, "traditional marriage" as a phrase and a concept has a lot of notability, particular in legal writings in conservative jurisdictions and legal authorities. See, for example National Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan, Mich. App. February 1, 2007] ("We begin by noting the relatively significant public attention this case has received...The people, in an act of self-government, could rationally conclude that the welfare and morals of society benefit from protecting and strengthening traditional marriages, and this act of the people constitutes a legitimate governmental interest.") It is less clear, however that this traditional marriage concept deserves a separate article rather than being included in the Marriage article along with other perspectives. Furthermore, since the views of traditional Judaism and Christianity are not the only views involved in the concept of marriage, traditional or otherwise, it is unclear that the traditional concept, if presented in a separate article, should focus exclusively on the perspective of these religions particularly given that each religion already has its own article on marriage. Nonetheless, it's reasonable to argue that "traditional marriage" represents a distinct subject rather than a POV fork in "marriage", and Wikipedia could present things if the articles (and other articles with different approaches) were appropriately named and sourced, and if the Marriage article linked to each appropriately. While I agree the article shouldn't stand alone, I believe the issue here is more one of pragmatism and avoiding reader confusion than strict policy. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  There is already an article on the subject of Traditional marriage movement. Traditional marriage redirects to it. WJBscribe 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think the redirect is well-taken, any more than I think that (to pick an example out of a hat) Evolution should redirect to Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (forgive the imperfect analogy). In both cases, the concept and the social movement are distinct and should be treated separately. Either Traditional marriage should redirect to an appropriate subsection of Marriage, or it should be an article in its own right and any reliably sourced and appropriately-toned content in this article could be merged into it. --Shirahadasha 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem here is that across the world different cultures have different views on what constitutes traditional marriage. Writing an article to encompass all traditions would be problematic. A series of articles on Traditional marriage in culture X might be possible, but I'm not they will add much to the Religious views of marriage articles. WJBscribe 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) There's no need for a separate traditional marriage article unless and until the coverage in the marriage article becomes so large it needs a subarticle, per Wikipedia:Summary style. As John Kenneth Fisher noted in the previous AFD, such an article "would involve same-race only, 10 year old brides, spouses meeting each other only on their wedding days, no divorce, kidnapping, spousal parents paying off the other, etc."[29] We have barely begun to approach such coverage, so a subarticle is far too premature. If such coverage does eventually need separate articles, traditional marriage is still the wrong title, as it's a neologistic POV-loaded term. There's no reason to give a neologistic term like traditional marriage undue weight by pretending it addresses a clearly defined concept throughout history. A (set of) timeline(s) of marriage practices in different regions would probably be much more encyclopedic, and an appropriate title for one of these might be marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I agree with Shirahadasha about the "Richard Dawkins Foundation" example, and accordingly I'm changing the redirects back to marriage for now. — coelacan talk — 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I can't change the redirect, it's protected. — coelacan talk — 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as a POV-fork. Semperf 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor POV-ish article at this point but both Jewish and Christian marriage and its ceremonies are rich in unique symbolisms and philosophies. Arguments for this article's coverage in traditional marriage are very problematic. Traditional according to which culture and tradition? Early Jewish and Christian marriage traditions were radically anti-traditional. And the traditional marriage article is about a modern political movement whereas Marriage (Judeo-Christian) should be about ancient histories and philosophies thereof. CyberAnth
- Also, the user that started the article has been banned already. The future of the article need not reflect on its beginning. CyberAnth 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CyberAnth, the articles Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage already exist. The ceremonies and symbolism seem appropriate for those articles, so there's no need for this one. This article was simply created for WP:POINT contrast alongside author's new marriage (post modern) article, also under AFD. — coelacan talk — 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point about inclusion of ceremonies and symbolisms as appropriate to Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage is accepted. Vote retracted. CyberAnth 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish more nominations were as well reasoned as this. Anyway, clear WP:OWN and WP:POVFORK problems.-- danntm ^T _C 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Candy-Panda 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Fork and Ownership issues as listed. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having it go away entirely will be much easier than trying to edit it into something reasonable. Sdsds 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. POV fork.--Sefringle 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Base camp india[edit]

This article is pure spam (see edit history). Author removed db tag twice and made half-hearted effort to make it encyclopedic but failed. Nardman1 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Sub-stub length Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 10:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But by trimming the article down, the author removed all assertions of notability. Oh well. Speedy delete. MER-C 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons, plus also as a special bonus reason.... google search turns up nothing new. Mathmo ^Talk 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Anwar 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable. Turgidson 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:58Z

Kalanidhi Maran[edit]

non notable advertising. db tag has been removed twice, so on to afd Nardman1 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also Kalanidhimaran if this isn't proof this is just pure spam, I don't know what is. Nardman1 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~non-notable, db-spam/ad AND could be self-promotion (since names are not provided on WP) Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep and rewrite/expand - Sources added and they are valid journalistic sources; article could use expansion and a rewrite, perhaps some wikification, but this person has achieved quite a bit of press. Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BIO, though could do with a rewrite. See, e.g. [30], [31] and [32]. MER-C 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from [33]: "Please donot delete this article.this is an artcile about a business man pionner of indian private tv channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soleswaran (talk • contribs) " I guess that's a Keep vote from the author of the articles. Nardman1 10:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to MER-C I'll vote the same. (the sources looked good to me as well when I checked them) Mathmo ^Talk 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Anwar 12:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is quite notable and meets the primary criteron of WP:N as per the references cited by MER-C. Needs a rewrite though... Ccscott 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, additional sources should suffice [WP:BIO], needs additional work though Alf photoman 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- non-notable. Turgidson 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references to teh article. --Eastmain 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References supplied do establish notability. --Oakshade 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable media personality. --Soman 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada[edit]

Seems like a completely useless and unencyclopedic list: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Doubtless completely true, but that doesn't mean this list should exist. I suppose there might be some justification for existence if all of these children were notable in their own right, but the vast majority of them aren't. There is no reason to create lists of non-notable people. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: unencyclopaedic, notability concerns. Also see List of Philippine Presidents by children and its AfD debate). --Folantin 13:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems we have tons of lists about US presidents, but when it comes to lists about Canadian Prime Ministers we must delete? Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with having a list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopǣdic. However Earl Andrew does have a perfectly valid point.....p'raps we should start sorting the garbage out as far as US presidents are concerned. Jcuk 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I see nothing wrong with either list. There are people out there who have an interest in Presidents and Prime Ministers and would like lists of Prime Ministers based on these things. For instance, we have tons of articles on members of the royal family and its lineage, because there is a tremendous interest in the royal family. For instance, the World Almanac has a many sorts of lists of Presidents, including one that lists the spouses and number of children. Surely we can include a similar list on Wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is not paper, while the Almanac is! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And just because some people would find it useful is no rationale for keeping, see WP:ILIKEIT. The basic question is whether we should have a list of non-notable people like this. List of members of the Moreschi family would be equally worthy of deletion because most of us aren't notable, just like this, even though my grandfather is/was notable and has his Wikipedia biography. But just because he's notable doesn't mean there should be a list of us who aren't. And yes, if there's US President garbage like this it should go as well. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then by all means slap an AfD on List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Since you nominated this one, I would be most interested to see that puppy fly. Fishhead64 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, if there is a real Moreschi family out there, I am not part of that family. Don't want to lead the fuckwits at Wikipedia Review down any blind alleys. Just using that as an example, though what I said about my grandfather is perfectly true. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is a useful and interesting list. --YUL89YYZ 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a rationale for keeping, see WP:ILIKEIT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I often defend lists (seemingly hated by AFD regulars), I see no rationale for grouping these individuals. Merge if necessary to notable parent's article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a collection of everything that has happened in history. I think that people who come to AFD and go "keep, useful/interesting" don't actually get it. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is useful or interesting. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons the the Philippino children list should be deleted. I'm very much enjoying these AfDs because at least one person responds to each of them by suggesting another list that's every bit as egregious, and that list ends up nominated. Keep it up! Otto4711 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for a list of mostly non-notable individuals. Anyone who is interested in the children of any given Prime Minister (or President, for that matter) can look in on that specific Prime Minister's article. Resolute 02:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - various issues:
- Families of heads of state by their nature attract significant attention and are in normal practice featured in various non-trivial published journalistic and historic works. Therefore children of Prime Ministers automatically inherit some degree of notability;
- The list also provides an at-a-glance view of the families, which would otherwise have to be tediously researched by hitting every PM's article on the WP server;
- The list is less prone to cruft than most - Prime Ministers and their families don't change extremely often;
- List of Children of the Presidents of the United States is tolerated;
- So are plenty of other kinds of lists on less important subjects.

Dl2000 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Fishhead64 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is useful. The scions of power are always notable.Wassupwestcoast 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some people will be interested in this, so we may as well save them the effort of reading every PM's bio. Also, if the US Presidents' kids list is worthy of being kept, than so is this. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dl2000. encyclopedic, a useful and interesting comparison that i doubt would be easy to find elsewhere. it's certainly not doing any harm. --Someones life 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information on this page is neither random nor dubious, and it is certainly not "indiscriminate". CJCurrie 03:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of you saying "keep" on the basis of the US Presidents' children list do understand that that list has never been nominated for deletion, right? I hope you also understand that the existence of one article is not an excuse for the existence of another. The question is not whether some article exists; the question is whether this article should exist. Otto4711 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suppose the issue is whether the list is useful or not. Insofar as it compiles a list of the children of a highly notable category of people - the heads of government of Canada - it saves time and effort scrolling through all twenty-two names to retrieve this specific item. There are thirteen lists related to the persons of the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no reason to suppose one is any more (or less) notable than another. Such lists are ubiquitous for heads of government for various countries. My question is whether or not the criteria for retention or deletion is random. Are the children of Canadian PM's any more or less notable than those of the United States? Is the category of children any more or less notable than the birthplace of the PMs? My concern is that deleting this article creates a slippery slope for a mass deletion of lists that many people who are, for instance, compiling bibliographal anthologies, find useful. In the absence of clear criteria, deleting this article is random and gratuitous. Fishhead64 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue is not whether the list is useful or not. See WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Regrettably, WP guidelines always point to what it is not, not to what it is. Regardless, usefulness is a valid arguement, because it suggests something will be used - see WP:9W for a useful refutation of your suggestion. Usefulness is precisely the issue. Fishhead64 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, per WP:9W: "Compilation. Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts." I see nothing in WP:9W that states just because something is useful means it should get an article. The phrase "to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful" states that articles must be useful, not the converse that useful stuff be articles. Shrumster 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I agree - cruft like List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity is perfectly useless in all respects, but you have discounted arguments that lists of children of PMs would be helpful for comparative purposes or in research concerning, for instance, biographical anthologies. And yet you defend lists of spouses of heads of government, which seems inconsistent (another one of my complaints for nominating this list in particular). Why, there even exist lists of spouses of deputy government leaders. My argument is not that because these exist, so too should Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, my argument is that this list is useful in terms of it being used by Canadians, which is the criteria you cite, while others are considerably less so. Fishhead64 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good luck trying to delete the list of children of US Presidents. The reason why there is no AfD is because it would have no chance of actually being deleted. There are enough American Presidential trivia-buffs to vote to keep it. Now you may put it on AfD, but I warn you now it would be a colossal waste of time. Not to mention the fact that is actually highly encyclopedic in content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many "trivia buffs" turn up to say "keep". If they don't make arguments based on Wikipedia deletion policy, the admin will simply ignore them. Worth bearing in mind in this debate too. --Folantin 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fishhead64. GreenJoe 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be very difficult for the casual researcher to gather this information from individual articles; it would be undesirable and inadequate to do it through categories; and this is the sort of research issue that an encyclopedia of political biographies might well be expected to have. --lquilter 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And why would the casual researcher be interested in a random collection of prime minister's families? See WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The casual user who is looking things up about political biographies. For instance, a 12 year old trying to find out information for a report about political families. "Compare and contrast" is one of the things kids are taught; this list would be helpful for them. Or for example, someone in college doing a paper in sociology about political families, power, and democracy; could easily work through the list of children of PMs / presidents, note the ones who are notable & the ones who are not; find out a bit of info on the ones who are not. These are "casual researchers". These people are disproportionately notable, in some part because they often are part of political families or with inherited wealth; and the fact that some of them end up being not notable is what makes a list useful -- because it will gather the folks who have wp pages and the folks who don't. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once more, I point you towards WP:USEFUL. BTW, as an educator, I must say that someone who needs to make a report about "political families" would do best to research each family independently rather than rely on a "list", in the same way that someone doing a report on a character in a book should not rely on a "list of chracters in book X". Being the child of a politician doesn't make one any more notable than the child of a notable scientist or a notable author. Neither does inheriting wealth make one notable. Oh, and please read WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:USEFUL, thank you. You asked for some examples of what "casual research" might look like, and I provided them. Pointing me to WP:USEFUL is conclusory; you're saying that this is merely useful rather than encyclopedic, but you're not giving an explanation of why it's not encyclopedic. I've pointed out (below) that this very topic is a subject of academic research; hence a potential topic for casual research. ... As for how a kid might write a report, the list is an index; it serves as a sorting & collecting function. A kid trying to decide which families to write about could look through the list (repeat: it's an index), make some basic assessments about which families look interesting, and then move onto the individual president, first lady, and children articles as appropriate. Please see WP:CLS which explains in greater detail the organizational function of lists in wikipedia. --lquilter 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is not an index, a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:NOT#DIR, "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles". Shrumster 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Wikipedia is an index; I said that the list fulfills an indexing function within Wikipedia. Your point about WP:NOT#DIR does not support your argument, as a list is, in fact, an "article" which would "mention" less well-known people. --lquilter 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all those who are quoting WP:USEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT may also want to read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per that, then does this list improve Wikipedia? I say no. Shrumster 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes. Why? For all the reasons people have mentioned. It's a great resource for people needing information on the chilren of Prime Ministers. Encyclopedias are about providing information to people, and this does just that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Until/Unless we create a separate Wiki-Almanac stuff like this belongs here. It's of valid Almanac interest as families of world leaders have significance at certain functions or funerals.--T. Anthony 07:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are "significant" at functions/funerals concerning their own families, that's about it. Almanacs are called almanacs and not encyclopedias for a reason. Shrumster 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the contents of ((Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents)) and Category:Lists relating to the Philippine presidency, and ((Prime Minister of Canada see also)) probably need attention as well. Trouble is, there is so much of this. List of United States Vice Presidents by time in office anyone? Carcharoth 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relation to notable people is not an indicator of notability. A list of non-notable people is not any more notable than they are as individual articles. Wikipedia has a lot of inappropriate lists with notable people as it is, no need for one filled with people whose claim to fame is solely relation to people of office. Shrumster 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as valid and encyclopedic as a listing of "first ladies" (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is). 23skidoo 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In many countries, "first lady" is a official/semi-official position. "First ladies" usually have done significant things that make them notable by themselves, regardless of their relation to their husbands (that they got to do those things by being related to their husbands is irrelevant, what they did usually makes them notable by themselves). "First children" on the other hand, do not warrant their own articles just by being "first children". George W. Bush is notable because of his time as a president/governor, not because he is the son of George H. W. Bush. Shrumster 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This is what I mean about randomness and gratuitousness. You've just finished arguing that individuals should stand or fall on their own merits, not on their relationship to a notable person. Now you're defending a list for spouses of presidents of the United States, even though - despite what you claim - it is not an official or semi-official position (unless you are prepared to cite the enabling legislation). Fishhead64 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. List of spouses of presidents of the United States? Where did I mention that? That country is not the only one that uses the term, "First Lady" you know. :) BTW, that's exactly what I said. Most (if not all) First Ladies are notable because of actions they themselves performed, and not just because they were related to heads of state. I highly doubt that you could say the same about children. For example, the last two on the list in question are most likely 11 and 8 years old. I doubt they've done enough to fulful WP:BIO standards. Shrumster 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: First point taken. As I said, the consistency of your argument would be that relationships do not establish notability. The article about Julia Dent Grant, for instance, does not suggest she did anything notable outside of her relationship to her husband. If one can achieve notability by virtue of one's relationship to a notable person, then WP standards are fulfilled. And speaking of kids, what's Tricia Nixon done lately? Fishhead64 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His access to governor/43-ness stems in large part from his proximity to 41, so I think it's a bit difficult to separate the two -- and in fact shows what children of presidents / PMs share that is in common. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [34] has links which will source the entries so the list is verifiable. Deleting this while keeping the corresponding US list will only contribute to systematic bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good reference, I'm sure many of them were more notable then the ones who wish this to be deleted realize. How many notable Canadian Prime Ministers can you name of the top of your head? Me? About four. Just because the whole world doesn't care together doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is excellent info, whether big or small, for someone who wants to learn Canadian history. As long as it is accurate it should be kept as well as expanded. Jjmillerhistorian 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - speaking of systemic bias, I would note that the topic of children of US presidents has been studied in historical and sociological literature. (Hence suggesting that the kind of topic is relevant.) --lquilter 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles on these people would be a bit much, but the list is quite useful. - SimonP 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful index for other articles, and many PMs' children are indeed notable- several have been MPs, public speakers, filmmakers, etc. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is useful for reference. Media references, biographies, etc. could all use this. Homagetocatalonia 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dl2000. Mathmo ^Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lquilter and others above Johnbod 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dl2000. Jord 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the argument that it's not hugely encyclopedic, it is a useful reference list on something that is of interest and research value to some people. I certainly don't think that every child of a Canadian PM would deserve their own separate article — but a straight list is completely harmless, and as anyone can see, the only names that are currently wikilinked are those who are independently notable in their own right in addition to their status as children of PMs. And as has been wisely pointed out, it's not overly prone to needless expansion since it's a list with very specific and tightly defined parameters that isn't really subject to change all that often. Keep. Bearcat 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator; I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the relationship is itself notable, an article on the individual should only spring up if the individual should in turn become notable, which seems to be the case on over 1/3 of those named here. Someone who is exposed to the public eye in their formative years is probaly more likly to end up in the public eye leter in life. cmacd 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list of Canadian Prime Minister's children is important, not just in terms of names, but in terms of Canadian politics. SFrank85 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this important? Why? To whom? Agent 86 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you don't like it, Agent 86, doesn't mean it isn't important. Lists like this are hard to find on the internet. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia I don't think are important, but there is no reason for them to be deleted over opinion. I just don't view pages I don't care about. The page just needs more detail with information on the missing PMs. They probably didn't have kids like King. Being a child of a PM or a president of any country can put one in the spotlight which makes this list important. See all the 'Keeps'? Jjmillerhistorian 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comments have no basis in whether or not I like the article or not. I think it's fair to ask someone to substantiate a bald assertion that something is "important". Just saying it is does not make it so, just as the number of "keeps" (or "deletes") does not make something encyclopedic (or not). Sidestepping the question does not make it any less a relevant one to be answered. Agent 86 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can easily see myself finding this list useful as a quick reference. Off the top of my head, I might wonder how many other PMs had young children while in power like Stephen Harper does. This list would let me find out. It seems silly to make me read 22 biographies to answer those kind of simple questions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada is sufficient.--Vsion 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A category based on parentage is a bad idea; if you read the CFDs you would see that this is wrong; not because it's not notable, but because categories are overused and non-navigable unless strictly controlled. But if you think the fact of parentage is notable enough for a category, then you should think a list would be okay. A category is nothing more than a list: an automatically-generated, alphabetical list, without annotation or reference. --lquilter 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of PMs. They play an important part in the life of the PM. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and "who's that girl?" Being a child of a PM or any world leader is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete move this information back onto the subject's page and waste this list. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Avi 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, if children of government leaders are non-notable, why do such lists exist? I assume, for the sake of consistency, you'll be voting "delete" on List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Fishhead64 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment It appears that nobody here or at the AFD for Children of US Presidents has even bothered to read Wikipedia:NOT#Indiscriminate. For those arguing deletion on the grounds of indiscriminate consider that these are the categories that "Indiscriminate" includes:

Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
Travel guides.
Memorials.
Instruction manuals.
Internet guides.
Textbooks and annotated texts.
Plot summaries.
Lyrics databases.

Which of these categories does a list of the children of some of the most important people in the world possibly fall under? Is Chelsea Clinton a song lyric? Is Michel Chrétien some sort of travel guide? Please read a Wikipedia policy before using it to justify a deletion, instead of assuming that the policy sorta probably applies.--JayHenry 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The meaning of "indiscriminate information" is not limited to the things on that numbered list. You hit it on the head with "children of." A list of the people themselves would not be indiscriminate information. However, a list of their children is, per WP:NOT Six Degrees of Separation. Since the children are not famous in their own right, this is a list of trivial information, or as they say around here, cruft. JChap2007 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring specifically to wikipedia's policy — Wikipedia:NOT#Indiscriminate. The policy simply does not apply to this debate. I'm not arguing the denotations and connotations of the word "indiscriminate." The policy doesn't say that anything that a reasonable person could consider indiscriminate has no place in wikipedia. The policy is clearly defined and not applicable here. And, correct me if I'm wrong, "Wikipedia is not Six Degrees of Separation" is not a real policy either. As for fancruft while you personally may not be interested in the children of world leaders, the media has in some sense made the decision for us. The children of world leaders are incessantly covered in newspapers, political magazines, television, biographies and the history books. You might not like it, but the children themselves, their role as children of world leaders, and the common bond they share as children of world leaders are notable topics, not to mention easily verifiable. Per the policies of wikipedia, this isn't even a close call.--JayHenry 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be confused on the interpretation of that policy. It says that "indiscriminate information" includes the things on that list, not that it includes and is limited too the items on the list. The list is merely exemplary, not an exhaustive listing, of what is considered indiscriminate information. It has not been esablished that most of these people are indeed notable; most do not have their own articles. However, even if they were, that doesn't necessarily support collecting them in a list. I never said I don't like the topic and as for my reference to Six Degrees of Separation, you may want to review the article on humour. You might also want to look at WP:LISTCRUFT, which offers a good rule of thumb: Lists should only be created if the subject of the list is itself encyclopedic. Or, to put it another way, Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada is not a valid encyclopedic topic, so a list of all the children of Canadian prime ministers is not a good topic for a list. JChap2007 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The collection of this information into a single article is indiscriminate. -- Alan McBeth 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article. However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporating by reference all my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Children of the Presidents of the United States, excepting only the cites to US-specific articles. Suggest that where US-specific cites exist, Canadian-specific work is also a likely study of subject, but would be less likely to actually have published work. I append the last proposal for convenience. --lquilter 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the (US) list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:58Z

Alabastrite[edit]

Non-notable proprietary building material that shows up only in two product catalog descriptions. The Wikipedia article on Alabastrite is in Google rank #3. CyberAnth 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Perhaps non-notable, but could become notable Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 14:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wrote this in my early wikipedia days, without realising it's a fancy name given to resin to fool Americans into thinking they are buying quality family heirlooms. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:00Z

Saber's Beads (2nd nomination)[edit]

Delete per previous afd [35] Nardman1 10:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, vanity term by Mr. Saber (who is the article's author and has added two vanity links to the article), only 37 Google hits, and so-called "sources" are not peer-reviewed, they're just places he convinced to add some text about his neologism. Nardman1 11:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence just keeps rolling in. Look at what he posted on my talk page. [36] Nardman1 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep article is sourced, not identical to former afd --Robdurbar 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it bother you it's vanity by Mr. Saber, including two links to articles about himself and not the so-called phenomenon? Nardman1 11:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patent vanity. If it is notable, someone else will write it up. -- RHaworth 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity, self-promotion, citing own website, neologism. Claimed recently discovered, but if the effect discussed is real, it is likely to have another name as lunar observation has occurred for hundreds of years. --Dual Freq 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transfer to wikitionary, or Redirect to other moon-related topics, per WP:NOT#DICT. A good scientific term but no need to list independently. Wooyi 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:01Z

2006 J. League Division 1 results March[edit]

De-prodded with a suggestion to move to WikiNews. Last time I checked we can't move things to WikiNews because of license incompatibilities. (Would they want these entries anyway?) So, delete because:

Wikipedia is not a soccer statistics site/collection of information/database/news service, see relevant and overwhelming precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006 and September 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligue 1 results August 2006. Punkmorten 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggested transferring them to Wikinews. WikiNews would seem to be a good place for them, since newspapers and news web sites carry loads of sports results including season outcomes. I apologize for not knowing that we can't do that. If that can't be done, let's put them in the user's space; maybe he can repost them in WikiNews. (User:Sirasu is the only editor of all of these articles prior to the deletion proposal.) Fg2 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Sirasu apparently speaks very little English (en:0 on his user page). So, any suggestions about relocating this data would best be handled by someone who understands Japanese and the WikiNews criteria. Neier 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The major issue with these articles (and the others cited in the nomination that I also tried to save) seems to be the format of the information. Several "season of XYZ team" articles exist, and have normally withstood AFD. Admittedly, those articles also include info about a particular team's personnel changes, streaks, etc; however, they include the scores of games too (see Rangers F.C. season 2005-06 for one example). Sports leagues are notable, for the same reason that sports teams are notable. Articles on a particular season of a profession sports league are commonplace as well. League tables are in those articles, and by extending the decision to include a team's scores on a team's season article, it is not unreasonable to include all scores from a league on the league's season article. However, that is unwieldy, and probably more than the 50KB recommended size. I don't know how big each of these monthly articles is, but, they can probably be merged to a single article for the whole season, and referenced from J. League - 2006. It is not logical to delete the information just because it is compiled by week (which is a rational way to look up such info), when if it was separated by each team and split across (18 teams in J. League) differnt pages, it would be "acceptable". Neier 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006: For plot summaries (see WP:NOT) we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Why should we require less of sporting events? Pure data without an explanation of its significance would seem to fall under WP:NOT as indiscriminate information. This vote pains me a little as a possible WP:BITE (the main contributor doesn't really speak English and earned a barnstar for his efforts), but I should and will be consistent. Dekimasuが... 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you need to worry about WP:BITE, as you can see on his talk page, I warned him (in sloppy Japanese) in December about the other leagues' results pages getting deleted, and he stopped creating them (I'm pretty sure he was headed for 2005 next). I'm basically resigned to the fact that I won't see eye-to-eye on the concensus of these, but, I might as well add my dissent to every discussion that comes along. The barnstar was for the sheer amount of work he had put into Japanese soccer pages in general (before any of these results pages were created). Neier 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As to the transwiki to WikiNews, since User:Sirasu is the only editor (pre PROD and AFD) of these articles, wouldn't they be eligible for the move, with the appropriate byline? Neier 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Speedy delete by Tom harrison. WJBscribe 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twila Reid[edit]

non notable high school band, see [37] Nardman1 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Besides, the current article is a copyright violation from here. The band only has one full-length CD and a 5-song EP. They are not famous or notable IMHO. [38] [39]. Their fans, however, are pretty persistent, and keep adding the band to the Los_Alamitos_High_School article, where other editors keep deleting them. Blank Verse 11:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio was verbatim. So tagged. MER-C 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:02Z

Thomas Dessalet[edit]

autobiography (compare name of author to earlier version of article talking about marathon running. Also non notable Nardman1 10:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Deb 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of acceptable references. Therefore not-notable. Ccscott 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Turgidson 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Speedy delete by Siroxo. No assertion of notability. WJBscribe 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh kothamangalam[edit]

Not notable Meno25 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Anwar 12:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Luke! 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot Road[edit]

A road with some buildings on it. Not even a claim of notability let alone sources. Prod contested by author. Nuttah68 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are numerous links to this article. But it is agreed that the article could be enhanced by somebody in Hong Kong. - Kittybrewster 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are lots of roads in London with articles, which are easily enhanced by those living in London. This article is as important as them and could be improved by someone from HK. We need to stop looking at the article from a UK/USA centric view. Couter-revolutionary 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you see an article on a road in London where the road doesn't meet the standards for inclusion, by all means submit it to AfD. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a major street with important and historical buildings along it. Has around 12900 hits at Google. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
Keep. I'm an American who knows little about Hong Kong, yet even I've heard of the place thanks to the tourism media. The article just needs some work. Beginning 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently fails the general notability guideline, and it includes speculative info that should be sourced or removed. If the road is notable, then the article should establish it with sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To address the nominator's rationale for nominating this article for deletion: 1) This road is notable for firstly being the historic location of the first Magistracy of colonial HK, and secondly for being a popular tourism location. 2) One source has been provided since the nomination, however, lack of sources is not a criteria for deletion anyway, so this should have been a non-issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hong Kong has this problem of someone went through and made independent articles for every street, intersection and overpass. This information should be keptbut should be merged into a district or something. SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and historic road in a major city. --Oakshade 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cited reasons are false.—Gniw (Wing) 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasons stated in the other 'keeps'. Major thoroughfare in Hong Kong with historic significance. David Lauder 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some more expansion but definately not deletion. The road is the subject of a considerable amount of notability that could be improved through local Hong Kong editors or experts in the subject. Luke! 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former Central Magistracy - one of a very few Delcared Monuments (Colonial) located at Arbuthnot Road is still remaining in Hong Kong. Worth keeping & expanding! Alfeewusy 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a no brainer. Buildings and streets in Hong Kong can vanish so quickly that articles like this should be in greater demand. Yes it is Mundane, of peripheral interest, but the information is valid. As part of the Hong Kong project I feel strongly that this article should be kept. Also someone noted that some streets in London have Wiki entries. More pressingly streets in London aren't acustomed to being bulldozed overnight. See Star Ferry for further examples. --Peej 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Phex. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:03Z

I2Phex[edit]

Possible vanity/spam, does not appear to be notable. As ever, I am open to being proven wrong. J Milburn 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of no context. Article does not even state that it is software and gives us very little idea what it does. -- RHaworth 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the stuff worth salvaging to Phex. Seems like a logical place to put it. MER-C 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MER-C Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MER-C Mathmo ^Talk 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i2phex is still not phex, it is an own release and we want to expand this article, soon i2phex is coded in phex, then the articles can merge, but till now they are own branchesof clients. if you have not tried it, you cannto say, the software is not descibed, it is just a normal gnutella client working over i2p. so remove the deletion mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.135.232 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Although I do not quite follow what you are saying, I started this debate by saying that this software was non-notable. If a merge is innappropriate, then I can see no reason for this article to be kept, as there is no assertion of notability. J Milburn 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:05Z

Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war[edit]

Wikipedia is not an encyclopædia of everything. A ratings list for a topic that barely warrants a mention in prose in other articles is not a sound basis for an article cj | talk 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I'd assert that the topic itself is notable, an indiscriminate list of ratings like this is definitely not. Any relevant information on the ratings war should just be included in the Today Tonight and A Current Affair articles. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT indiscriminate list Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate dumping of information. MER-C 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mention on the pages Today Tonight and A Current Affair is more than enough without the ratings for every week, definitely no need for it's own article. Firelement85 12:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A huge amount of stats but not appropriate. Would suit a personal website, I find it very unlikely TV executives would be browsing wikipedia for this sort of info --PrincessBrat 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see how anyone is going to find this remotely useful. Hut 8.5 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensive, but something only Australian news geeks could enjoy, completely useless and with no reasoning or context to everyone else. Nate 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I enjoyed this and I'm not a news geek! (Well I didn't bother reading all the numbers... but it's good to know Today Tonight is losing the ratings war... I lost respect for them ever since they slandered Neopets...) anyway merge relevant information to Today Tonight and A Current Affair articles.--Candy-Panda 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll be the odd one out. I don't see how this is an indiscriminate collection of information per above comments. Its verifiable and well laid out as far as I can see. Stats like this are not everyone's cup of tea but I'm sure there are media students for one that would find the article useful and interesting. Article could be improved with some interpretation of some of the data and more detail on the source of the information. The time slot immediately after the news IS incredibly important to network profits and media analysts DO dissect this type of data. Merging the data into either or both of the two current affairs programs misses the point as the comparison over an extended period is what's important. —Moondyne 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt it is of interest to some people (indeed, it wouldn't have been created if it weren't), but it's simply not Wikipedia's purpose to be a repository for everything. This information can be hosted elsewhere.--cj | talk 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Why NOT Wikipedia? I wouldn't see this article as a thin end of the wedge if that's what's being suggested. It's an article about one of the prime television advertising slots for the national audience. —Moondyne 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac.- Gilliam 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a list. Would be good to have a section on ratings in the Today Tonight and A Current Affair sections (in prose), but this is not the right way to go about it. --Tntnnbltn 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the debate may rage if this falls under speedy criteria, speedy delete is definitely what this article needs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Merge to Carmen Sandiego. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:06Z

V.I.L.E.[edit]

Article on a plot device in Carmen Sandiego. Lacks any sources, reads as WP:OR. Redirect is probably the right result. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. JuJube 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Guy. I don't have any familiarity with the subject, but the lack of references for such a long article makes it look like original research. YechielMan 02:11, 30 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, TigerShark 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not OR per se, but nevertheless running afoul of WP:WAF. Perhaps a little bit more of this can be merged to flesh out the villains' descriptions in the main article, but otherwise this is simply far too much in-universe detail. Serpent's Choice 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The source is probably the games themselves (each crook gets a little bio), but except for Carmen, this list is just an indiscriminate collection. Redirect it to Carmen Sandiego.--UsaSatsui 10:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Kevin Smith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:07Z

Ranger Danger and the Danger Rangers[edit]

"an upcoming science fiction film to be written and directed by Kevin Smith" - First off, it's not really Wikipedia's place to commission a film. Ranger Danger is but one of the many story ideas occasionally entertained by Mr. Smith's fertile imagination, there was never any sort of official announcement or studio backing of the project. This article is comprised entirely of speculation fueled by random comments that Kevin Smith posted on an online forum. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kevin Smith if there is any reliable information, with a removal of a redirect and recreation of the article should this film be officially announced. FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough reliable information on the project to add any sort of useful summary to the Kevin Smith article (which is messy enough as it is). Smith's comments basically add up to "[Ranger Danger being] something I've noodled with a couple of years." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sketchy as the information on the movie is, there's still some out there. That makes me comfortable with a redirect and a brief one line mention at this point. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there is some creedence to the actuality of a future for this film or until it is in production, but at least more than being just an idea in someone's head.--Tainter 14:43, 29 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, TigerShark 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball Sandstein 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball-ism. Wait till something is actually announced. 23skidoo 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loads of films are proposed or planned without ever making it to release. Totnesmartin 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)additional good title though.[reply]
Delete, D-Hell can last forever. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is deleted, whoever does it will need to adjust the Films of Kevin Smith template which has already been changed to include a link to this article. 23skidoo 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or whoever wrote it into the template can do it. Totnesmartin 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:08Z

DigHayZoose[edit]

Non-notable music group. Google search returns only 1,690 hits. Candy-Panda 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, that they Pass WP:MUSIC so this argument is invalidated. —siro χ o 09:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, when using the "Google Test" and other such techniques (especially in entertainment-related articles), that results will be skewed toward the modern era, post 1997-ish. This band released three albums before disbanding, from 1991 until 1995. Thus coverage on the internet would be minimal compared to any modern band. The "Google Test" and similar methods cannot effectively speak to the notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dan, the CowMan 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article in now referenced. Dan, the CowMan 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they actually pass WP:MUSIC, with three releases under Word Records —siro χ o 09:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being signed meets WP:MUSIC as stated above. Ccscott 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please signed and meets music guideline now yuckfoo 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I vote again on a relist, or does my previous vote still stand? Dan, the CowMan 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:09Z

Return to Sender (band)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 12:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to have some External Links. Can anyone count the Google hits please?--S kully Collins ^Edits 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google hits are hard to interpret because of Elvis' song. Voting based on cdbaby.com entry TonyTheTiger 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shows no notability whatsoever, having only a few hits, apart from wikipedia and its mirror sites, when searchin the names of the band. Article seems to be copied from here --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:54, 30 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, TigerShark 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delort as non notable. Nardman1 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Ccscott 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been around since 2005, but still has almost no info in it. I'm guessing that's because there's not much to really even say about it. So, it fails notability in my mind. - grubber 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be vanity as well. Many of the edits are by a user named "Justinlawrence" whose only edits were to this page in 2005; according to the article there is a Justin Lawrence in the band. - grubber 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and unsourced. One self released album and the article is about what amounts to a church choir. Nuttah68 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:10Z

Maksim of Orenburg[edit]

This appears to be a spoof article. I've looked, and I dont't think that Maksim of Orenburg existed. The reference given, "Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford University Press, 2004, 800 pages. (ISBN 0195153944)", certainly exists, but Maksim of Orenburg is not in the index. ArglebargleIV 13:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Nothing I have been able to find, either. The stub article makes this sound like Maksim was a city-level ruler (a mayor or something like one), which makes his titling as "Czar" suspect in my eyes. This city history gives some names of provincial governors and the like, but nothing from 1757-1800, inconveniently enough. Maybe This would have some information for someone who reads Russian? However, this link in a wiki for NationStates makes me wonder if this isn't a WP:WAF problem rather than "just" a hoax. Even if not, he seems little more than a late 18th century mayor or provincial governor, and I don't think that meets WP:BIO anyway. Serpent's Choice 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, I try to find Maksim in the book A History of Russia but Maksim is mentioned nowhere. --MaNeMeBasat 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. All edits by creator of this article is nonsense or adding false information to articles. Hevesli 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I too have looked for both Maksim of Orenburg and Maksim romanov and combinations thereof. The fact that the article states he was a prince, doesn't that mean he wouldn't be "Czar" anyway? But nevertheless seems to be an article on a fake topic, either intentionally or accidentally. SGGH 23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, created by vandalism-only account. --Henrik Ebeltoft 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Aborted; article stubbed. Consensus here is that the subject is notable but the article is not NPOV; therefore I have simply stubbed the article so that it may be rewritten. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:13Z

Cobra Group (Marketing)[edit]

This article is unreferenced, and is comprised primarily of unsourced criticisms. John254 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn attack page. Nardman1 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article could probably be written on the Cobra Group, this one isn't it. Catchpole 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have worked for Cobra and I find this article a biased and unresearched article. In my opinion Cobra does deserve a page however it needs to offer a more balanced and sourced view unlike this one. Seems like a personal vendetta against the company. Lympathy 12:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:15Z

White pearl[edit]

WP:NOT. Belongs on RuneScape Wiki. Elite Deletionist 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly meets WP:NOT. Goodnightmush 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Runescape game article. Just H 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki - not merge - per nom. Percy Snoodle 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable trivia. Every fictional fruit does not require an article.... WJBscribe 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to RuneScape Wiki if they want it, and delete here, not notable enough for a merge anywhere. BryanG^(talk) 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki does not meet WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rogue subpage. Not even the RuneScape Wiki bothers with an article on this. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexualist[edit]

This appears to be a term coined by a character on a TV show. The only source is Urban Dictionary, which lists two different definitions, but both cite the TV show as their source. No reliable sources. Even ignoring that, it's a dictionary definition at best. Term gets a bunch of hits in Google, but no discussion of the definition of the term. Word doesn't appear in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Collins English Dictionary, or the Oxford Dictionary of English. eaolson 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonesense. Nardman1 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be re-written. One source here, which has nothing to do with the TV show, found after two seconds of Googling. Otto4711 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article itself contains two definitions and Otto's is neither of these. The word doesn't seem to be used in any consistent way and the topic itself, as far as I can tell from the links, is covered already at homophobia and/or homonegativity - how many different articles do we need on the topic? A redirect to one of these already existing ones may be appropriate if the term is deemed worthy. GassyGuy 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Need to show multiple non-trivial comments by reliable sources about the term (not just uses of it). WJBscribe 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBscribe --John Kenneth Fisher 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge with homosexual agenda. (Note that homosexualism redirects to homosexuality.) Term is a favorite of John Derbyshire who defines his version at length in the National Review (also). (To a smaller audience, it has also been popularized by iconoclastic comics artist/autodidact Dave Sim.[40]) Right-wing journals of note use the term incessantly.[41][42][43] It was used in a widely-publicized smear campaign.[44] This seems to be the modern political usage, anyway, but it goes back a number of years[45] and has been applied as criticism to authors and used by authors such as Cecil Beaton [46] Gore Vidal, cryptically.[47] Recent language mailing-list thread says OED cites go back to 1931[48]. The term is extensively defined in the book The Pink Swastika.[49] I think it deserves its own article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is actually true. I typed the term in on google and alsorts has come up. Here is the evidence. Now this damn debate can be closed and the tag be removed. See: [50]. And, [51]. Retiono Virginian 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This fails the speedy keep criteria. The nomination was valid -- the present state of the article is terrible. Though new sources have been brought up in debate, the article hasn't been revised. It definitely needs a thorough cleanup (removing the OR and urbandictionary stuff) and rewrite to sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything in this article that is relevant can be moved to homophobia, but Homosexualist is not a real word.--Sefringle 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that it is a neologism, fine. But it's clearly a "real word." It has letters and a definition and people use it in sentences and everything. Otto4711 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the section in the article that linked to Urban Dictionary was removed as a copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any way you dress it up, this is a dictionary definition of a neologism that has absolutely no sources. The sources suggested here seem to define the word differently than the article does. The article, it seems to me, defines a homosexualist as a person who, while not scared of homosexuals, discriminates based on sexual orientation, while it does not make it clear whom that person discriminates for or against. The sources here describe a homosexualist as a person who supports homosexuals as "the Elect" versus the "the Damned" who do not support them. I don't see any of that in the article. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be kept, and even in that case I would suggest a merge into something else, possibly homosexual agenda. The argument for speedy keep is clearly untenable, and the sources mentioned as "evidence" seem to be sources for something else. --Tractor kings fan 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Tractorkingsfan here; the current article is always going to be unreferenced, and the article that could be written from Dhartung's sources would probably be an unnecessary content-fork of homosexual agenda. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly. Artw 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEO. The National Review article seems to define the term differently than this article, and that is one of the issues with neologisms and one of the reasons articles on neologisms are generally not a good idea.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism with no stable definition. —An gr 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:37Z

Desk on a chest[edit]

Not been touched for yonks this article. I find it hard to believe that so many sorts of desks can be notable, but maybe that's because I am not particularly excited by desks. Still, the title "desk on a chest" sounds somewhat wrong - I can't describe why Montchav 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep just because antique furniture titillates you there's no reason to delete this article. Nardman1 15:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source the term: It sounds made up. If it's actually used, keep. If not, delete. Now we just need articles such as Chair on a table and Stool on a counter....--SeizureDog 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nardman. However, I agree that the article needs sources. Walton monarchist89 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced as unreferenced, potentially original research. A search on the term turns up little but wikipedia mirrors and coincidental phrasings; the couple of minor sites that use the term have inconsistent definitions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Rename to Desk on chest: If you do a Google search with the exact term option with "Desk on chest" you'll get a better idea of what I was reading about in a specialized book on antique furniture when I wrote that article. If you want to actually see one then do a Google image search on "campaign desk chest" . The first two in that image search are desks on a chest or desks on chests,(do a google image search with just "campaign desk" to see real campaign desks) the other ones are Secretary desks, Pedestal desks and Slant top desks that have been mis-tagged for a variety of reasons. I don't know why I forgot to put a ref at the bottom of this one when I put them for all the other antique desk forms in the List of desk forms and types when I wrote all that three to four years ago. I wrote up the first versions of all the articles in that list, save one. All of them are based on my readings in published books or in Web pages for the desk forms (such as an armoire desk) which are not antiques, so they do not constitute original research. Original research would have meant going through manuscripts, going out in the field and taking photos of desks and measuring them and doing interviews with people. I've done nothing of the sort, always using Web pages (including antique dealer sites which you will not get if you just do a basic Google search, but which you will find useful if you do advanced Google searches) or printed books only. --AlainV 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So moved. Thanks for the clarification. Nardman1 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Lacking reliable sources (4 of 5 sources refer to badboylifestyle.com, the other to Google video); fails to assert notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badboy Lifestyle[edit]

Non-notable corporation Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the second nomination, an earlier nomination failed, it is here. Mathmo ^Talk 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Article seems to be just a list of someone's ideas about seduction. (Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry. "Seduction guru"!?) Walton monarchist89 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mentioned the sources that are there, that is what is needed for an article to stay. Your intial disbelief that this exists shouldn't effect your end view of keeping on this AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How about actually providing some reasons why the article supposedly fails WP:CORP. It has two sources, plus a link to a TV segment. How is that non-notable? (Also, there are more articles listed on their media page in magazines like Playboy and Cosmopolitan that could be incorporated into the page.) As for being a "list of someone's ideas about seduction," that "someone" is the founder of the company. Don't you think his ideas about how seduction works are relevant to this page, considering that the company makes money by teaching them? Walton monarchist89 says "Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry." So you admit that the page is sourced, but you don't seem to feel any need to explain what is wrong with these sources that makes the article fail WP:CORP. Personal dismay at this industry is not a reason for deletion. --SecondSight 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and the desperate grasping for sources. Let 'em take their walled garden elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV ladden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when Loaded is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden". Let me guess here... you believe Loaded, for instance, is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo ^Talk 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of desperate grasping: if you're going to attempt to stuff words into my mouth, try to be at least semi-coherent when you do so, so it's at least halfway credible. The single-purpose editors who were piling up the bricks for this walled garden are who I mean, obviously, like DutchSeduction (talk · contribs), SecondSight (talk · contribs), Mooft (talk · contribs), and one of the prime offenders, your old pal WoodenBuddha (talk · contribs) [52].
heavily POV ladden [sic] language used in AfD. Point of view? God forbid I should have an opinion in a debate. --Calton | Talk 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. However what you should be discussing in this AfD is how the sources make this a "Non-notable corporation" as the nominator claims. Other than one of the editors you listed (obviously SecondSight) none of them are active anymore. Which is what I was referring to. Even worse, one of the editors you listed doesn't even exist! (Mooft (talk · contribs)). Also, WoodenBuddha isn't my "old pal". Oh, and don't claim "single-purpose editor" when I'm not that. I edit to an extremely broad range of articles, in a variety of roles. Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wish the nominator had stated specifically why they believe it is a "Non-notable corporation". You can't reply to the nominator's specific accusations when there are not any! I suspect this is a bad faith nomination with the nominator merely being disruptive. Of course, I would rather that I'm wrong in what I suspect about this. So I'm looking forward for a more detailed explaination from the nominator. Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly. The article contains no assertion of notability - the size of the corporation is not discussed, and it's relevance to an encyclopedia is dubious. I also note that you are stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See SecondSight's comments for why it has notability. Secondly since when is the "size" required for an article to be notable?! (and I'll add that, "size" is a very vague term that can have many many possible meanings) As for you accusing me of stalking, this is not the place to re-hash out your accusations and my responses. For that, go here: User_talk:Mathmo#WP:STALK. I'll also recommend that you read No personal attacks. Mathmo ^Talk 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete cruftvertisement, non-notable, based on trivial media coverage of an unencyclopedic topic. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unencyclopedic topic?! Please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo ^Talk 11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Seems to be a spam article. The only external source is YouTube, and that's not a reliable source. Furthermore, the YouTube link does not seem to be a "documentary", but rather an advertisement piece. (Either that, or it's a really, really favorable documentary.) It was also uploaded by this organization, so it's not a true third party link (just more material created by this organization.) For those reasons, it's non-notable. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there were many more sources mentioned than just Titan Tv. Secondly you are wrong in saying it was on YouTube, it is on Google Videos. Mathmo ^Talk 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I guess I was thinking Google Video but put down YouTube. Anyway, the other sources are from this company. What we need are reliable, third-party sources. There are none, so there's no indication of notability. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the company did put the Titan TV segment up on Google Video, it doesn't change the fact that the segment was made by a third party. Hence, it is an independent source. Do you think they fabricated the video entirely and are lying that it was ever a segment on TV? Or are you arguing that the company edited the segment or something to make themselves look better? Also, the article has two more sources. The fact that independent links aren't available to these sources doesn't mean that the sources don't exist or that they are not independent. Sources don't even need links anyway (many books are cited in wikipedia that don't have the whole contents linked to online). We could just cite the sources, and remove the links to their text on the company's website if that would make you happier. --SecondSight 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there any proof at all this video was made by a third party? It doesn't have any logo on it that says "Titan TV", and the only source that says this is from Titan TV is Badboy Lifestyle. Also, this is not a documentary. This is a promotional piece. It shows the corporation talking about their infallible method, it talks about being a "player", it shows the price of the seminars, and then it closes with an advertisement screen: "Seduce any girl - badboylifestyle.com". This is an infomercial. If you were to remove the links and rather just cite the articles, it would still not fix the problem that the articles are unverified. Several of the sources are from Badboy, and two links are the same video. This hardly meets WP:CORP. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you watch the segment all the way through, Titan TV's logo comes up. This is obviously an evening TV segment, maybe news. I don't think it's strange that it shows the website of the company. --SecondSight 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced from third party publications per this search. Also, none of the sources in the article are entirely third party. Addhoc 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially per SecondSight. I nominated this for deletion in the ill-conceived first go, but my views have changed. As SecondSight points out, there is plenty of third-party coverage with the full-text available at the website [53] [54] [55] Loaded, Playboy, and Cosmo are all well-established magazines that are clearly reliable sources, even if not in the same league as the NY Times, for example. The coverage is extensive, especially in the first two, so Badboy meets CORP (no one has really offered an explanation for why these should be disregarded).--Kchase T 13:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the key phrase here is "at the web site". In my view, sources from sites other than Badboy Lifestyle are required. Addhoc 13:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't understand that criticism at first, but now I get it and think it's fair. That said, the piece from Loaded includes a scan of the article. That's pretty strong evidence that the article actually was published as it's found on Badboy's website.--Kchase T 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless the truly unexpected happens and genuinely reliable sources, multiple in number, happen to be found) per nom and Calton. This is part of a walled garden of seduction vanispamcruftisement, no two ways about it. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with salt. No notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PickUp 101[edit]

Non-notable corporation - fails WP:CORP Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When this AFD began, the article had two sources, one USA Today and the other in San Francisco Magazine. Furthermore, the article mentioned that the company was profiled in CNBC's On the Money. Yet for some strange reason, the page was still put up for deletion, with only a vague allegation that it is "non-notable" per WP:CORP. Neither of the two voters for deletion seem to feel any obligation to explain why the page fails WP:CORP, or what is wrong with the sources that article has which do establish notability. In case anyone has any doubt as to the notability of the article, I just added a link to the On the Money segment, and I added another news source[56]. --SecondSight 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is to a general "lifestyle" (i.e., glossy puff) article which mentions this company among a number of others. The second is to a similar (if more nauseating) article in a local magazine, though it does concentrate on this company. The third (by the PR Manager of a local student magazine) is the same sort of thing, more general than the second, but focussing more on this company than the first.

So the two references that focus more on this company are local mags, and the national newspaper mentions it as one among many. I'm not impressed; others may be. (Oh, the Cable television programme; isn't it more a mark of notability not to be mentioned by at least one of these? There are so many of them, and so little of real significance for them to talk about.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The USA Today article mentions other companies, but it is clearly about PickUp 101 primarily. It has a sidebar with advice from them, and only them. It describes one of their workshops, not the workshops of other companies. It even has a picture of the founder of the company. This is an article in a national publication, and clearly establishes notability of the subject. As for the other sources, WP:RS does not exclude local magazines nor student magazines. (WP:CORP currently excludes student publications, but the policy is still under development and this exclusion is controversial if you read the talk page. Even if the student published article was excluded in establishing notability, the page still has enough sources, and WP:CORP still says that student publications can be used as sources.) Terms like "glossy puff" and "nauseating article in a local magazine" are merely your personal characterizations of the sources. As for the news segment, just because you don't like those programs doesn't mean that it doesn't add to the notability of the subject. --SecondSight 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to guidelines like WP:CORP, but to common sense. And none of the sources was a news item; they're all "features" (and some are ill-disguised plugs; I wonder if the company advertises in any of the publications?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and the desperate grasping for sources. Let 'em take their walled garden elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has multiple independent sources. Hence, it passes WP:CORP. Because the sources are independent, your walled garden doesn't apply. --SecondSight 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV laden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when USA Today is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden", let me guess you believe USA Today for instance is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo ^Talk 11:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out to you, the ~~News McNuggets~~USA Today mention, no matter how you spin it, isn't about the company, it's about the phenomenon.

I can't believe the heavily POV ladden [sic] language used in AfD. As opposed to the grasping at straws, aggressive attacks, and vigorous handwaving that some people are indulging in. And God forbid I should have an actual point of view in a debate. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. At least you are now finally getting down to the point of what this AfD ought to be about. The sources themself. Naturally each of the sources mention PUA in general because the whole concept is completely foreign to most people. Thus the mention of pick up in needed for the context. However... all of these references mentioned start of by mentioning PickUp101/Lance Mason first and have them as the focus of the article. The mention of others in no way makes this less of a source for this article. Mathmo ^Talk 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the article has many sources from range of places. Print media / online / radio / tv / etc... As mentioned before these are USA Today, Playboy Radio, San Francisco Magazine, and Xpress (plus yet more etc...). All of which has PickUp101/Lance Mason as a main focus of them. This combination easily passes what is required for WP:CORP. Mathmo ^Talk 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:CORP as noted above. And since PickUp 101's approach differs significantly from that of seduction teachers such as Ross Jeffries, it may be of interest to those investigating the topic. Verdant C 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete cruftvertisement, non-notable, based on trivial media coverage of an unencyclopedic topic. I don't see how this is supposed to pass WP:CORP, despite the above. Pete.Hurd 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unencyclopedic topic"?! Please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo ^Talk 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain how a company covered in multiple independent sources, including national news and TV, isn't notable. --SecondSight 01:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cited sources don't seem trivial which may or may not show some measure of notability--Hu12 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sources aren't about PickUp 101, they are about the phenomenon of the "seduction community" and "seduction training". If the latest dance fad is salsa, how many salsa studios do we really need in Wikipedia? They teach the same dance. --Brianyoumans 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are about PickUp 101, however that means they are at the same time about the seduction community. The various people do often teach different ideas from each other. Plus I'd imagine various salsa studios do exist on wikipedia. Not that it has much relevance to this anyway. Mathmo ^Talk 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable, per SecondSight. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:16Z

Brummel brew[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not for things made up at Microsoft one day. Also, no sources are presented and "Brummel brew" gets no Google hits ([57]). KFP (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete important as m$ is, the coffee they drink is not... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sbandrews (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. A good example of employeecruft. Walton monarchist89 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is nothing to suggest this term is notable. Heimstern Läufer 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and I agree with sbandrews. A random trivial fact about working at Microsoft is not notable at all. Jules1975 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Nova (English school in Japan). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:16Z

Nozomu Sahashi[edit]

Article does not contain any information that cannot also be found at Nova (eikaiwa). Seems to exist primarily as a destination for jokes from Nova employees (see this talk page edit). Almost no good-faith edits since page's creation. RJASE1 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on the company. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information is already in main article Sparkzilla 08:13, 6 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]
Delete All information is covered in main article Nova (English school in Japan). Only exists for bad faith edits involving personal attacks and/or uncited original research.--Shakujo 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shakujo. -- Exitmoose 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:41Z

Jane norman[edit]

No real assertion of notability, the number of stores prevented me from speedying it. Willing to withdraw if notability is asserted by whatever means. J Milburn 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. If someone wants to start a new article with correct capitalization that asserts notability and gives more than the price of their products, then we can revisit it. -R. fiend 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in a way it needs to be kept. However, it must be moved to Jane Norman and be completely re-written. I know that this make of handbag is very popular with teenagers for school books... lots of my friends have them. (I know this couldn't be written in the article, but it is just re-enforcing it's notability). If someone was willing to re-write it then it would be a useful article. Asics talk 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I basically agree, but the problem is moving the article and rewriting it completely isn't exactly "keeping" it, is it? Deleting/rewiting it from scratch and removing the text/rewriting from scratch are almost the same thing here. Far too often people vote "keep but rewrite every single word", resulting in the article being kept, but not necessarily rewritten. In cases like this the keep should be contingent on a rewrite. -R. fiend 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than arguing about the system, why don't we try and work out what to do with this article? If we can have some proof that it meets the primary notability criteria, (and perhaps WP:CORP) then it can be moved and rewritten. The fact that you know people who have items made by the brand does not make it notable. Until we have that proof, and, preferably, someone willing to rewrite the article, it should be deleted. J Milburn 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is definately a genuinely notable high street chain. According to an article in the The Times 25th January 2007 it has 106 stores in the UK and plans to open 100 more in 2007. I cycle past one every day on my way to work (possibly not enough of a reason to keep the article!). That said clearly the article as it stands is pretty poor and lots of the information in it is not really relevant for an encyclopedia article. It needs more sources, more relevant information and generally needs tidying up / wikifying. I can't agree that it should be deleted for non-notability though. Jules1975 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is one article, one more and it passes the notability requirements. Just to counter the argument being used by everyone else, I am English, and I have never heard of it. On the other hand, I live in a forgotton corner of the country, and I'm not exactly fashion conscious. Looking for more sources, I found this, the majority of Google hits are directory entries, and a few hits of various people of this name. Does anyone want to work on the article? J Milburn 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It genuinely does have 106 stores. Is this not notable even if no-one has written about them in the press? One is in Bluewater shopping centre, one in the Metro Centre in Gateshead. A quick search on Yell suggests there are at least nine stores in London. In any event there is also reference here to an article in the Independent on 30th July 2005. Definately notable. Apologies, I don't have time to write a proper article for this!Jules1975 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, notability definately established, I will clean it up myself in a little while so that it is at least an acceptable stub. J Milburn 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but could use improvement & capitalization _SUBWAYguy 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this search. Addhoc 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:35Z

Haymaker (Pokémon)[edit]

This article is completely unencyclopedic - not only that, it's got an awful lot of POV and OR in it. Cipher ^(Yell) 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere: I'm actually pretty sure that I've heard of this deck type way back in that day. Which is saying something considering that I didn't even play the game. --SeizureDog 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not saying that CCG decks can't be notable (I'd love to see an article on some of the old Magic: The Gathering power decks, I bet the Necrodeck could at least pass muster), but this article doesn't establish notability or provide sources. --UsaSatsui 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. No reliable sources. Is WP:OR--Sefringle 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with a source. -Ryanbomber 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete solely on the basis of failing WP:RS. I too have heard of this deck type even though I never played the game and think it could probably use a mention on the relavent TCG game page (assuming it's not already there.) Tiakalla 06:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian High School, Dubai[edit]

This high school is not notable enough for an article. It neither meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Schools nor does it meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Through my Google search, I could not find any sources that assert its notability. The school was merely mentioned in this Khaleej Times page, which is not enough to make it notable. Furthermore, the article violates copyrights (see here). And if that wasn't enough, the article is written from a biased point-of-view and sounds, to me, like an advertisement. -- Anas ^Talk? 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep pending approval or rejection of Wikipedia:Schools, which is currently a policy proposal. If the policy is approved, I will vote Delete on this article, as there is no evidence of non-trivial third-party coverage, and the article admits that the school has no notable alumni. Walton monarchist89 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, it violates Wikipedia:Places of local interest, an approved and official guideline. :) -- Anas ^Talk? 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. (tagged as such). Nuttah68 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:17Z

Linux User Group of Mauritius[edit]

A little stubby article organisation about a little 7 year old forum group in a little island in the middle of the ocean. Do we care? Hell no! Article has lasted unnoticed for 3 years on Wikipedia! That is terrible Montchav 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it seems to be a non-notable organization even after looking for evidence of notability (not because we don't care or because it is a three year old stubby article). Sancho McCann 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the tone of this AfD is kind of unacceptable but nevertheless the article fails WP:ORG. Krimpet 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the group is non-notable, not because it happens to be from a different country. Beginning 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the tone of my AFD. I was just really surprised to see how this article had slipped through Wikipedia's net for so long. --Montchav 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted; either nonsense, or a guide for some RPG (no telling which one). - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinesmith[edit]

Not sure what this is- nonsense? Hoax? Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? In any case, as far as I can see, this needs to be deleted, and possibly sent to BJAODN. I may be wrong. J Milburn 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Hut 8.5 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedy, as I think it's coherent enough to be given the benefit of the doubt under Speedy G1). However, delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT possibly, and, as the nominator says, WP:NOT a how-to guide. Basically, even if this were a) true and b) coherent, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. Walton monarchist89 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, incomprehensible patent nonsense. Krimpet 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:19Z

Xtorrent[edit]

Non-notable bit torrent client. Recreated a month after deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtorrent. SakotGrimshine 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 as recreation of previously deleted article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well as I said in the Talk section of the Xtorrent wiki... I was going to give them some time before I put it up for delete... but now that someone has gone and put up the Afd anyway. It is a delete under WP:CSD as stated previously. This article was worse than before with less content and still no notability. MrMacMan 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to establish notability.-- danntm ^T _C 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:22Z

Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao[edit]

Notability is suspect. Most online references to this person are all from self-published sources (by her or on other people's blogs and message boards). Won a contest that might not be considered a general-interest contest. In addition, one of the contributors in this article (mikeabundo) appears to personally know this person based on some entries in his own blog (mikeabundo.com). I would say, unencyclopedic. Tito Pao 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unsourced, not enough independent coverage. Her modelling career might make her notable, but right now there's not enough evidence for this. Walton monarchist89 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete. Absolutely no sources at all for a lot of the info (personal info) about subject of article. Non-notable and quite unencyclopedic. I mean, on-the-spot poster-making contests? I doubt that demonstrates notability. While she has won a lot of cosplays, that's hardly a reason for inclusion in wikipedia. Notwithstanding WP:BEANS but, how many articles do we have for cosplayers? That is her claim-to-fame (I'm willing to state that's her only real one) and that's no reason for a highly-detailed article. As for the art awards, three of those are for an in-school contest. Delete per WP:V in concert with WP:LIVING's rules for non-public figures and WP:BIO. Shrumster 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and since we don't have to create articles for every cosplayers. --Howard the Duck 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from my own knowledge, and my peers in Ragnarok and cosplayers, she is well known but I agree that for Wikipedia she does not fit the standards currently. Although I think the article could be salvaged if the articles from Manila Times, Philippine Star and etc. are properly used as references to establish her notability as a famous and winning cosplayer. Berserkerz Crit 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But she isn't really famous for being a winning cosplayer. She's just famous because she's one of the prettiest ones we have around here. :) As an otaku in the Philippines, I REALLY like looking at her. :P~ But honestly, she's not WP material as of now. Shrumster 09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete. this page is probably just a fanboy's handiwork -Darkwind FA

yes she's not famous. she must stop dreaming to be one. she need a lot of years to work hard on it. there's a lot of talented cosplayers around and she only depends on her sponsors. without them she's nothing.:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:34Z

Nilgün Gülcan[edit]

No notability whatsoever. A Google search gives hits to the person's web site and shows that their article on Turkish wikiepdia was deleted with consensus. A Google image search indicates that the person is a man (in contrast to what the Wiki article says.) Bertilvidet 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If (s)he isn't notable on the Turkish wikipedia, I don't see why they should be on here. --Scot ^t 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bertilvidet 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nilgün Gülcan appears about as notable as Süheyl Batum, and regularly writes for Journal of Turkish Weekly. I cant find any books tho. John Vandenberg 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not see their name in relation to Journal of Turkish Weekly, published by the institute they work at. What I find the most problematic is that the article is written by one of their collegues / their boss. And we, who do not know them, have no chance of verifying or updating the article - still it is even unclear if it is a she or he (Turkish language doesn't make the distinction). Bertilvidet 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fad (ix) 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable by any stretch of imagination.

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:33Z

Arzu Celalifer[edit]

No notability whatsoever. A Google search gives hits to the person's web site and shows that their article on Turkish wikiepdia was deleted with consensus. Bertilvidet 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:PROF, especially as the Turkish article was deleted. No evidence of coverage by independent sources; only link is to her website. Walton monarchist89 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No notability whatsoever" is being rude. She is the editor of a journal and a columnist. fwiw, I think the enwiki has different notability standards; e.g. a radio traffic reporter (Christina Stoffo) is considered notable due to notability within a locality. Here is the turkish Afd: tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye_aday_maddeler/Arzu_Celalifer; does anyone know of a free turkish->english machine translator? John Vandenberg 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Turkish dictionary at [58]. Silinsin means let it be deleted. She is assisting editor, not editor, see [59].Bertilvidet 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So Süheyl Batum is one of the editors? That should help assess this Afd on a locality basis. I'm leaning towards delete on this and Nilgün Gülcan's Afd; except that this publication appears to be pretty notable. John Vandenberg 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Süheyl Batum is one of the editors. I have however my doubts about the notability of the journal. It is published by the International Strategic Research Organization, whose director Sedat Laçiner has written a number of articles on Wikipedia about several publications and employed in connection with his organization (including himself). It is difficult to asses which subjects are notable, but at least I find it obvious that the two persons nominated for deletion are not. Bertilvidet 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be as notable as Süheyl Batum. If someone can provide evidence of which newspapers, or better yet TV shows, that have interviewed her, I'll reconsider. John Vandenberg 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fad (ix) 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are some links of newspapers she has been covered: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=91008 http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=559528 http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=90583 http://www.iranatom.ru/news/english/version1/5/e097.htm http://www.voanews.com/turkish/archive/2006-07/2006-07-16-voa4.cfm http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=558131 http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=556612 http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=153637 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=153801 http://sabah.com.tr/2007/06/09/haber,A1F4381949D14287902C50188087B539.html http://www.20minutes.fr/article/148967/Crise-Iran-GB-Ankara-se-positionne-comme-un-pont-entre-Orient-et-Occident.php http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTY2NTUzODY4Mg== http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060327/2006032705.html

she also joined TV programs in many Turkish channels. such as CNNTURK / TRT / Kanal a / Haber 24 / TGRT Haber /SKYTÜRK and many radio programs

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arzu_Celalifer"

The result was Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 08:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Andersson[edit]

Appears to be non notable, but it is borderline. I would just speedy it, but I think it says that they had a top five hit in Sweden. The text isn't awfully coherent, I presume it was written by someone whose first language is Swedish. J Milburn 17:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomaintion. Notability established. J Milburn 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - no evidence of notability at the moment. As to the top 5, I think it may be about the Eurovision Song Contest or something similar, as it talks about going through to the "final round" - but unless this is sourced and verified, it isn't enough proof of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article has been massively improved in the last few hours. Walton monarchist89 20:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep but expand and clean. He recently participated in Melodifestivalen (a qualifier for ESC), but did not win, is what the article says. That may or may not satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #9. However, he definitely satisfies #5, as he's released several albums distributed by RCA. GassyGuy 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the weak part of my vote and attempted to clean some new information presented in the article by its creator. It's still a stub but he seems to pass WP:MUSIC, although my ability to sort through sources for this article's expansion is hampered by my lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. GassyGuy 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is looking much better, but could still do with some sources. GassyGuy, there are plenty of sites that will translate other sites for you, which aren't awful, such as this. J Milburn 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time at the moment, but this site should at least provide sufficient proof of notability: [60]. If nobody else beats me to it, I will add his singles' and albums' chart positions to his article later. GassyGuy 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, looks to be notable to me, but I will keep the nomination in until the article backs it up a little more. J Milburn 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have had a #4 hit on the Swedish charts in 1992. Ohconfucius 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, I'm convinced, keep it is. J Milburn 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close on withdrawl of nomination in absence of opposing comments. Ohconfucius 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:24Z

Killer Instinct 3[edit]

Well if this isn't WP:CRYSTAL, I don't know what is. Full of lovely comments such as "It's no secret that fans want a sequel, and Rare knows this." As it is, it's nothing but a rumor. Only if and when Rare officially annouces that they're working on a Killer Instinct 3 should this article be made. SeizureDog 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also full of weasel words, e.g. "many speculate that..." Walton monarchist89 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May deserve an article if/when it's release is announced, but not at the moment. --Scot ^t 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely a campaign for a sequel to a decade old game, full of rampant speculation ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ULTRA DELETE!!!! crystalballism (and after the poochscrew that was KI2, I don't want another sequel). JuJube 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Stop this damnit, there is more than enough RELIABLE sources that have reported about this being a rumor, WTF is wrong with people, why cant a page exist if there is more than enough talk about the subject at hand, this isnt me speculating or wishing it will happen, its reporting on the rumor that is Killer Instinct 3
also since when is personal dislike a reason to wanna delete it, who the hell cares if you didnt like KI2 THAT DOESNT MATTER also this exists on Killer Instinct 2's page but it briefly explains the situation, how is this any different except for it being an elaboration on its own page?
I am getting very frustrated with Wikipedians.
oh and I suppose by these standards Silent Hill 5 should be deleted tooPseudoKirby 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if you have sources. An "official" rumor is still just a rumor.--SeizureDog 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to point you to WP:INN. Oh, and the fact that SH5 is actually in development, backed up by an interview with its chief designer. The KI3 page, on the other hand, is pure speculation. Shrumster 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No SH5 IS NOT confirmed, its still just a rumor and hearsay by the developers, no more than the hints and teases that Rare has given on KI3, if you wanna talk speculation and only posting things that are official, SH5 is FAR from official, and thats all that should be posted then PseudoKirby 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From Famitsu[61]: FM: We have missed the Tokyo Game show chance to see Silent Hill 5 trailer, will we see any new informations on it next?
  Akira: I cannot say when or where we will make the idea public but it is in production.--SeizureDog 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:24Z

Andrae Gonzalo[edit]

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No claim to notability outside of appearing on the show. Few references available aside from PR and blogs related to the show. Mikeblas 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability outside the show; lack of external sources. Walton monarchist89 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:31Z

St. Stephen's Mar Thoma Church[edit]

This article is about a local church in New Jersey, founded in the year 2000, which is apparently non-notable, as it generates only 2 Google hits [62]: the church's own web site and a Xanga page. Thus, it would not appear to warrant an article under the proposed guidelines WP:CHURCH or WP:ORG. No sources are provided other than the church's own web site, and the article is written in the first person plural, thus raising concerns about conflict of interest and bias. The article was previously submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed with no other changes made. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as spam, makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. Nuttah68 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most local churches are NN. And Wikipedia's not a free webhost. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:31Z

Susannah Mills[edit]

Non-notable film-maker: career consists of one yet-to-be-released short film. Article is an autobiography. Pascal.Tesson 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; her only film Marathoners currently has a prod. Walton monarchist89 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, although I'm the one who placed the prod... Pascal.Tesson 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a question. It should probably be speedily deleted. Chicken Wing 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Britting[edit]

delete. This is the second nomination. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Britting for prior vote. This gentleman, while being an associate producer and having edited one book, has not done anything definitive and does not meet wp:bio or wp:author as best as i can judge using google. The author of this new version does add some citations, but book reviews and small articles don't count much for me. Buridan 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahhhh, I munged this somehow.... need better directions for a second nomination:(--Buridan 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Britting the consensus is/was delete. Vassyana 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article history appears to indicate the nominator has withdrawn this AfD, is this correct? Addhoc 12:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the nomination was munged, and the bot overwrote the old nomination linked above, so i removed it from the page. --Buridan 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Addhoc 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this search Addhoc 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, author of a NYT-reviewed bookbehind paywall. LRB review here.--Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, between the book and the movie and the sources, I'd say he's notable. Recury 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but work on this article or we will have it back in a month or so Alf photoman 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:39Z

Kestrin Pantera[edit]

Likely autobiography. Fill-in actress and fill-in musician. Career as a filmmaker consists of a single unreleased short. Pascal.Tesson 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. fraggle 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Continued abuse (even though probably unintentional) of Wikipedia by one user. Chicken Wing 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:25Z

Phillious[edit]

Non-notable radio character. Nekohakase 17:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fraggle 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reina (cattle)[edit]

This appears to be a very vague description of a 'sub breed' of cattle that one farmer has developed. I am not sure what policy will cover this, but surely, it can't be notable enough for an article of its own? J Milburn 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination. Multiple, good sources found. J Milburn 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was a very succesful breed and bred by an institution in Nicaragua that barely exisits anymore. It was not developed by one farmer. During the Nicaraguan revolution (or just after) a great deal of this breed was sold to a National University in Venazuela. I have just learned that they might still maintain this breed in a herd there. I will get some more information so we can add more support. It was an important breed to Nicaragua and very well developed. Economic strife has caused it's reduction. Let me know thoughts please. Thanks!--Agrofe 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any sources for any of this? The term is a bit generic, so I couldn't find any on google. J Milburn 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of this page: [63] is an article about the reina from the Inter Press Service. No opinion yet but looks like it could be fairly notable. Here's another article from La Prensa (Managua): [64]. It also gets a brief mention here: [65] as being something for which the La Flor wildlife refuge is known. GassyGuy 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Let me work on it a bit to see if I can come up with more detail. My source was the former Undersecretary of Agriculture in Nic. The first article loosley translated:

MANAGUA.- El gobierno de Nicaragua y la Universidad Nacional Agraria (UNA) acordaron un programa de mejoramiento genético del ganado reina, una raza bovina nicaragüense que fue declarada patrimonio nacional.

MANAGUA - The government of Nicaragua and the National Agrarian University (UNA) agreed to a genetic improvement program of Reina (Queen) Cattle, a Nicaraguan bovine breed that was declared National Patrimony

El propósito del acuerdo es elevar el rendimiento de esta raza criolla, explicó el rector de la UNA, ingeniero Telémaco Talavera, mediante implantes de embriones en los mejores vientres disponibles.

The agreement proposes to elevate the yields of this Creole Breed, explaned the dean of UNA, Engineer Telematico Talavera, through the process of implanting embryos in the best utersises available.

“El ganado reina tiene características especiales para el trópico, posee genes que le permiten resistir el calor y puede ser ganado de doble propósito: carne y leche. La UNA trabaja para mejorar los transplantes de embriones de este ganado”, dijo Talavera.

"The Reina cattle has special characterisitics for the tropics, it posesses genes which permit it to resist heat and they can be dual purpose: meat and milk. UNA work to better the transplanting of embryos in this cattle", Talavera said.

Financiado por el Ministerio de Agricultura, el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural y la Agencia de Cooperación de Japón, el proyecto incluirá capacitación a los productores y la distribución de ampollas de semen de mejor calidad

Financing will come from the Ministry of Agriculture, The Insitutue for Rural Development and the Agency of Cooperation with Japan, the project will include the training of producers and the distribution of ampules of better quality semen.

I'll still look for more information. The breed started in decline just as the internet was taking off (that could be why there is not much there).--Agrofe 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the Inter Press article I linked to above. I would say that one combined with the one from La Prensa meets the requirement for multiple verifiable sources. GassyGuy 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definately. I'm now withdrawing my nomination. J Milburn 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the help. There is a lot of people working hard to bring this national treasure back. I hope people help to expand the article! --Agrofe 20:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:25Z

Piekenhof[edit]

A community that doesn't even exist yet. Nekohakase 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted (apparently not CSD A7 eligible). --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; even when it's built, it may not be notable (housing-estate articles have been deleted in the past). Walton monarchist89 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There's nothing wrong with a "new" town. But as it doesn't seem to exist yet, this can go for now. --Oakshade 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cruisers[edit]

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

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

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

Contested WP:PROD. "An alternative cruiser is a motorcycle cruiser that isn't quite in the big 5 category (yet)" is hardly an encyclopedic definition. Judging from the low number of Google hits (323) for "Alternative Cruiser", it doesn't seem to me that the phrase has an established meaning. Delete unless cleaned up. - Mike Rosoft 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A similar page, www.AlternativeCruisers.com, was tagged with ((db-advert)) and has now suffered this fate. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; and I deleted the article due to a lack of claim of notability. This version seems to be about the type of motorcycles. - Mike Rosoft 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - KEEP IT !! It has a lot of imformative information about motorcycles "under the radar".

A lot more can be added if it is allowed to get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have cleaned it up and added more detail. I can add more, but the effort will be wasted if you ax the page. Bill Ramby 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Bill Ramby[reply]

Delete. This is WP:OR as there is no formal definition. Basically this is just a list of motorcycle brands that are not widely known, perhaps to give them more prominence. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If people don't know they even exist, how are they going to find the alternatives? Whenever I need to look something up, I go to google or wikipedia.Bill Ramby 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Bill Ramby[reply]

And it is not spam!Bill Ramby 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wikipedia has increasing power; it seems as if users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation, which isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has increasing power" What an interesting and profound quote! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a source of information, not an information broker. Statements like that tend to make one think that you like the power trip that moderating wikipedia gives you. You know what, just delete the page. Fighting you guys to put information on a supposed information site just isn't worth my time nor the frustration. Good day.Bill Ramby 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE: ""users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation"" Is this NOT the reason for an Encyclopedia ? To use as a source of KNOWLEDGE ? The comments made by the "EDITORS" make me wonder if many are nothing more than Harley Davidson "snobs".From the opening statement that has been added, to all the "editors" comments makes it clear that you do not really want anyone elses opinion. You should then just make this area unaccessable to the users of this site as it will and has made a bad impression about this site as a way to create and find information.

Happy bigoted editing !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk • contribs). — 71.87.152.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Exactly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, that is a compendium of existing knowledge; not a vehicle used to make something known. - Mike Rosoft 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently sourced neologism.01:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "Alternative" is "Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems" and "Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream" Dictionary.com Alternative Cruisers would thus be motorcycles that are not part of the mainstream brands everyone thinks of when you think of a motorcycle. Having a page for "Alternative Cruisers" would be beneficial as a source of knowledge for the general public who are not familiar with the alternatives. I understand that the reason you are requesting deletion of "Alternative Cruisers" is because there are not enough hits on a google search. However, as more and more people look into other options for motorcycles, "alternative cruisers" will become a more popular search. As an information resource, I would think Wikipedia would want to be the first to have this information available. In response to your quote, "it seems as if users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation, which isn't the purpose of wikipedia." This is not a "creation of knowledge." The knowledge already exists. It is just not readily available on the internet. Wikipedia can change that. In response to the quote, "If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM." This is a discriminatory statement. If you put brand names in your pages then ALL brands should be allowed. The fact whether or not they are notable is irrelevant. It is either considered Spam or not. Under your topic on Motorcycles you include many brand names including Harley, Honda, Suzuki, BMW, etc. Is that not spam? It is a list of motorcycle brands. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the trends. According to an article on TheAutoChannel.com, ""Motorcycles and scooters are simply better than ever, in performance, style and variety, and still very affordable," he said. "The latest Cycle World Buyer's Guide lists more than 400 models. And it's not just sportbikes and cruisers and touring bikes. There are emerging niches between these broad categories, appealing to a wider array of personal taste in bikes. There's a fun little $3,000 sportbike that gets 74 miles per gallon. There are beautiful big cruisers that cost $12,000 or less. There are many desirable bikes at these prices and beyond that Americans aspire to own and enjoy." One of these "emerging niches" are "Alternative Cruisers." I implore Wikipedia to keep up with the trend and not get left behind. Muriel Russo

Muriel Russo, I'm sorry that you do not understand. Wikipedia has a responsibility to its own policies, not to "keeping up with the trend" or allowing non-notable material simply out of some fairness guideline (we do not have a fairness guideline). We only allow notable topics in the encyclopedia (guideline), and notability must be verifiable (policy) through reliable sources. A few google results does not meet these guidelines. All you've done is present evidence that there are lesser-known manufacturers of bikes, but you have not presented anything that verifably proves that they are known as "alternative cruisers" generally or that this is a meaningful classification for any type of vehicle or product. We are not objecting to the brands listed in the article, we are objecting to the fanciful grouping of them, apparently for promotional purposes. We are not a webhost for essays or would-be magazine articles. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is inherently POV. -- Whpq 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not notable and the definition too vague. --Tunheim 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial standardization requirement[edit]

Reminiscent of my experience with Secure Democratic Democracy back in December. Exact term receives a goose egg on Google and hence may comprise original research. Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and unverifiable, so probably delete per WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above searches and nom. Addhoc 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hart (judge)[edit]

Non-notable person. No evidence of anything that would satisfy WP:BIO Valrith 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor commander of militia during French and Indian wars, whose company saw no action during extent of war. Created by an apparent single-purpose account, possibly this blogger, a descendant.--Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this search indicates there was a town clerk of the same name of borderline notability, however I couldn't find anything on the judge. Addhoc 11:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle La Have, Nova Scotia[edit]

Middle LaHave is a very small community and comprises nothing to make it notable enough to have an article. Thomasiscool 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even little communities, especially ones that have been around for hundreds of years, rate articles. More commonly know without the extra space: "Middle LaHave". - Richfife 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richfife --⁪froth^T 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real places. It's SE of Bridgeport, here: [66]. Antandrus (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richfife. Communities are notable even if boring. Beginning 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Communities no matter what size are considered notable enough for Wikipedia. 23skidoo 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richfife. Towns and communities are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precident. All real cities, towns, villages, hamlets, etc. are notable. Resolute 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep and rename to List of current BBC newsreaders. - Daniel.Bryant 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Newsreaders[edit]

This article contains a list of the main BBC News bulletin presenters, something which is achieved within the articles of the main programmes, together with Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists and so effectively makes this article redundant. The fact that this article has very few links to it also makes it seem obsolete compared with the articles already in existence that serve the subject matter. Wikiwoohoo 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the data best belongs in the individual articles. There's nowhere for this article to go but down (into masses of historical trivia). - Richfife 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never seen a list yet which is redundent to a category. Useful, verifiable. Jcuk 19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, organized list, could use references. Lists serve different purposes than categories, and removal would mean loss of redlinks. Should probably rename to List of current BBC newsreaders. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick reference is useful! Seivad 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, some references would be nice, also some expansion to include sports readers etc. Rename to List of current BBC newsreaders/or newscasters, unless of course some historical aspect is added. Also add some links to it from BBC news articles. Mdcollins1984 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect/merge to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:39Z

Historical Bibliography of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions[edit]

This appears to be an indiscriminate list of books about the American Board of Commisioners for Foreign Missions. It does not appear to have any encyclopedic value, as it conveys no useful information about the organization or anything else. Moreover, Wikipedia generally does not contain pages devoted exclusively to references. For these reasons, I suggest deleting this article. Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no purpose for American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions article. References used there must be cited there, not on a separate page. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if this is a candidate for deletion, then most or all of the category of "Bibilographies by subject" should be, too. Bibliography_of_the_Penguin, Category:Bibliographies by subject. I just separated this out of the article American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions because it was more about how the items are archived. Brian0324 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe this material should be summarized without the lengthy essay on archiving and placed back into American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions as a "further reading" section? (Note that an example of similar content is not the justification for bad content; the similar content often gets nominated for deletion as well.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly an indiscriminate list instead of an encyclopedia article. Would agree that Bibliography of the Penguin should be renominated for deletion. Addhoc 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - blanked by author, User:Bobobalde. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:29Z

Eoghan O'Dea[edit]

Professional poker player . Is he notable? Article has been speedied once at Eoghan o dea. -- RHaworth 18:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - less than 1000 results on Google, and only the first seems to have anything to do with this article. --Scot ^t 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about a well known young Irish player who plays in Dublin and plays some of the biggest online poker games. He is the son of a very famous Irish poker player and regarded as being a good prospect.

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:29Z

History of the guillotine in Russia[edit]

The Russia article is a spoof article. All edits by creator of this article is nonsense or adding false information to articles. The reference given, "G.P. Maximoff, The Guillotine at Work", certainly exists, but doesn't mention literal guillotines. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maksim of Orenburg and Deletion log for History of the guillotine in China created by same user. Hevesli 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This site[67] has no mention of guillotines in Russia. A google search for Soviet Guillotine finds nothing to say the Soviets ever used it. And "installed by the French after the Napoleonic wars" is clearly absurd - the French were defeated in Russia. Totnesmartin 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, ensure that user is closely watched. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX unless independently verified with reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax created by vandalism-only account. Guillotine was never used in Russia. --Henrik Ebeltoft 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spoof article. There are two redirects pointing to this article : History of the guillotine in Ukraine and History of the guillotine in Belarus. -- ArglebargleIV 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:36Z

Shadowclan[edit]

Non notable except in the small communities with which they interact. A "consensus" by members of the guild shouldn't outweigh the fact that they fail nearly every aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Their references seem to be a mixture of self links, a "screenshot of the week" style site, a gaming site (Ultima Online) with 150 such articles about the same types of events with different groups, an "interview" by a member of the group with their leader (The Only-War link) and an article on a minor WoW fansite. A quick google search brings up 534 for "shadowclan guild" (no quotes), 1440 for "shadowclan warcraft" (no quotes) and 1380 for "shadowclan ultima online" (no quotes). If we are going to allow a group with no mainstream coverage, what's the point of having notability guidelines at all? Chad Hennings 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved this current AfD to a separate page; the nominator created this one on the page of the first nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting a little old. As copied from another discussion, this group has:

- been interviewed for a commercially-published book (a "...for Dummies" book, no less). [68]

- been written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [69]

Arguably, this group isn't under the auspices of WP:WEB, but it meets it anyway: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now brace for impact of a deluge of single purpose accounts from Shadowclan itself and groups that don't like Shadowclan. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Simões appears to be a sockpuppet. Waargboom 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Simões is a sockpuppet? He or she has a substantial and varied editing history. Please don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with evidence. —Cel ithemis 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's spotted me in public with socks on my hands. If that's his allegation, then I ain't confessin' nothin' 'til I see photographic evidence! ;) Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Simões's two points into the article. If there are any more non-trivial sources that assert notability, please add them so these nominations are less likely to go on. I am neutral. Pomte 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the supporters that want to keep this article are members of the online guild and it's Not notable except in the small communities.Mikemiddleton 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — Mikemiddleton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.239.22 (talk • contribs) — 75.197.239.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete not notable except to the people within that guild. RedKlonoa 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, reliable, third party sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sources have already been given. Are you inclined to reject either of them? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who haven't read the article itself or the past discussions pertaining to it, I'd like to point out the following:

- This article has been up for deletion twice before - for the same not-notable "argument". The result from both discussions was to keep.

Discussion One - [70]
Discussion Two - [71]

- This article has at least four, what one might consider strong, references from third party sources.

Reference One: Raph Koster Article - [72]
Reference Two: Ultima Online Article - [73]
Reference Three: MMOG for Dummies Book - [74]
Reference Four: Dark Age of Camelot Races Article - [75]

- Shadowclan is also mentioned, as though the reader will know exactly who they are, in well-known game development discussion sites, gaming fansites, gaming forums and gaming magazines such as Terra Nova [76] and Massive Magazine [77].

- ~~I wrote the bulk of the article.~~ Over the past few months, I have edited and rewrote the bulk of the article. I am a former Shadowclan member and current fan. Yuut 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:COI? It's fascinating. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Just as everyone monitoring this discussion should. Thank you for the sarcastic response.Yuut 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have issue numbers for the two magazines and the nature of the Shadowclan references? If so, it would probably help fence sitters lean more to one side. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW my understanding of WP:N is that multiple and reliable sources are required. No argument with Dummies reference. However, I gather from WP:RS that blogs are only reliable if written by journalists or acdemics and Raph Koster is neither. Also, I don't think Ultima Online or Dark Age of Camelot are reliable publishers. The terranova reference is another blog and I couldn't find the article when I searched Massive Magazine. Addhoc 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot are games, not publishers. The publisher of both games (and therefore their documentation) is Electronic Arts. I'd consider them a reliable source, especially for materials for their own products. No? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Yuut. Sources provide both notability and... sources. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Delta Rags[edit]

Non-notable, virtually no Google presence aside from this article's content. Beginning 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY criteria of ((db-bio)). Wooyi 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 due to no assertion of notability. Walton monarchist89 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Slipknot (band) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:26Z

Crowz[edit]

Album that was never released and, according to the article, may never have existed at all. I see no reason that this article should exist. The article also contains 0 citations, is rather poorly written, and is likely original research. --Wildnox (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, speculation, WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell, the article (or at least a good bit of it) isn't OR. [78][79] ShadowHalo 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Although mainly from tabloids, the present sources - given their number and diversity - appear sufficient to support the current noncontroversial content for the purposes of WP:V. Sandstein 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Phillips[edit]

To be honest, this is speediable, as no claim is made for significance. As, however, someone "prodded" it, and an anon removed the template without making any attempt to improve the article or discuss it at Talk, but claiming that it ought to be discussed, I've brought it here. One of many weather-forecasters, not significant enough for an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some admins seem to assume that new evidence will automatically convince earlier contributors to a discussion, I'll just make clear here that it hasn't changed my view. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ - no assertion of notability at all. Walton monarchist89 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced showing accordance to WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Besides being a country-wide Northern Ireland weather presenter, there's a BBC Northern Ireland profile [80] and she's the subject of multiple news pieces [81] [82][83]. A limited Google News Archive serach (search terms "'Angie Phillips' weather") brings up even more works. [84] Passes the regular WP:BIO guildelines. --Oakshade 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Amendment - Yet two more articles found about the subject [85][86], these times from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror. --Oakshade 17:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search gave thirteen hits, most of them newspaper trivia pieces. That the BBC site has a profile of one of its employees is irrelevant, of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO clearly states that "trivial coverage" refers to such pieces "as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." The multiple The People articles are well beyond the scope of "trivial". An editor might not like the reason for that coverage, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a basis to delete an article. And having a profile by (on being a presenter on) the BBC, one of the largest and arguably the most prestigous broadcaster in the world, demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's having a third baby... this makes her notable? It suggests to me that the tabloid newspaper in question was having a slow news day. And you miss the point about the BBC; companies often put profiles of their employees on their own Web pages — that isn't a sign of notability.
Note that I'm not trying to do her down; I'm sure that she's an excellent person, good at what is doubtless an interesting job, pleasant to be with, a good mother, and so on. I'd very likely rather spend an evening in her company than in that of most of the people with Wikipedia articles. But can you imagine any other encyclopædia having an article on here? The Britannica? The Chambers? Encarta even? So why should we? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to change the definition of "trivial" in WP:BIO (the inclusion crietria in Wikipeida, not Britannica or Chambers), you can make suggestions on its talk page, but your comments just confirm this subject adhears easily to WP:BIO and its non-trivial coverage clause. And the attack on the The People for having "a slow news day" is irrelevent and adds to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, this time regarding news-coverage. --Oakshade 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the previous repsone, I've found this person is the subject of two more published works from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror [87][88]- These are non-baby subject articles. We're at 5 published works now. --Oakshade 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was requested at DRV that this AfD be relisted to allow more debate after edits made by Oakshade. -- A Train ^{take the} 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have changed my earlier vote; the improved sourcing constitutes adequate evidence of coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered only by the tabloids, mostly in The People, the News of the World's lagging competitor, I'm not sure that the bottom of the barrel of British journalism counts as a reliable source. The articles required a fee to view them but the only one that seemed like it was a true article rather than a brief blurb was the one in The News Letter, but even if you consider that a reliable source, it still doesn't get us to the multiple requirement. JChap2007 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you feel like discounting the mulitple The People articles (WP:BIO does not ban "tabloid" from its "published works" clause), the Daily Mirror, The News Letter and the Fresh Magazine ones easily qualify as "multiple." --Oakshade 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, but WP:BIO says the sources must be reliable. Qua re if the worst of the British tabloids qualify. Anyway, the article in The News Letter is the only one that is longer than a mere blurb (a trivial mention), so the multiple requirement still wouldn't be satisfied. JChap2007 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true. The News Letter is more than a "blurb" or "trivial mention" as the free preview shows 262 of 1,759 characters. Plus The Daily Mirror article is also more than a "blurb" with that free preview showing 94 out of 677 characters, and the Fresh Magazine article is even more than both. And The People is still a published work satisfing WP:BIO notability guildlines - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Whether it's a tabloid or not, it's still a published work. --Oakshade 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, the News Letter is the only source of any length for this. 677 characters is under a hundred words. Fresh magazine is put out by the Health Promotion Agency and its brief interview was about her childrens' eating and exercise habits. And you are ignoring the part of WP:BIO that says that the sources must be reliable. JChap2007 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are confirming that the News Letter article is more than "just mention[ing] the person in passing." 100 words is well beyond "mentioning in passing". And the Fresh Magazine is a published work under WP:BIO and doesn't fall under any of the "exceptions". Who publishes the magazine is irrelevant as the "source is independent of the person." As for the reliable sources, that refers to accuracy of content, not notability. If the National Enquirer writes several article about someone, that someone is notable, no matter how light weight the articles are. And there are two new published works from the national charity Woodland Trust that are primarily about her [89][90]. We're up to eight published works about the subject. --Oakshade 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I confirmed it in my first post and in each subsequent post. The problem is we still don't have multiple articles of which she is the subject that are longer than blurbs (and yes, 100 words is just a blurb). The Fresh magazine piece is just one in which she, along with other minor celebrities are asked questions about their children's diets. A typical example is "Do your children like fruit and veg.?" It doesn't provide any information about her. Honestly, how are we supposed to use that as a source to write the article: "Angie Philllips, whose children like fruit and veg., is a weather presenter for the BBC"? The Woodland Trust pieces similarly do not talk about her, but contain quotes from her in support of its mission. JChap2007 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the confirmation of the confirmation :). A 100-word peice, whether someone labels it a "blurb" or not, is beyond WP:BIO's "passing mention." Even if you feel like excluding all three of The People articles about her, plus the Fresh Magazine and the Woodland Trust articles, there's still two published works (i.e. "multiple") cited that are primarily about the subject.--Oakshade 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even the delete !vote above states she's had repeated media coverage... so what if its a tabloid? It is not our job to judge whether or not what a source says is true. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sources are supposed to be reliable — but more importantly, many of those sources are saying no more about her than that she had a third baby... If this were an article about someone notable for having three babies(!) then I suppose that those sources would provide verifiability and notability. Any presenter on local radio or television is likely to have been the subject of mini-article in newspapers on slow news days (I've been the subject of a couple — one in the Times, one in the New Statesman, because even academics get this sort of thing — should there be an article on me? Articles on academics are constantly being deleted on grounds on=f non-notability, because it's deemed that what they've done doesn't raise them sufficiently above their peers. Apparently they don't need to have written a successful book, just had an artcile about their child-bearing capabilities in the Sun); are we to have articles on every such person? They're not even micro-celebrities. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there should be an article on you, Mel. :) (unless your real name is different, you didn't come up on a G-news Archives search like Angie Phillips did several times). Articles on academics are also constantly being kept because they pass WP:BIO. But you're missing the point. WP:BIO is passed here. Whether an editor is assuming a news outlet is "having a slow news day" is irrelevent. How do you know that major events weren't occuring on those days anyway? It's 100% speculation and that is in no way a basis for deciding if a subject is notable. And as stated above, even if you feel like discounting 3 of the published works about Angie Phillips you don't like, there's still 2 more non-trivial published works about her that are not just "passing mentions". --Oakshade 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do come up (my real name is a dark and deadly secret, known to a very few...). The point is, though, that those articles on me wouldn't demonstrate my notability (and neither or them was a passing mention). Note also that WP:BIO only offers guidelines; editors are free to delete an article that meets the criteria there, and to keep an article that doesn't. (And I wasn't saying that my belief that it must have been a slow news day was grounds for ignoring it, incidentally.) Do you think that she's more notable than all the other presenters, newsreaders, weather-reporters, et al.? If not, should we have an article on each of them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the primary criteria of WP:BIO is met. If you want to arbitrarily ignore official policy guidelines on specific subjects you don't like, well, editors are free to have their opinion, but that's not in line with WP:NOTE or WP:BIO, with the exception of WP:IGNORE of course. And many news anchor persons and weather reporters/metorologists do have their own articles when they fit the notability criterion. --Oakshade 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Nardman1 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the documentation provided by Oakshade, this individual appears to meet and exceed the bar set by our current WP:BIO guideline. (jarbarf) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this would pass WP:BIO, if the sources were reliable... Addhoc 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless reliably sourced, although this search appears to indicate notability, the sources are unreliable tabloids... Addhoc 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you only referring to The People newspaper? Or also the The News Letter and The Daily Mirror newspapers also cited? --Oakshade 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the UK press there is widespread acceptance that publications such as The Times are reliable, while The Sun isn't. Essentially, I would suggest The People and the The Mirror are fairly similar to The Sun and therefore unreliable. Addhoc 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just confused. Do you feel that if this person is the subject of an article in The Daily Mirror which has a circulation of over 4 million, that doesn't make the person notable? Or are you concerned with the content of the article about her being reliable? --Oakshade 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:N, notability isn't newsworthiness and sources must be reliable. Tabloid journalism doesn't, in my view, qualify. 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
But if someone is the subject of multiple non trivial published works, whether it's from a tabloid or not, they qualify as notable under WP:BIO. If a extemely popular tabloid-like newspaper such as The Daily Mirror has an article about her, she's notable per WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of WP:BIO it very clearly states that sources must be reliable. According to WP:RS a reliable secondary source is "the informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion". For the avoidance of doubt that isn't a description of UK tabloid journalism. Addhoc 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade seems to be arguing that being in a tabloid isn't evidence of notability, it creates notability (or else I don't see the relevance of the circulation figure, popularity, etc.).--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's evidence of notability. And that she's the subject of a published work from a newspaper with circulation of over 4 million per day is irrelevant?? Sorry, but it's VERY relevant. That the editors of a newspaper that millions of people read every day chose to run a story about this subject is not only evidence of notability, but strong evidence. --Oakshade 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Vegaswikian. MER-C 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRF Architects & Associates[edit]

db contested, so move here to discuss. Wooyi 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP; no evidence of notability; no sources except their own website. Walton monarchist89 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete and protect from recreation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:23Z

Peacehealth[edit]

Page has been deleted 4 times already (1x for non notability and 3x as copyvio), and recreated every time by a single user. I doubt the notability. The latest rewrite varies from the source [91], but I am still unsure about its notability. Chris 73 | Talk 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little evidence of notability, except the supposed mention in The Hill which is unverified. Walton monarchist89 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Poor references. Looks like corporate PR/advertising from a single user. May wish to consider Salting the Earth, given previous deletions and re-creations. WMMartin 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor stated references can't WP:VERIFY. May consider changing opinion, but based on the history (1x for non notability and 3x as copyvio) probably won't--Hu12 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by CJLL Wright per CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah higgs[edit]

Should have been speedied as a non-notable bio but someone claims that she "might" be notable. -- RHaworth 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Changed my mind. I have a bad head today and I obviously haven't relised what I was doing. The article is infact a Blatant advertisement for their own website plus the chance and pride of having their own article on wikipedia. delete. Retiono Virginian 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a typical example of when to use ((db-bio)). Walton monarchist89 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Predicted film star, indeed. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 20:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, does not assert notability. GregorB 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertisement. Tagged as such. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - completely non-notable. Turgidson 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio. JuJube 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged for speedy delete. SkierRMH 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:22Z

Episode 13 (band)[edit]

was deleted 4 times so far for lack of notability, always being recreated by the same user. A recent prod was removed. Only one album two years ago. Delete, possibly speedy Chris 73 | Talk 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, no sources other than their own site and MySpace, probably a publicity page. Walton monarchist89 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quite clearly a vanity page. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Tabula Rasa (Episode 13 album). Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to World Economic Forum. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:20Z

Forum of Young Global Leaders[edit]

Advertisement masquerading as articles. Looks like being copy-pasted from a website, include "we"s. I have no clue if the subject would be notable after being rewritten. Propose deletion until someone will rewrite with NPOV wording. Bertilvidet 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into World Economic Forum I don't think a full delete is necessary here as the organization seems encyclopedically notable, judging by its selection committee and its founder. As it seems to also be a junior initiative of the World Economic Forum ( see [92]), I recommend a cut-down merge into World Economic Forum with removal of all POV wording. Bwithh 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merger seems fine to me. Bertilvidet 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:20Z

Cfg2html[edit]

Totally unencyclopedic article about some Unix shell script. Vanity: "I wrote it". -- RHaworth 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity and unencyclopaedic. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Turgidson 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article makes me say "It's some random script or other", it's not good. No indication of whether it's even used in Real Life. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real tool that sys admins who seldom to never contribute to Widipedia use. It does need editing, but assuming an encyclopedia should cover the world, then this is very much part of sys admins world. Google for Cfg2html produces a page of results. The question is what should the authors and users (a small group) do to make this encyclopaedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.254 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, we cover the world. Yet, we've decided we cover only the part of the world that everyone needs to know about and that everyone knows. This article a) doesn't explain why the thing is notable, and if we remove all of the stuff you normally won't find an encyclopaedia article, there's really no reason we should even have a stand-alone article about it. I've been a Linux user for over a decade and have never heard of this program - and I can't quite find it if I do apt-cache search cfg2html. (nope, external apt repos don't count.) Inclusion in a major Linux distro might make this utility sound a lot more interesting, don't you think? At best, it's mergeable material: I don't really think that random bits of infrastructure are necessarily worthy of their own article either, but they may be comment-worthy somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not the author, I have just removed the usage and patching information. I will try to find refrences to add soon. I believe that I originally found the tool via a then DejaNews search --User:LinuxStorm 15:53, 6 February 2007
  - So far I have only found DejaNews, now Google Groups refrences as far back as 2001. Is this enough? How would I cite them, maybe an article that faced a similar problem? --User:LinuxStorm 16:09, 6 February 2007
    - Regrettably no. Read WP:RS. Usenet (or any other message boards) generally doesn't qualify as reliable sources. Besides, just because some tool existed back in 2001 doesn't mean it is or has been notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cfg2html is not only a real tool but - as the article is trying to say - the "Swiss Army Knife" for any system administrator when it comes to system documentation of any server running one of the OS'es covered. However, as previous comments suggest the article doesn't meet yet wikipedia standards I'd be more than happy to adjust where neccessary. Any pointers to existing articles covering a similiar topic highly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbrix (talk • contribs).
- Well, take a look at any of the articles about *nix utilities. You'll see we don't have a whole lot of usage details in articles. But most importantly, it needs some claims of fame and sources that document them: Magazine articles? Inclusion in a major OS distro? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cfg2html is really useful. The only things I don't like are the License and the Homepage of the tool: It's not GPL, and you must register at Yahoo to download. SCC (System Configuration Collector, http://www.openeyet.nl/scc/) was inspired by cfg2html, as mentioned at http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/117330/49/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.226.4 (talk • contribs).
- Please see WP:ILIKEIT "It's useful" is not really a particularly good reason to keep an article. Also, the case of SCC is irrelevant here. (A rhetoric example: We have an article about Thomas Edison, but not the guy who said "damn, it's dark here", thus inspiring Edison to do something about it. =) And even if it was, I can't seem to find any indication SCC is really all that notable either, but that was just a cursory check. LinuxSecurity.com article appears to be mostly about SCC in any case and the reference to cfg2html is a trivial mention. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cfg2html is an extremely powerful tool for building, templating and rebuilding systems from scratch. I use it with another project - cfengine - to give me the ability to spot abnormalities in systems that should otherwise be identical (with the help of some shell scripts). -- Peecee 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — PeeCee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, yes, it's useful - but is it notable? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some references have been added, but so far, none are particularly awe-inspiring. If the LinuxJournal bit was actually in print, that may be significant, but the blog posts are by default suspicious, and most of the references seem to be quite trivial anyway. Just being listed at some directory or other is not really enough (or even good material to be added to the article, actually). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not notable. --Tunheim 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:18Z

List of Muslim Christianity scholars[edit]

Clearly a POV topic. We don't have a List of Christian Islamic scholars. It also violates Wikipedia:Listcruft (because there isn't an article on this topic). Sefringle 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Probably not useful as a list --⁪froth^T 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is however, have an article on Islamic Christianity studies, which is the field in which these scholars are engaged. That article describes its subject as and attempt to "study Christian religious texts and religious traditions according to an Islamic view." So the people on the list clearly have a point of view. That does not mean that the list itself does, though. Were there an analogous field of studying Islamic texts according to the Christian viewpoint, we could do an article (and possibly a list) on that topic. However, it does seem that a category may be preferable here, as the list provides little beyond a collection of article links. JChap2007 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a Christian Islamic scholars article, so having this article is POV pushing.--Sefringle 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're merely repeating the argument you made in the nomination, rather than responding to the distinction I made in my comment. If there is an established academic field in which Islamic texts are studied from a Christian perspective, we should have such an article. JChap2007 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize as Category:Muslim scholars of Christianity. JChap2007 is right, there's nothing wrong or POV about this list, it's just better suited to a category. — coelacan talk — 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consitering that there are only 4 notable Christian Muslim Scholars, I'm not sure having a category is a good idea. It almost seems to be a waste to include a category to mention only 4 names.--Sefringle 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen lesser-populated categories. The fact that there aren't many people with articles to put into the category is not an argument against the category. The argument for the category is that this is a distinct genre of writing that doesn't fit easily into other already-existing categories. The Category:Muslim scholars of Christianity category should be a subcategory of Category:Christian scholars, and it will nicely parallel the Category:Non-Muslim Islamic scholars. — coelacan talk — 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Islamic Christianity studies. I don't see any POV problem at all. Appears to be a real existing phenomenon. Do also note that the relations that Christians have with Islam and Muslims has with Christianity are not identical. Muslims considers Jesus, Abraham, etc. as prophets and considers that the Bible and Torah were revelations that were distorted. Christians on the other hand, do not recognize neither Muhammad (saw) nor the Quran. --Soman 10:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That't my understanding too. I don't think there's an analogous field. JChap2007 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is of extremely limited interest and this content is better off on a site for fans. Nardman1 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty interested. Anyway, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of that page, it says it is an essay and not a guideline.--Sefringle 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so maybe you can cite the policy or guideline that supports deleting an article because an editor doesn't like it. JChap2007 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep "extremely limited interest" amounts to IDONTLIKEIT and is not a criterion. It's an essay because its merely one of a great number of inappropriate reasons, so inappropriate that it has not been necessary to make a guideline out of it, or any of the 100s of other other inappropriate reasons that have been offered from time to time. As JChap says, find a case where limited interest was used as a criterion and supported by the consensus. If there is real content, RN, V, and someone to write the article, that is enough. DGG 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, valid topic, supports the Islamic Christianity studies article and contains no POV at the moment. Nuttah68 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adam Jury[edit]

Non-notable game designer. Possibly meets speedy criteria. GregorB 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable, and inadequately referenced. And the article's author appears to exist only to create and edit this article, which leads me to suspect conflict of interest. Bye-bye. WMMartin 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to 3 (band) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:07Z

Half Life (3 album)[edit]

No refs to show the albums are notable, Google hits are primarily Wikipedia and its mirrors. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia articles are not a medium for promoting albums which are not otherwise notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because those albums have the same lack of evidence of notability]:

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:01Z

Dattapeetham[edit]

Recreation of deleted material; though it was deleted by PROD before so I took it here. No references, not notable. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV, uncited, non-notable. fraggle 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV essay. -- Whpq 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, uncontested prod delete, non-notable--Hu12 07:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. 〈RED VEЯS〉 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeleAsty[edit]

This article is about a media company which is of only slight notablility and consists only of completely unsourced original research attacks. Does not meet WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS and may violate WP:BLP. Inkpaduta 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, attack and A7, so tagged. I'll leave the decision to a third admin, though. Sandstein 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:01Z

Personal Structures[edit]

Article does not assert notability, nor does it seem coherent. Also seems to be an advertisement. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no you can't have an article on wikipedia just because you think this item is awesome. Not yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nardman1 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. OR. Inadequate references. No evidence of notability. Drivel. WMMartin 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the last word refers to. I trust it's not BITE. This is a public forum, where courtesy is required. Tyrenius 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Freshacconci 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article on the artist may have potential if improved (both references and grammar--and I do realize that the main author is not a native English speaker, so others should go in and help). The "Personal Structures" movement or group is more of a problem--it is mainly speculative at this point, and has not been established as anything notable (the first symposium related to it is from 2005). Can we separate the two within this AfD? I'd vote for a Weak Keep on the artist, pending improvements, and a Speedy Delete on "Personal Structures". Freshacconci 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has improved with evidence of notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarahpuschel (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment This newly registered user is the article's creator. Also, the article itself has not improved at all. It now has alleged references, but I still do not see notability. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Green Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:00Z

Peter V. Tretter[edit]

~~Delete~~. Seems this article only survived the 1st AfD (No Consensus) because it occurred in the middle of a by-election this candidate was running in. Being a candidate in an election is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO and the only references currently in the article are to his own website and a press release issued by his party which does not meet WP:N in my opinion. Ccscott 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Bearcat makes a good point. Since there is no independent media coverage of this candidate I do not think it appropriate for this article to remain. However, the fact that he did run is easily verifiable and therefore I have no problem with him being included in such a list recording his candidacy with a redirect. Ccscott 11:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already voted on this matter. Keep major candidates or merge if need be. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being a failed political candidate does not establish notability. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Merge per Bearcat GreenJoe 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed election candidate -- Whpq 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unfortunately, he was not a major candidate.DGG 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The established consensus on non-elected candidates in Canadian elections is that they are entitled at minimum to inclusion in a merged list. This cannot be considered any sort of exception. Green Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election already has a byelections subsection which includes a 2006 byelection candidate, so merge this there if it can't be kept. Outright deletion, however, is not an acceptable option for a duly registered candidate in a Canadian provincial or federal election — we are simply not doing our job as an encyclopedia if we have to leave holes that we're not allowed to write about in our coverage of an election. Bearcat 10:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Bearcat 11:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:59Z

Innatrance[edit]

Non-notable band, no assertion of notability. Created back in August of '06, though, so I feel it might deserve a proper AfD than a speedy deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Maustrauser 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the band...has done anything. Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a little inaccurate. The article clearly states that they formed. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by BanyanTree under CSD A1. BryanG^(talk) 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Lantz[edit]

Nonsense, Hoax Nv8200p talk 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, this stemmed from vandalism of the Arthur Voaden Secondary School article, committed by 74.107.15.225 (talk · contribs), 68.145.198.36 (talk · contribs) and Voadenalum (talk · contribs) (which I suspect to also be all the same person) seen at [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] and [99]. This is nothing but vandalism tied to an alleged person actually named Lantz that attended AVSS, and furthermore, Image:Lantz.jpg was originally a photograph of him sitting on the toilet in the guys bathroom at AVSS. The creator of the article, Sharkbyte08 (talk · contribs), also uploaded Image:Jamestown.jpg, which is most likely bullshit, as its description is "James Lantz at the Battle of Jamestown. 1622", but the article states James Lantz's spouse is Marilyn Monroe. The picture actually depicts pillaging Vikings, which is another tie to AVSS as the Viking is the mascot of AVSS. I would nominate it for speedy deletion as well along with this article, and any other crap created by these aforementioned users, and possibly investigate Sock Puppetry between Sharkbyte08 and Voadenalum, the latter account which has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. -- Reaper X 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-empty. JuJube 01:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:59Z

Andrzej Filipowicz[edit]

Notability tag and prod tag removed by the creator without explanation. Besides bad CV-like formatting, attending some art festivals and having some of one's paintings exhibited doesn't make one notable - or does it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely re-written i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article immediately fails on quality of references, irrespective of other matters. WMMartin 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:58Z

Amy Reid[edit]

Article as it stands now does not argue notability per WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per nom. The fact that she has been in only four films, and has now apparently retired, suggests that the article will never grow beyond a stub. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I seem to recall WP:PORNBIO used to require 100 films listed on iafd, well whatever it is now 4 is not enough without multiple non-trivial works. If anyone finds those notify me and I will change my vote accordingly. Quadzilla99 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only four films are mentioned in the filmography section in the article. A check on IAFD shows 52 films to her credit, which is still well shy of 100. Tabercil 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all notability criteria, and has no verifiability via secondary sources. Valrith 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is interesting and should be undeleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.91.37 (talk • contribs) 23:27, February 6, 2007

The result was Merge to North Rocks, New South Wales. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:34Z

Westfield North Rocks[edit]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and interesting topic. Rebecca 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how this meets WP:CORP, WP:LOCAL, WP:MALL or WP:RS? Notability is not established by the content of the article and being an interesting topic is, as far as I know, not an inclusion criteria for an article here. Vegaswikian 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. There is no proof that it is notable, please provide some, then I will change my vote. Even if this was particuarly interesting, which it isn't, that is not a valid argument. J Milburn 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Milburn Kamope · talk · contributions 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Milburn. This topic is neither interesting nor notable. Soltak | Talk 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:CORP, a business is notable "If the organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself." This article has none of that. I would also point to WP:V: "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." --El on ka 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate text does not significantly improve a deletion debate. Please enligten us on which of the content is contentious and worthy of challenge or removal? Somehow I doubt the depth of your knowledge of the Sydney retail market.Ga rr ie 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you looked at the article at the time Elonka made that comment, it looked like this. One Night In Hackney 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant shopping centre within the northwestern suburbs of Sydney. I tend to hold the view that corner stores and neighbourhood centres, unless highly notable, should not have articles at all, while regional shopping centres, often critical to the growth and development of a region, should have articles written according to WP:NPOV and other appropriate Wikipedia policies. Alternatively, we can have a Wikipedia devoid of interesting content which presents the facts in other articles without context. Orderinchaos78 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca & Orderinchaos78. And as opposed to what Elonka claims, the article should not be deleted if it's not notable enough, but should be merged to the North Rocks, New South Wales article. JROBBO 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca, Orderinchaos78 & JROBBO, if that fails then merge to appropriate suburb article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. In the Sydney market, Westfield North Rocks is notable for it's presence so far from train/ferry services. Elonka, remove the unsourced content don't delete the article. We've been here before... go re-read your own conversation at The Westfield GroupGarrie 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a newspaper article somewhere that mentions the problems that this mall has due to its distance from train or ferry services? Saying it's 26 km from mass transit is one thing, but better would be to have a source saying why that's an issue, if that is intended to be part of the assertion of notability. -- ArglebargleIV 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is. If I had been asked at either the article itself, or even at List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia, I may have been convinced to find a source for you.Ga rr ie 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please explain your reasons? This is a debate, not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with North Rocks, New South Wales article (or other appropriate regional article). -- ArglebargleIV 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrie, would like to see better verify sources would change vote like J Milburn--Hu12 07:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. There is nothing wrong with this article, and seeing better verified sources is why you put the sources tag on it rather than deleting it. At worst do what Arglebargle and JRobbo said and merge and redirect it until more material becomes available, although I don't see why even that should be necessary DanielT5 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first source is primary (by subject's parent company), second is trivial (street directory listing). Still entirely fails WP:N, any number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes aside. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think a mall is notable just for being a mall. It is like the sewage treatment plant; an unavoidable part of almost every region, but not something we normally need to discuss. --Brianyoumans 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin During this discussion, this was speedy deleted, restored about 20 hours later, brought to deletion review, and the deletion review closed with regard to this article (by me) because this AFD was running. Have fun, and think about letting this run an extra day. GRBerry 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per this search. Addhoc 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of curiosity, which of those search results do you believe is non-trivial? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reviewing the search results I concur...
Merge to Westfield Group. Addhoc 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by Gogo Dodo as a repost. BryanG^(talk) 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, Larry[edit]

Subject fails although WP:V appears to be met (everything he ever created is sourced}, still fails WP:N. The article is studded with phrases like "as far back as he can remember," suggesting that the article was written by the subject or somebody with a relationship to the subject. janejellyroll 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4. So tagged. Previous AfD is here. [100]. Deletion was endorsed on review. You might wonder how we know they are the same subject: see this talk page post by a contributor to the current article. Given that there's clearly sockpuppetry going on, perhaps someone will file a RFCU (or simply block). --N Shar 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have realized it was a repost, seeing as how I argued for deletion of the previous incarnation of this article. I feel sheepish. janejellyroll 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabese[edit]

Joke article. Nothing can be found to verify the existence of this creature. The Arabic translation does not occur in any Google pages, if it's really a word at all. The source given is a dead link. Contested prod. Delete. ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, almost certainly a joke. janejellyroll 22:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Silly hoax. So tagged (again). --N Shar 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God, I hate hoaxes. This is the third hoax animal article I have seen today. J Milburn 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IA has no record of the source having ever existed. 68.39.174.238 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - hoax. Philippe Beaudette 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:56Z

LAIMONDO LEE[edit]

Notability is not clearly established, prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod2. Leuko 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definately no notability established, but this person may well be borderline notable. However, if so, the article needs a serious copyedit, and a change of name. Why all the capitals!? J Milburn 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:56Z

Pike Milger[edit]

He only began recording last year, completely unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely a vanity page - no assertion of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no claim to notability, even with the EP album. No independent sources available either. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 07:55Z

Waqfuna[edit]

Article about a website claims it is "a very distinguished website" but links only to the website. Appears to get 20 Google hits. Website appears to be in Arabic, so others will have to investigate further into its importance. Does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N Inkpaduta 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not really assert notability ("very distinguished" is not sufficient) and is probably speediable for that reason. However, I want to contact the appropriate Wikiproject because their could be some sources in Arabic that we cannot find. JChap2007 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is, there is no evidence it passes WP:WEB and no claim of notability. I won't tag it for speedy per Jchap2007, we can give the project a chance to find sources. VegaDark 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i had a brief look into it. it doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. i commented a little more on this website here. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is essentially an advertisement for the site.Proabivouac 01:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by BanyanTree. JChap2007 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quocirca Ltd[edit]

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Contested speedy of original spam article (which has been since trimmed down.) Leuko 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is established. J Milburn 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you can't tell what they make or do from the company name. . . . - Smerdis of Tlön 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's still an ad: "Quocirca is a primary research and analysis company based in Berkshire, England. Specialising in the business impact of ITC. With world-wide, native language reach, Quocirca provides in-depth insights into the views of buyers and influencers in large, mid-sized and small organisations." [emphasis mine] It then list the services it provides. It could be from their brochure. I don't think that it's necessary to negotiate with spammers to make their spam less spammy. Just assume they're confused about what WP is and leave a polite note on their talk page explaining all this. I've restored the speedy delete tag. JChap2007 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - BanyanTree 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HighSchoolSports.Net[edit]

This is a procedural nomination as I appear to have attempted to place a prod tag after one had been removed. This article reads like an advertisement and would seem to fail WP:NPOV Based on the original editors ID it would seem to have WP:COI problems as well Jeepday 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete linkspam masquerading as an article. Leuko 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quite obviously spam. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established. Big numbers is no assertion of notability. J Milburn 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an advert. And so tagged. JChap2007 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism -- and even if not vandalism, as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ma[edit]

A somewhat obvious hoax. Check the external links and notes. The image should be deleted, too. --Conti|✉ 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Asssertions of notability appear to be false, as suggested my nominator. No meaningful google hits; just the Myspace linked from the article. Subject appears to be real, but completely non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed in the cast on the movie he supposedly stars in on [101]. So either a hoax or too minor a role to establish notability. JChap2007 00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clinched the hoax for me with the Six Feet Under role of being related to the titular family of the series. Er...I doubt it, since there wasn't anyone named Anthony on that show. That, and the IMDB profile linked to isn't even his, it's for a woman unrelated to him. Nate 01:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there was, but he was played by a different actor, of course. :) --Conti|✉ 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by user Kkkswiss, myspace profile is kkkswiss, all references refer to other people. One Night In Hackney 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Please ban User:Kkkswiss. Can't this be speedied?? Dismas|^(talk) 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hoax isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion. You could find a sympathetic admin to close this early per WP:SNOW though. One Night In Hackney 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yab Yum[edit]

article seems intended to promote the brothel. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable in and of itself. Somebody removed db-spam tag. IPSOS (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Article was tagged with db-spam, then deleted, then restored by me and referenced.) Casual literature search reveals about 30 hits in the international press; almost all articles introduce the club as the "best-known" or "most exclusive" brothel of Amsterdam or even the Netherlands, establishing notability. I don't think a business has to be "particularly notable" to deserve an article. The charge "the article seems intended to promote the brothel" is too vague to allow for an answer. AxelBoldt 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, existence of nontrivial coverage indicates that it passes WP:CORP Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced thanks to AlexBoldt. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Brothel is definitely notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has to stay as of details above. -- Michael Janich 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "ETV's WJWJ-TV Reporter Holly Bounds Report on South Carolina Rescue Efforts After Hurricane Katrina". South Carolina Educational Television Commission. Retrieved February 5, 2007.