< January 14 January 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decemyriagon[edit]

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

Is this polygon useful?? Georgia guy 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization[edit]

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

From the first sentence of the article: "This is a listing of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal counts if the countries of various International organizations pooled their medals." However, medals are not pooled according to international organisations. I have no objection to such a listing in someone's userspace, but it does not belong in the article namespace. This is unencyclopedic trivia. AecisBravado 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article apparently survived AFD once before, in August 2004. -- Plutor talk 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That doesn't invalidate this current discussion, does it? That previous discussion took place during the Games themselves, when nationalistic emotions were running high. Andrwsc 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, nor did I mean to imply that it did. If I thought it did, I would have voted keep instead of simply commenting. I was simply pointing it out for reference. -- Plutor talk 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no one does group them this way. The medals are in another article. Barring that, most of the countries are in the UN, so having it there is pointless and confusing. To put it in perspective, sure, having my phone number on wikipedia along with my friends could be helpful, as I would fine them disorganized in the phone book, but does that mean we should have them here? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but some people do group them this way. Such as the EU, which held a press conference to discuss their medal wins at Athens. [1]. Asean medal wins have been analyzed in the Journal of Sports Economics [2]. Etc. To put this in perspective for you, people do care about grouping olympic medal wins. They then go onto to publish the results. That allows us to do these types of lists, which are no different really than lists such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour. Why do it? Because unlike your phone number and that of your friends, people actually are interested in the topic and find the information useful. --JJay 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything that's sourced can be mentioned in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article, like I just put the EU claim into it. Until I see a reliable source that pits the UN against the G8, I'm going to maintain that this table and others like it are original research. The paper about the ASEAN nations does not do that; it merely says that southeast Asian countries don't do well (and gives suggestions on fixing that). It doesn't sum the medals of those nations anywhere, nor make any mention of other international organization's results. -- Jonel | Speak 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to press or scholarly papers that discuss these groupings? Does the IOC or any reliable source publish such a list? Such a list might sway me to keep, but even then, it smacks of indiscriminate information. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pjuggle[edit]

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

Having been started by a user with only one edit and whose username is identical to the article title, there is a definite conflict of interest here. Dubious notability, and since I am not an expert on juggling I am bringing it here. —EdGl 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under A7. No assertion of notability. The JPStalk to me 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood Garage[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable garage. John254 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted, article contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Circle.org[edit]

Visual Circle.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not a notable website, spam. Naconkantari 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of whom, FYI, is User:C. Evan Sackett above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 3 DVD[edit]

Final Destination 3 DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There has been no attempt to merge the content into Final Destination 3, which was the decision of the first AFD over two months ago. Per the tag, "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." For a valid merge result this time there should be evidence that this is being carried out adequately. The Final Destination 3 article is a mess, but copy and pasting this trash into it will not help.
The reason for deletion is the same as its first AFD: fancruft, and special edition DVDs do not need their own pages. The JPStalk to me 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, once all the fancruft is lost, I reckon this could be cut down to one four-line paragraph. The JPStalk to me 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Ten[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted, simply because there is another page with the exact same content. See Network Ten, and with the official name. See it's official website, "Official Network Ten Website". I believe that if this article is deleted, the information from it should be merged on to Network Ten. It is clearly very obvious how these relate to each other, Channel Ten and Network Ten are very similar, Network Ten is like the mother of Channel Ten. The both have the same shows, logos and slogans, why not just delete one and merge the extra information from Channel Ten onto Network Ten? Surely you don't think that a primary channel needs a page of it own, that can be properly described on Network Ten.Shaggy9872004 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I see a lot of "I like it"s and zero evidence to address the concerns of those recommending delete. I also checked out the article and I noticed there was no reliable non-trivial secondary sourcing... infact the only source was the website for the event. For those reasons I'm going to delete this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi Championship Series[edit]

Paparazzi Championship Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A recent tournament that isn't very notable. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint (which was a recent tournament for a title shot), the PCS article doesn't need to exist. Relevant information can be listed relevant wrestler articles (if needed). RobJ1981 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A potential source of references would be official news articles TNA produced about the associated individual shows and PPV. I'm guessing a little digging on the TNA website would provide most of the verification you need as to what happened. Dugwiki 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I feel that this is a noteworthy artical. It would be best to keep it because they might have more than just one. Big Boss 0 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs don't work like that. If there had already been more than one, then that would be a good vote, but since there hasn't been it doesn't apply. It is like voting to keep some garage band because thay might make it big someday. -- The Hybrid 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote one of the policies, Consensus can change. While precedent is useful, there is a larger open question of handling articles regarding episodes and stories in television shows of all types. Some editors favor greatly reducing the amount of episodic information for all shows, while others apparently want additional storyline information available for certain types of shows such as wrestling shows, soap operas and reality shows. It's possible (or at least hopeful) that in the long term a reasonable consensus can be reached on handling information for all TV series across the board, and that the consensus will be to allow some (but not all) articles about plot lines or linked-episodes for regular weekly serials.
So personally I see this afd as a short term debate. Regardless of whether or not this article is kept, in the long term we'll probably need some more thorough guidelines for handling episodes, etc. Dugwiki 17:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The reasoning for deletion is invalid. The "Smackdown Sprint" was just a series of matches to determine a number one contender. This was more of a tournament, albeit a very unusual one (which might warrant its presence alone). It was obviously more than just a storyline (like other tournaments), involved multiple pop culture and professional wrestling references, and will likely return in future years due to the positive response it has received. Clint 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Keep it. It was a fun touranment and was very enjoyable to watch. It wasn't just wrestling. It was part comedy too and most wrestling fans enjoyed it, so that's all that matters right?

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, arguably an attack page. NawlinWiki 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. hensi[edit]

D. hensi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources, and Google searching turns up no support. You'd think that something like this would get publicity, cause a recall of Miller beer, or something - if it wasn't a hoax. Which is what it smells like. Note: PROD tag removed without addressing concerns or providing explanation. FreplySpang 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, given the almost-slander sound of this, and absolute lack of proofs, it might be worth shooting this one now. 68.39.174.238 13:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Moccia[edit]

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

Contested prod. Serious question on Notability. There may also be issues with WP:AUTO or, at minimum, WP:COI. Despite major cleanup by author, still looks less than neutral. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for an article of this title, but the earlier AFD seems to be for a different person. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be at least a few people of the name, including a screenwriter who wrote one episode of a TV show, so he gets a number of hits on IMDB, tv.com and mirrors. Fan-1967 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Pants (card game)[edit]

Rocket Pants (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Vanity nothing. Wikiepdia is WP:NFT not for something made up in high school one day. 2005 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"Vanity nothing" is correct, as there is nothing vain about the article in question. This article is not about vanity, and this card game is very popular today. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean anything. I've removed the credits to the authors, but I fail to see the point of that as one's creations deserve to be credited. I agree that Wikipedia is WP:NFT, but only if whatever happens to be "created in school" doesn't actually come to fruition.[reply]

You invented a game. Fine. Play it with your friends. The Wikipedia is not here to publicize your game. 2005 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Whatever, I tried. Delete[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Carmichael[edit]

Non-notable wrestler. Pugs Malone 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xcellery (second nomination)[edit]

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

Recreation of advertisment for non-notable software. Artw 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article is free of advert. Please indicate otherwise. --Rlaemmler 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rlaemmler, this process is a mixture of a show of hands and a long winded debate, and you do not need to proceed your comments with "Keep" -- the admin who closes this review is already able to clearly see that you believe the article should be kept. If you think that "Xcellery" is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend you stop trying to justify its existance here. Instead, go read the verifiability and notability guidelines --- and then focus on improving the article. In regards to your comment that SalesForce is a reputable source: normally it would be, however SalesForce is in the business of selling Xcellery to its users, so using them as a source on this article is only desirable to verify that they are business partners (which is how it is being used currently) -- all other statements from SalesForce are tainted by the sweet smell of crisp greenbacks.
So, the problem is that at the moment this article has a "References" section full of blog posts, which is unacceptable. The only one that looks reasonable is ezinearticles.com, _however_ the author is Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall, maker of Xcellery [3], and to make matters worse is he has only posted one story in the magazine [4], which demonstrates that he was not wearing another more impartial hat when he wrote the article. I dont mind if this references stays as a way to quote the CEO's opinion, but it definitely needs to state that the author is the CEO.
What we need are independent articles in tech magazines; i.e. reviews by people unaffiliated with Collaborall and Xcellery, whose sole objective is to inform their readers. John Vandenberg 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John, thanks for the information. I'm new to publishing an article on Wikipedia and I try my best to fullfill the required quality standards. I already rewrote the entire article twice trying to remove any smell of spam or advertisement. SalesForce is not selling Xcellery for Collaborall. SalesForce offers a platform called AppExchange which allows 3rd parties to publish applications integrating into SalesForce. In order to be published a quite intense app review must be passed. SalesForce doesn't earn anything and is a partner not a reseller. --Rlaemmler 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rlaemmler, am I correct in assuming you are Reto Laemmler, CEO of Collaborall? If so, you really need to go read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before doing anything else on Wikipedia.
Back on track, can you see that SalesForce is in the business of selling a service; they have included Xcellery as part of that service, which is a small claim to notability. However as their business profits from the software, any statements from SalesForce about the product need to be taken with a grain or two of salt when used for verifiability. So, we need more credible sources that verify the facts on the article. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes I'm Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall. I just took a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Very interesting and I will stop commenting from now on forward. I do respect all your feedback and will simply try to improve the article rather then justify it. --Rlaemmler 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John, see also the article on Lifehacker.com. The website may look like a blog, but is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, so should be treated as a trustworthy source. --Pkchan 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for pointing that out, I was merely going on first impression after glancing at each referenced page. The Wikipedia article for Lifehacker.com indicates that the site is leaning towards being an advertising medium, but the fact isnt backed up with a source (I've edited the article to request citations). On further inspection of the lifehacker article, Im convinced that this isnt suitable, as it states "According to the [XCellery] site ...", which indicates that the author has not actually used the software. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat II[edit]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is about a future season of a reality game show, and many anonymous editors have been using this page to post nonsense, and information that is not cited, failing WP:V. ALL IN 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawing nomination by myself. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Megiddo[edit]

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

Article about a report from the FBI that targets religious groups. The FBI produces hundreds of reports like this every year, and this specific one doens't appear to be notable. No coverage by reliable sources; a Google search reveals all coverage by non-notable government-tracking, conspiracy and other partisan websites. Article was originally a copyvio of this page; the author simply replaced some phrases and words from the original page when this issue was brought up. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above claim is misleading. Google search 'Project Megiddo' turns of the official FBI doc at a US gov site. (gpo.gov.www.fbi.gov - pdf file) shown at the following Goggle cache - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Invalid nomination : Report was covered by numerous sources such as this Oct 21 1999 AP Story, this commentary in The New American, commentary on gunowners.org, and partisan source [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869 WorldNutDaily]. The FBI even issued a press release in response to an article about the report that appeared in USA Today a highly unusual occurance speaking to the controversy this report created. Anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis could find dozens more sources. The nomination's claims of the FBI producing hundreds of 'reports like this every year' is unfounded speculation. I'd like to see some documentation of just how many reports 'like this' the FBI 'produces every year' to back up these speculative claims. It is my understanding that this report caused significant backlash against the agency, and that they were more circumspect after their noses got bloodied by maligning a group with considerable clout. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, no need to wait five days given overwhelming consensus below. NawlinWiki 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of British Columbia[edit]

Communist Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable provincial party in the province of British Columbia. In the 2005 provincial elections, it achieved a whopping 0.01% of the total popular vote. Because of this, there is nothing notable about the party. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you checked all the results going back to 1945 or prior, or if doing badly in one election makes an article deleteable- in which case we should delete Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for winning 2 seats in 1993. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)I think it's existence makes it more than "notable".[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction[edit]

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - Stachecruft. Completely unencyclopedic. Otto4711 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy kept as large number of keep votes and nominator abstained stating that they suspected it was notable. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MasterCraft[edit]

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

This article was prodded with the explanation "Notability not established, although requested since June 2006." I found the prod and removed it because I suspect that this company is notable (I have seen their boats). I abstain from this one. N Shar 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Crite[edit]

James L. Crite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be particularly notbale, article looks like self-promotion. Artw 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily euthanized a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanize me[edit]

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

Has not even recorded a demo. Evidently not significant in any way. Article creator's username suggests he is the drummer. Andrusi 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Advertising seems to have been mostly cleaned up and notability has been established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generation YES[edit]

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

Educational corporation. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is simply not true. You may have misread the US Dept of Ed page which (rather poorly) lists a group of programs; however, the organization at hand was listed as one of two ever cited by the federal education agency, which oversees 1000s of schools, as exemplary. The other citations are each articles from known and respected publications. I have included a new citation to a publication ED wrote specifically about GenYES to reinforce the significance of their acknowledgement. Being recognized by the US Dept of Ed as exemplary is about the highest form of acknowledgement any education company in the US can recieve. -Freechild 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also shocked that JzG reviewed the cited sources and found nothing indicating verifiability and/or notability -- they were clearly journal articles and government publications, albeit missing ((cite)) formatting. In any case, most of these sources have now been clarified. One that still stumps me is the ISSN of "Educational Leadership". John Vandenberg 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitor[edit]

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

Educational website. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Douglass Otto[edit]

Mark Douglass Otto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

County party chair, failed congressional candidate. Not exactly WP:BIO material. PROD tag added, but removed by User:DGG on the grounds that running for office imparts sufficient notability. I say that merely being a party hack doesn't. Calton | Talk 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • High ethical standards and fiscal responsibility? No wonder he lost. Delete. Otto4711 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Oltu[edit]

Battle of Oltu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article? —The preceding OttomanReference 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarıkamış (1920)[edit]

Battle of Sarıkamış (1920) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kars (1920)[edit]

Battle of Kars (1920) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per only 39 google hits [[10]] and most of them are copy pages of wikipedia's. This "battle" sounds made up to me. Chaldean 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alexandropol[edit]

Battle of Alexandropol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although not decisive, it was significant and a part of history. Thus, it should be kept --TommyOliver 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Iris moment"[edit]

"Iris moment" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable Internet neologism, no indication that this is notable or passes WP:NEO. Seraphimblade 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MBA BIOTECH[edit]

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

This nomination includes:

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

Non-notable; reads like an advertisment. Yuser31415 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wuts that ham[edit]

Wuts that ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable Internet meme started by the author of the article. Prod removed by author after he changed "meme" to "joke", claiming that negated the prod. JuJube 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused highway[edit]

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

term apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article. A companion article was twice submitted to AfD (as Ghost ramp) before being moved to a similarly-named place and will soon accompany this in AfD. Delete. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here are a couple references that could be help the referencing of this article:
  • comment: Closed Highway appears to be a more poppular term which is even used, most recently with our Big North Eastern Winter Storm of January 2007 that we are currently experiencing, on the weather network. Again, as per my above vote to keep, I would merge to "Closed highway"... a term as I demonstrated within the precedence that is used by Police during chases. It is also a term that is used during "accidents" involving deaths, or serious truck spills, or many other incidents where Police decided to "close" a highway. This term has many legal implications as well... if you where riding/driving on a "closed highway" vs. a "highway". Smarten up! By taking a look at the nominator's user page, it is obvious he has a general grudge for compound worded articles. Two word terms do exist and can be used in wikipedia... like Cheeseburger and Motorboat which used to be two words. Sailing ship, Aircraft carrier, Human sexual behavior, The Light at the End of the World, Comparison of layout engines, Prophets of Islam are all compound worded articles. Should those be deleted. This is boardering a lack of wikipedia goodfaith and the ability to discuss improvements to an article. I vote that the nominator should do 1 week of work for a case at WP:AMA... "A couple of wikirules, must learn you!" "A Category:AMA Requests for Assistance visit must you!" --CyclePat 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways[edit]

List of unused highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. This article was originally kept (as Ghost ramp) in an AfD; a second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who proposed its deletion when he moved it to the current name. A move back to "ghost ramp" would not be appropriate since the list has expanded well past its original meaning and contains abandoned road structures (and some road structures never built) that are not ghost/stub ramps. B.Wind 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this separate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway? --NE2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have not had as much experience at opening AfDs as other editors.B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, 14-year-old who has written 5 unpublished stories. NawlinWiki 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Snell[edit]

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

The Article is merely just a self-promotion page for User:Sengfire; Fails WP:Notability; Speed Deletion Contested  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unsourced content - urbandictionary is not a reliable source. Prod tag and Prod2 removed. — Swpb talk contribs 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment was posted by 71.52.178.149 (talk · contribs). The signature was then modified by DennyWrites (talk · contribs). Got some spam about changing someones signature. I didn't change a signature. The only thing I'm guilty of is not logging on before I hit the enter button. Saw the mistake and corrected it. Yes, it's my damn IP and my signature.DennyWrites 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now[edit]

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is described as a pilot for a show but there are no sources to back it up. The IMDB profile [23] for this is very scarce and just lists characters. Google is pretty unhelpful because there appears to be a bunch of songs and albums with the same name. I'd say delete as unverifiable and lacking reliable sources. Metros232 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, WP:IAR here, the article is completely unsourced, see WP:CITE and WP:V, the keep votes looks to be in a WP:ILIKEIT or I heard of him view so discounted, if the article provide enough reliable sources it can later be recreated. Jaranda wat's sup 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Mishlove[edit]

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

reads like a resume, the subject appears to have edited the article from 208.13.131.55 (talk · contribs), does it meet WP:BIO? WP:V? A Ramachandran 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any dubious material should be removed if can't be confirmed. But the inclusion of unsourced material is not grounds for deletion of the article--you've satisfied yourself that his TV show exists, his books are real (I have seen "Roots of Consciousness," which is a sort of encyclopedia of the paranormal--several titles by him are listed at Amazon.com) and he lectures around the country (I frequently see his name posted as a featured speaker when driving past the Philosophical Research Society building, here in Los Angeles). I think he's clearly notable enough to merit an article. Also, though I'm not up to doing the research to get to the bottom of it, it may be that his claim about the PhD is that he actually received a degree in parapsychology, as opposed to writing a thesis about the parapsychology to earn a PhD in a discipline like anthropology or sociology. If that's the case, then his original claim may well be true. BTfromLA 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that really would make him notable, because UC Berkeley does not have such a department. Only US university that does is Duke. He must have materialized the department temporarily. Diss Abs specifies the field as "Psychology", but they use whatever subject term the author of the thesis used. So he didn't claim parapsychology at the time. They have many theses on line, but his is too early. Now that I think of it, the courses which use his textbook are probably his own, because that's what he teaches in his university. Having a TV show and publishing books makes one notable only if the show or the books are notable, and there is no independent sourced evidence for that, about either of them. His name as a featured speaker on the building of his society/university is not exactly 3rd party evidence. The evidence about his notable list of speakers is on the site for his show. He also has a long list of stations that have his show, and he himself has said it, but nobody else. So what is he notable for, exactly?DGG 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable as an author and media pundit on parapsychology and related topics. He is a long-established and fairly widely published figure in that field (while it may be dubious to consider parapsychology as a "field," there are organizations, journals, etc., devoted to it, so I think we need to give it the benefit of the doubt as far as inclusion in Wikipedia goes). The Wikipedia threshold for notability is low, compared to a conventional encyclopedia. One doesn't need to be an historic figure to make the cut. We need to guard against his self-edits being used for deceptive or self-promotional purposes, but that doesn't mean deleting the article. BTfromLA 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot vouch for the credibility of this, but for whatever it's worth, here's an online image purported to be Mishlove's actual Doctoral degree in Parapsychology, with a little description of who was on his committee, and how it was possible for him to create such a degree through an interdisciplinary program that Berkeley offered at the time. BTfromLA 09:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goertzel[edit]

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

According to the deletion log, this article was deleted at VfD, later re-created and speedied, then protected from re-creation, then a Deletion Review endorsed the second deletion but removed the protection. It has now been re-created again; it reads somewhat like autobiographical material and appears to have been copy-pasted from one of the previous versions – Gurch 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to HardOCP. Yuser31415 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KB Networks, Inc.[edit]

KB Networks, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is the company owns the HardOCP web site; their only notable venture is the web site, which is popular in the computer hardware enthusiast community, but the company itself fails WP:N. -/- Warren 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in North Africa[edit]

Christianity in North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Article started with blatant soapboxing, OR, POV. After that was removed (when Prod was removed), what's left is an unsourced text dump of an interview, apparently copied from here. Not a copyvio, as the page grants free reproduction permission. Nothing remotely encyclopedic.Fan-1967 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment; I find it interesting that this article, called Christianity in North Africa, seems to be about Muslims. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It keeps getting chopped and re-edited. It's about claims that 6 million muslims a year are converting. Fan-1967 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on FOX commentator pairings[edit]

List of NFL on FOX commentator pairings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I added an ((unreferenced)) template to this page about a month ago, but no reliable source has been produced. It only cites dbsforums.com, which is an internet message board with no editorial oversight. I looked for a reliable source of this information and could not find one, and I believe this information is unverifiable and/or original research. This page could also be considered an indiscriminate collection of information issue, because I question the importance of having a list of every TV commentator of every single game in 13 years. Khatru2 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Cbrown1023 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy[edit]

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

*Nominate for deletion. Article fails WP:N and WP:COI. It contains no assertions of notability. The text is an extremely brief paragraph followed by many links to promotional materials. Looking at the talk page, the article was previously involved in a copyright conflict and the participants in the discussion make it painfully clear that the article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. Obvious submarine advertisement. This is a procedural nomination. I checked out the Inclusive Democracy materials with the intention of culturing a nice bias either for or against, but they are so opaque with academia that I failed to get very far. Drake Dun 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A week before I nominated this article for deletion, I stated on the article's talk page that I would refrain from nominating the article for deletion if it were developed with more content. Since then, narap43 has written a proper article. Technically it's a little late, but in keeping with the spirit of my promise I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion.
(2) The links at the bottom of the new article may make out a case for notability. It is a very weak case, but I prefer inclusion in borderline cases. The following two sources qualify as sources of notability under Wikipedia guidelines in my opinion:
(a) David Freeman, Thesis Eleven, no. 69, Sage Publications, May 2002, pp. 103-106
(b) “Inclusive Democracy” entry in “Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy:” pp. 732-733, ed. by R.J. Barry Jones, 2001
The following two sources are borderline, but might be considered to qualify:
(a) http://www.agorainternational.org/dnweb1.html;
(b) http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 (this one is from TouristPhilosopher)
Given these two (or four) sources there is a minimal case for satisfaction of the notability criteria. That said, I want to respond to some of the comments below.
  • TouristPhilosopher asks me to prove that he is associated with the ID Project. My answer is that there is obviously some connection. You registered a user account specifically to oppose the deletion of the Inclusive Democracy article. As of this writing you have not participated on Wikipedia in any other capacity. Your comments on the question of whether ID is notable are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment in whether the article is deleted or not. Like many of the people at the center of the ID Project, you are not a native English speaker, even though most of the participants in the English Wikipedia are. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.
  • In answer to narap43, several points. First, I never said that ID is not notable. I stated that the article failed to make out a case for notability and that its notability was therefore suspect. There is a difference. It does not fall upon me to prove the negative proposition that ID is not notable. Second, your accusations regarding my role on Wikipedia are easy to disprove by simply looking at my contributions list. Your claim that I only registered a few weeks ago is false. My first edit was in November of 2006. Your claim that one of my first acts as a registered user was to identify bias in the ID article is also false. Long before becoming involved in any fashion with the ID article, I contributed to several other, totally unrelated articles, including Physicalism, Curry, Soka Gakkai, etc. Your claim that I have declared a sole ambition to identify bias in Wikipedia articles is also false. I have no idea where you got this notion. In short, all of your accusations are either grievous mistakes or barefaced lies. And by the way, I have not identified any biases in the ID article. I challenged it on the basis of notability and conflict of interest. There is a difference. Regarding conflicts of interest, I do not feel a need to defend Wikipedia's policies, except by saying that I have nothing to do with them and they are what they are regardless of my opinions on them.
Drake Dun 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to and redirect to Takis Fotopoulos. --CyclePat 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/agm301005.html http://web.mac.com/publicresistance/iWeb/Doc%20G/Chapters.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cdna/2003/00000009/00000003/art00006 http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661 http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5065&start=15 http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/newswire/archive588.html

So i would like to ask you to stop the deletion project -right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.254.19.143 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I remain unconvinced. I looked at all the links you posted and found a couple which were close to qualifying as sources, but none which made the cut. "References" do not count. Please actually read the notability policies. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." That means that people talking about it in an Internet forum, brief references, stuff that comes one way or another from ID people themselves, and stuff which talks about Fotopoulos but not ID do not count. Also, nobody has addressed the COI issue. The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people. Clearly there is a problem. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Drake Dun 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:narap43 9:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:narap43 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TouristPhilosopher 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>> First you write: «The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people».

>>> my answer: the meaning of YOUR words here is that you ARE SURE.

When I said that I’m not an ID man and asked you to prove what you said:

>>> you write: «there is obviously some connection»

>>> my answer: I didn’t ask you to tell us if there is any connection or better if YOU SEE or IMAGINE any connection. I ask you to PROVE WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR PREVIOUS POST — and you said that I’Μ ΑΝ ID MAN. But you CAN’T prove anything. FIRST you see an ID man, now –a day later- you see SOME CONNECTION. Tomorrow you could SEE a loose connection and after a week or month nothing. Its better to «fix» yourself with the reality and stop BELIEVING what you like.

>>> you write: «I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.»

>>> my answer: so shut up till you are sure !!!


PS1. I expect a «sorry» because you called me ID man. PS2. Your comments are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment AGAINST ID. You registered a user account 2 months ago and except some minor comments this one is your first attempt to delete A WHOLE article. Like many of the people outside the center of the ID Project, you are a native English speaker or at least speak fluent English. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people who tried in the past to delete the ID article of wiki, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter AGAINST ID. But I really doubt it.

User:TouristPhilosopher 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional factual corrections: (1) I registered my user account three months ago. (2) This is not my first AfD nomination. My first AfD nomination was for Deception in the Unification Church. (3) I have no bias for or against ID, and have never previously nominated any ID related articles for deletion. A look at my history of contributions will quickly dispel any such notions. Drake Dun 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Kaiserman[edit]

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

Vanity bio, kept in August 2005 after a very lackluster AFD. Very thin resume, padded with items like being "Production Coordinator" for an award-winning documentary. Created by User:Saulkaiserman, so the conflict of interest is pretty obvious. Calton | Talk 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philopater Wahba[edit]

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

non notable priest Brianyoumans 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Estate Cocktail[edit]

Fourth Estate Cocktail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Apparently a non-notable cocktail. My belief was that a bit of creative searching was necessary, but yielded very little in the way of WP:RS, at least as far as this particular version of the recipe goes. Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original recipes. Kinu t/c 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the past I would have asked for an extension through February 28th citing the Cleanup Project under way by our WikiProject on all articles like this. 5 days is a very short amount of time given how much work the Project Participants are involved in, though I think our effectiveness at cleaning up this part of Wikipedia should be very clear by now. We are much faster at processing things now, so I chose to be conservative by estimating only one week just to try to make everyone happy. :-) Either way, deleting is definitely not the right answer (unless it turns out to be a hoax), because if any part of the article is kept (which is very likely, even if only transwikied to b:Bartending, we have to keep the edit history for GFDL licensing and attribution requirements. As I stated, the article needs to be converted to a redirect if any portion of the original text is kept, and it is likely that some of the text will be kept. The redirect would point to the new location of the moved text. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this cocktail to fit in with a new category involving absinthe-based cocktails or cocktails with absinthe in their makeup that I am working on. You may delete it, although it is an unusual recipe that is not commonly found in guides, the main reason I included it. I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it is a feasible recipe that is not life-threatening that would expand the list of cocktails recorded in Wikipedia. I think that the Cocktail project needs more input on these new designs and I can't see why it can't be included.Hotspur23 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes (for cocktails or otherwise). To be included in Wikipedia, the topic of an article needs to have more depth. The notability and importance of the drink must be demonstrated as shown by citing several reliable sources. I definitely appreciate what you are trying to do here. If this is part of a series of articles you are developing, we might be able to develop a single article that discusses these cocktails in a broad sense, and explore some specific examples. Then, if and when the article grows large enough, with plenty of good information, start splitting sections of that article into smaller, more fully developed articles. It is certainly something that would be worth discussing at the WikiProject Mixed Drinks (we just changed the name of the project to be more inclusive; sorry for any confusion). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be moved to Wiki Project Mixed Drinks and not deleted. It seems silly to delete it when there is a program to do the very thing you want to delete it for in Wikipedia. Plus it can be argued that cocktail recipes are information that can be stored in wikipedia, since they are already on record. They don't have to be famous or noteworthy (though there are recipes that are recorded in it that are); they just have to be useful. This just seems a bit trollish to bounce the article. 24.34.207.250 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks 24.34.207.250, though I wouldn't classify it as trollish. :-) Kinu has very valid points for articles in general at Wikipedia. The articles concerning mixed drinks in general do seem to defy WP:NOT#IINFO, because a mixed drink, at its heart, is essentially a recipe. It's much like a chemical compound, in that the parts that make up the whole help to define the substance itself. However, with some (or sometimes a lot of) creative researching, it is possible to create a meaningful, encyclopedic article even when all you have is a recipe with which to start. (See Bronx (cocktail) for a perfect example updated yesterday.) It is success stories like the Bronx that illustrate how weak articles can, and should, be improved. This AFD process is an important part of making sure that Wikipedia remains relevant.
  • All that being said, I did complete my initial research into this particular drink. I was able to locate the recipe in several places, but no real information about its notability or history. Since it does seem to be popular, I changed my vote to transwiki it to the Bartending manual at Wikibooks (with which I am also an editor), and then convert the page under discussion to a redirect. Again, I stress that it is important to not delete the actual page, since even when transwikiing, it is important to keep the edit history for GFDL compliance.
  • I have also added a section under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force/work area#List of incubating articles section for Hotspur23 and anyone else interested, to start developing an article that will serve the needs of Absinthe aficionados, while also meeting Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I feel the new article is necessary since the topic is largely ignored in the Absinthe article, and yet it is a large part of the Absinthe culture. If possible, I would also request that other Absinthe related articles not be deleted at least through the end of February so we can easily refer to them and merge them as necessary into the developing article or Wikibooks. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrapist (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

I go to the University of Maryland, and if a friend of mine wasn't considering editing for this thing, I'm sure that I'd be in the vast majority of people who have no idea what the Terrapist is. Besides, in an earlier AfD, the campus' daily student paper (The Diamondback) was deemed to be non-notable. If it's not notable, when it also serves the surrounding College Park community and has a much higher circulation, there's no way The Terrapist is. --fuzzy510 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy KEEP And please do not procedurally list incomplete afds where no one is actually making a case for deletion. -Docg 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay icon (2nd Nomination)[edit]

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

AfD nominated by Knowpedia. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP An anon nomination without reasons? Please don't list it. If anyone wants this deleted, they can nominate it themselves. -Docg 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2Advanced[edit]

2Advanced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 87.80.43.97 with reason: "My edit to add the AFD tag to 2Advanced wasn't vandalism - it's a wikivertisment." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Trial[edit]

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

Does not assert notability, severe problems with WP:V and WP:RS, no reliable sources cited to support notability. There is no reason given whatsoever why a music school adaptation and production of a commonly-performed Gilbert and Sullivan operetta should be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Moreschi Deletion! 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP, withdrawl of nomination. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Groups[edit]

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

"Basin Groups" is not a recognized geologic era of the Moon Lunokhod 10:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Note: See bottom for nominator's withdrawl -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am proposing Basin Groups for deletion because it is not a geologic era of the Moon that is recognized by experts who work in this field. The geological timescale that is currently in use is discussed at lunar geologic timescale, where there is no refernce to a "Basin Groups". The two external links for lunar geologic timescale do not have any reference to this era either. Wilhelms' book (which is considered a major repsected work by the lunar community) does not discuss this era (it is not in the index terms), nor does the popular article (written by a lunar scientist) of Linda Martel. On the Basin Groups article, there are two external links that have been used to support the case for such a group, but neither are reputable nor verifiable. One page says that information will be uploaded later, whereas the other is a wiki, and I have removed the offending material! As someone who works with the Moon on a daily basis, I could add a number of primary and secondary references supporting my assertions here, though I think that the Wilhelms and Martel articles should suffice. I would be happy to add additional refernces if asked. It is quite possible that Basin Groups was at one time used as an informal term (though I have never encountered it), and if this were the case, we could discuss this at lunar geologic timescale. Lunokhod 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWhen is not a reputable source. It is self-published. This is clear on the introduction of the web site, which says "Welcome to the GeoWhen Database, an attempt to sort out the mess that man has made of the geologic timescale. This project aims to reconcile the international stratigraphic standards with many of the regional and archaic naming schemes that appear in the literature." Lunokhod 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Harland book, I will look this up in my library asap, as the online version of the book is only partial, and says nothing about the rationale for using these eras. In any case, none of my geology or planetary geology textbooks use these eras, and I can not find reference to this in my file cabinet of scientific articles or pdfs either. As an active scientist in this domain, I can honestly say that these eras are not used by even a minority of the terrestrial and planetary communities. (Again, if you want a list of books and reveiw articles, tell me.) I also point out that it is scientifically unsound to "paste" geologic eras from the Moon (or any other celestial body) into the Earth's geologic history. Lunokhod 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that do not mention Basin Groups
Book chapters
  • Ryder et al. "Heavy bombardment of the Earth at ~3.85 Ga" in Origin of the Earth and Moon (2000).
  • Hartmann et al., The time dependend intense bombardment of the primordial Earth/Moon system, ibid.
  • Hiesinger and Head, New views of lunar geoscience: an introduction and overview, in New views of the Moon (2006).
  • Horz et al., Lunar surface processes, in The lunar sourcebook, 1991.
  • Stoffler and Ryder, Stratigraphy and isotope ages of lunar geologic units: Chronological standard for the inner solar system, in Geochronology of Mars and inner solar system, 2001.
Books
  • The planetary scientists companion, Lodders and Fegley, 1998.
  • Planetary science: A lunar perspective, S. R. Taylor, 1982.
  • Moons and planets, W. K. Hartmann, 1993.
  • The geology of multi-ring basins, P. Spudis, 1993.
  • The geologic history of the Moon, D. Wilhelms, 1987.
Organizations
  • Geological Society of America
  • United Stated Geological Survey
  • International Commission on Stratigraphy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunokhod (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that mention Basin Groups
  • Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
I have nothing against metioning this in either lunar geologic time scale or geologic time scale. This here is a debate only concering the deletion of the article Basin Groups, nothing else. Lunokhod 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that outcome would be better served by a merge than a delete, if it goes that way. Bryan 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to AfD nomination: Figure of Harland et al. is inconsistent with their discussion in text. I have just read the Harland et al. book and have discovered the following: In the text, they advocate using the lunar geologic time scale for the Hadean which includes the Imbrian, Nectarian, and Pre-Nectarian. Then they cite Wilhemls (1987) to subdivide the Pre-Nectarian into Cryptic, Basin Group 1, and Basin Groups 2-9. However, in their figure, they do not include the Pre-Nectarian epoch, but instead only include the subdivisions. Based on their text, I can only conclude that this is a typo in their manuscript. Anyone who has cited their typo (fortunately, there are very few!) have simply propogated a typographical error.

Concerning the subdividing the Pre-Nectarian into "Basin Groups", it appears that Wilhelms did indeed suggest this. However, this is only informal, and none of the USGS geologic maps of the Moon use this notation. Indeed, from Wilhelms (1987,p. 145) he states: "This volume divides 30 pre-Necarian basins into 9 age groups (table 8.2). Each group is headed by one basin whose relative age seems to be well established by crater densities or superpositional relations. Additional basins are tentatively placed in the groups on weaker grounds."

I continue to support the nomination for deletion on the grouds that "Basin Groups 1-9 and Cryptic" should be replaced by "Pre-Necarian" based on the Harland et al.'s own words. The fact that these subdivisions were used instead of Pre-Nectarian appears to be a typo. Lunokhod 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say is correct, I continue to believe that the terms and their history deserve a place to be discussed, and that keeping the article for that purpose makes sense. At the least the content should be merged, not deleted. 128.32.95.83 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl of AfD nomination: After talking to a few terrestrial geologists offline, I am going to withdraw my nomination for deleting "Basin Groups" for the following reasons: First, it appears that the Harland et al. book is so respected, that even if they did make a typo in their summary plot, or even if they did not understand the lunar geologic time scale and made an serious error in representing it, it doesn't matter, and its too late. Second, I consider the inclusion of this period in the terrestrial geologic time scale to be a case of bad science, and wikipedia can play a role in correcting this by presenting the mainstream view among terrestrial and planetary scientists for why this period should be abandonned. Lunokhod 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I love You Lunokhod! This indicates Your intentions and Your attitude was motivated by a love of truth and science. That's a good example for the rest of us. Rursus 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk[edit]

Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article is about a group of Australian Navy Cadets. In Australia, cadet organisations are on about the same level as Scouting, and individual groups/squardrons/training ships have the same level of unproven notability as a random scout troop. None of the information presented is externally verified through the use of third party sources, and I don't think it would be externally verifiable

On a side note, I have no qualms about any useful, externally verifiable information being smerged to Australian Navy Cadets, as while I believe the whole organisation is notable and verifiable, individual units aren't. -- saberwyn

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

TS Toowoomba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
T. S. Shoalhaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment If Training Ship is misleading, try HMAS Nirimba, which is now a TAFE college - it's about 30km inland in Quakers Hill.Garrie 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her Majesty's Australian Shore Nirimba was the former Naval Aviation base, like HMAS Albatross (air station). -- saberwyn 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Card Roulette[edit]

Credit Card Roulette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This looks like something made up in school one day, particularly with the line "The game of Credit Card Roulette is believed to have been created during the late 1980s by a group of students at Boston College." It also appears to violate WP:NEO, and hence also WP:OR. If all those fail to convince, then remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Crocodile Punter 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lambeth[edit]

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

Self evidently a vanity page. Soobrickay 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say I say, what did the wikipedian say to the AFD process *Strong Delete - pure vanity. It's the way I tell 'em! --Larry laptop 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free[edit]

The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable The Adventures of Tintin pastiche, not published by a major publisher ("Attack" seems to be an anarchist press), not discussed in WP:V sources, gets only 26 distinct Google hits for the exact title[25], or a still rather weak 413 distinct (906 total) with a less strict search[26] It exists, but it fails the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) and (even excluding a proposal based deletion) fails WP:V beyond its existence. Fram 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you would reconsider your terminology. I can not see how being an anarchist press makes one not be a "major publisher". I personally know at least two anarchist presses which are very very very major publishers. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Attack" does not seem to be a major publisher, and attack is an anarchist publisher. Due to their search-unfriendly name, I have found only one other publication by them. I have found one link to their homepage, but that gave a 404 (bad link or inactive homepage, I don't know). If you could point me to more info about the publisher to show that it is indeed a major publisher, be my guest. Otherwise, your comment seems like nitpicking. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sophistry? Anyway, it is irrelevant if people who have read a comic want to keep or delete it. WP:ILIKEIT is an invalid keep reason. WP:V is hardly poisoning Wikipedia, it is a (perhaps the) core policy. If good WP:V sources can be found, I have no problem keeping it. In fact, I have argued for keeping obscure comics I haven't read in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meng_and_Ecker. I have looked for good sources for this one with the means available to me. I haven't found any. This does not mean that there aren't any, of course, but then providing those is up to those wanting to keep the article (they have had a year to do so since the creation of the article, and they have five more days to do so now). But the opinions of readers, fans, opposers, ... have no value in deciding whether this or any article is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regard to reception - critical or otherwise - in the media, searching for "Tintin" and "breaking free" gets 0 relevant hits in the Factiva news and magazine database while "Tintin in Thailand", a sex parody version of Tintin generally available only as a hard copy for sale on the tourist streets of Thailand gets 17 hits (including The Guardian, Reuters, Agence France-Presse (this book[27] indicates Tintin in Thailand mentioned in Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review). Only book source I could find that referenced the anarchist book is an advert in this book[28]. No hits for either title in google scholar. I'll withhold my !vote until there has been a bit more further discussion Bwithh 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Cimon WP:V is an essential foundation stone of Wikipedia, not something which is "poisoning" it or a "figleaf" excuse or sophistry!! This may be the strangest argument for keep I've ever seen. And Tintin is not an obscure subject! Bwithh 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't make any effort to assert the notablity of the comic --RaiderAspect 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V is what makes wikipedia a serious dictionary, acceptable in scholarly circles in ways that other, non-verified sources like urbandictionary are not. The requirement for verifibility, paired with that of notability, is our last line of protection from hoaxes, mass spam and eventual uselessness. It is not 'poisioning' wikipedia, in fact in my opinion the twin core policies of WP:N and WP:V are the very heart of the project, most of the rest is just quality assurance and process.

Equally nostalgic, but hankering after an entirely different epoch, is J Daniel's The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free (Attack International pounds 3.95). Dedicated to "all those fighting capitalism" this "graphic novel of Tintin and Friends in a Revolutionary Situation" generously allows any part of the book to be "freely reproduced by any revolutionary group" (including, I suppose, the urban guerrillas administering the Herge Estate). This cavalier attitude to copyright is just another acute observation in what I take to be a brilliant post-modern parody of a situationist canard produced during a sit-in at Hornsey School of Art circa 1972. I hope. Otherwise the crusty cadres of Class War (of which this is a by-product) might as well pack up and go home. Placing obscene epiphets and revolutionary nostrums into the mouths of the icons of child-ren's fiction was beginning to look stale even before the Oz Trial, and nowadays VIZ (VIZ: The Pan Handle: The Most Outstanding Parts of Issues 53 to 57, John Brown Publishing pounds 6.99) does this kind of thing much better, and probably to more subversive effect. The only cliche that Breaking Free doesn't salvage is the hoary old line "Steal This Book!!!" on the back cover. But if the idea of this sad little publication appeals to you, don't hesitate to do just that.

REVOLUTIONARY comic book, first published in 1988, in which Tintin and Haddock are reincarnated as militant activists who organise a strike, and a mass demonstration, after a friend is killed on a building site. The interesting things about it are the way each frame is adapted from Herge's originals, and the touching belief in the possibility of an upsurge in grassroots socialist radicalism. One suspects that Tony Blair is not the saviour Daniels had in mind

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rakuljic[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable film maker. Not an obvious speedy candidate as an effort has been made to assert notabilty, but the subject seems to have only made a few short films. Google does not find any thing significant Teiresias84 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete - author request at User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up your browser for Indic scripts[edit]

In the wrong namespace but the author cannot be persuaded - see User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that it is in the wrong namespace. Don't say things I have not said!
But a minimal reference is still needed anyway, because it is referenced directly from the Telugu wikipedia (see te:), at the top of all its pages, in a non-editable area (it's not part of any of the Telugu wiki pages!)
So, until the Telugu wikipedia is corrected, we need it, and we should include further assistance links in this minimal page for Telugu users. verdy_p 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't like the fact that you use immediate delete immediately after a move; especially when this clearly breaks the intent fdr which it was intended (with the immediate delete, the Telugu Wikipedia stills to points nowhere!). I did not want to create a full help page to solve this issue.
So keep it, and ask to Telugu Wikipedia admins to correct their site (at least change the link it currently displays and which is hardcoded somewhere to point directly to en:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts on the English Wikipedia. i don't know exactly where it is hardcoded, may be it is within the MediaWiki software installed in this wiki! (if so we need a bug report to solve it, and the same bug may affect other wikis) verdy_p 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i don't like that you lie when you say that I did not reference the backward link. You have simply not read anything! Instead, you have just read the title and immediately deleted the article, without wondering why it was there. This is not the Wikiepdia policy to perform such immediate deletion, where there is no evidence that the article was created with the intent to introduce garbage or spam. This is not spam, and even if you delete it, anyone on the Telugu wikiepdia could recreate it immediately by just following the link it provides everywhere! verdy_p 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Good Job Eludium-q36. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Niskanen[edit]

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

This is (I think) some sort of CV, and is arguably so lacking coherency as to meet the "nonsense" CSD criterion. Previous prod was disputed, sent to AfD as another editor then placed another prod. No indication of notability (and quite realistically I also have not the first clue what this text blob even means.) Seraphimblade 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Withdrawing nomination per rewrite. Seraphimblade 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not yet up to par but the author is working on it Alf photoman 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse Youth Arts Centre[edit]

Courthouse Youth Arts Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable youth / arts group. -- Longhair\talk 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are ads for auditions and free amateur productions truely notable coverage?Garrie 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs[edit]

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

More wrestlecruft. A list of what countries TNA is on TV is hardly encyclopedic. One Night In Hackney 11:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign Principality of Jaridia[edit]

The Sovereign Principality of Jaridia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article, which has managed to survive for over a week now, is a whole cloth fabrication complete with imagined statistics. Nominating because even hoaxes like this are arguably not speedyable, and this is the sort of thing that tends to get de-prodded. Serpent's Choice 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Band[edit]

The Foundation Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Foundation (The Foundation Band album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), album by the above, no evidence of sales or popularity
White Line Fever and the Long Road Home Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), self-produced demo album by the above
Homecoming 7" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 7" ep by the above, a redirect only
Live at the Canal Club • Oct 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), self-produced gig ep by the above

Side project of a member of Ann Beretta, a barely notable band, only one album which is not self-released. Creator has no contributions outside of the work of this individual. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 15 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, Coredesat 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And The Band Played On-Live At Home[edit]

...And The Band Played On-Live At Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am unable to find a single reliable source for information about this album. There are fewer than a dozen unique Googles outside of Wikipedia. There is no evidence it has ever charted. The band is barely notable. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Removal of unsourced material is an editorial decision and can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex[edit]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Poorly sourced list with potentially libelous content and original research. Unencyclopedic. I removed some of the worst content here, but the entire article needs to go. Oden 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be dense (it comes natural!), but I don't see how this is a reason for deletion. In fact, just the opposite: because unsimulated sex in a mainstream movies is a rare thing, it is worth having a list of those rarities. Surely a List of mainstream movies with simulated sex would be listcruft, but this is a list of exceptions to a rule that has very few exceptions. In this way, it's like having a list of left-handed baseball players -- that is, they are all important exceptions. Just my tuppence. bikeable (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a very fair point. I think an article about this topic could be made if done right and the sources where there for the reason you stated. This article is not about the subject, it's just a listing of movies in which it occurs, not encyclopedic to begin with and then it's losses the rest of it's reason for existence (in my mind) when only one or two of those movies scenes can be verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Powers 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day[edit]

Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article has been proded several times and de-proded by anons. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. If it is real it is not adequately sourced, and is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dual Freq 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, classic violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fous ta cagoule[edit]

Fous ta cagoule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested PROD. A non-notable local meme. Joyous! | Talk 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect (probably to List of fictitious Jews). If consensus later removes it from there as well, then probably delete as the consensus does not seem to favor an independent article. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of the AFD contributions, consensus is split fairly evenly between merge and delete, with a few keeps. There is a significant majority for delete the article (ie, either of delete or merge), on the basis of listcruft or WP:NOT an indiscriminate list. Both delete and merge imply removal of this independent article. This implies a consensus is achieved that there isn't justification for an independent article. However, there is also a significant number (around 50%) of keep the information (ie, keep or merge), implying a significant view that the information is considered useful and appropriate, and a view that it should be preserved somehow either by keeping or merging. (Note - Argument by analogy is not appropriate for AFD, each article is judged on its own merits as per Ssbohio.)
Taking these two together, it seems there is a communal consensus overall: - that the list is considered overall sufficiently encyclopedic or notable to keep the information, but not sufficiently important for its own independent article. It thefore looks like consensus is that the list should probably be merged into some other more relevant article, and this one deleted or redirected. Looking at the proposed target articles suggested, I'm inclined to agree that List of fictional Jews is a more useful location to try, than List of LGBT Jews, on the basis that fiction/nonfiction seems a more fundamental distinction than straight/gay. Or, as per one comment somewhere, it 'muddies the water' if fictional Jews are added to an article mainly listing real Jews.


List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters[edit]

List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Although I am the article "creator" (albeit after splitting it off) and also the nominator, please do not use this as a reason to consider speedy deletion. I feel the article should have a full chance to have a consensus formed. The list is a valid list, but I feel it does not pass any of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I split it from the original article, a genuinely notable list, because it diluted that article with ephemera, and did so after flagging a possible split on that talk page (no responses after 8 days). Although I am nominating the list my nomination is Neutral and a request for a consensus to be formed Fiddle Faddle 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on some of the contributions to the discussion, it seems that merging the content would be an acceptable alternative, as long as the content gets incorporated into all relevant lists (fictional characters, LGBT Jews, fictional LGBT characters, fictional Jews, etc). However, I still see the maintenance of a separate page that can be included by links within all the aforementioned groups as a more common-sense solution, especially considering that Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. --Ssbohio 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Brzica[edit]

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

I could not find any neutral references for this text, not for this person. Seems to be some made up propaganda material from Serbo-Croatian wars, and can be mostly found on serbian sites and forums. Most google hits simply redirect to wikipedia or sites that copied the wikipedia article. Rhun 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When asked for references to back up an article, especially one dealing with a conflict between two nations who had a war 10 years ago inspired with nationalistic hatred, its not very "neutral" (to satisfy the NPOV requirement) to cite sources from one side which participated in this war (and the surrounding infoamations campaign, and so on). The first, jasenovac-info.com is, i cite, "the holy assembly of bishops of the serbian orthodox church", which I wouldnt call a neutral source. The second one neither, with other articles like "Hague Tribunal: Created to Demonize the Serbs", "Media misinformation about Yugoslavia", "Was the Supposed Srebrenica Massacre a Hoax?" and so on. -- Rhun 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself isn't the source, the book it quotes is. And what do you have against the Serbian Orthodox Church? Its leader, Patriarch Paul, kept calling for peace and peaceful solutions to political problems all the way through all the wars.--Hadžija 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cant just cite "some book", without having other books and sources proving the information in this book is correct. I can write and publish a book, but this doesnt make this book worth citing before other sources aknowledge that the information in this book is accurate. And apparently no one, ever, although the place of the genocide is outside Serbia, and freely accessible like the rest of this concentration camp Jasenovac, aknowledged that this person called by this name actually existed. If this were the case, there would be citations of this famous mass butcherer everywhere on the net, and not _only_ on some serbian sites, and on sites which copied the contents of this Wikipedia article. -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask for verifability, so a serbian source of an alleged mass-serb-murderer no one else cared to prove wont cut it, since today, 10 years after the war, still a load of propaganda material is roaming the net. Therefore neutral references should be posted. -- Rhun 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is enough evidence to keep the article. As unsavory as some Serbs have been, that doesn't mean other Serbs can't be victims.--Wehwalt 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serbs being victims by the Ustasa regime in the WW2 era Croatia isnt disputed here at all. But trying to google it, I have not been able to find any other references that prove the existance of this figure than Serbian sites only and sites that copied the text from the Wikipedia article here. I certainly do not think that for an Wikipedia article about a mass murderer and war criminal it is enough to find a citation on some Serbian site and nowhere else? -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite disgusting that you have to justify yourself to someone in this manner (not an attack on you, on the way things are). Imagine if I said that, "as unsavory as some Jews have been, that doesn't mean other Jews can't be victims." --Hadžija 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really dont care that for something to be included in the wikipedia and then spread to international users as a _proven_ fact to other sites there do not exist any neutral references at all? Even if you know that under the circumstances of the Serbo-Croatian nationalism of the previous 60 years and especially after the recent war there were _insane_ amounts of propaganda material floating around on both sides? Would you still take an unprovable information about a mass murderer who killed 1500 (!) people in a day in a butchering contest(!), whose name only by chance was "Petar Brzica" (Speedy Peter), if this information is provided from only one of the sides in the conflict, and not proven by any international source at all? Well, I would have a problem doing that and then proxying this information through the Wikipedia to other sites on the net as a proven "fact" when it isnt one. -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the thing about the throat slitting seems to be dubious, but it's not in the article. Accordingly, I voted to delete the Srbosjek here. This guy does seem to have existed, so why delete this article? Finally, please stop lying (no other way to characterise it) that there are no sources when I've linked to them.--Hadžija 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My god, you linked a discussion forum as a _proof_ a mass murdering war criminal existed 60 years ago!? Dont you think that by all the effort that has been put into examination of WW2 mass murderings and the holocaust there should be some references besides.... a silly discussion forum, or some dubious blog? I am _NOT_ saying you provided no sources, but I think the ones you provided aer worthless when trying to proove a war crime and an mass murder. This ISNT enough. Are you really serious you cant get anything better than an discussion forum and a "Emperors new clothes" mentioning as a proof of a WW2 warcrime?? -- Rhun 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still ignoring the quote from a book I linked to, then? It seems 99% certain the guy existed. You seem a bit eager to delete this article may I say.--Hadžija 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sorry, i certainly have overseen the two pages linked in the article _after_ my Afd-request from the book "Wanted" by Howard Bloom, which, given Blum's reputation, I would reckognize as an neutral source on this matter. So thanks to User:Laughing Man for providing the links and (unknowingly) clarifying, so I can recall my request for deletion. Greetings, -- Rhun 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a final comment, I am somewhat troubled that editors should say that because a source is of a certain nationality, it is per se unreliable. Propaganda is a weapon used by both sides in war. That a source is Serbian does not make it a lie; that a source is Croatian doesn't make it truthful. It's been said that winners write history; perhaps so, but I would hope WP takes a broader perspective. The fact that the Allies won World War I didn't mean that the anti-German propaganda they put out (raped nuns and so forth) became truthful. We should take a neutral tone, laying out evidence and opposing evidence.--Wehwalt 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without third party confirmation you do not have a proof that it _is_ relaiable. I know first hand what amount of propaganda and especially false, totally made up stories have been brought up between the Serbs and the Croats in their mutual desinformation and demonisation campaigns (which is, on a large level still going on, 10 years after their wars), and at the same time, how many war crimes have been tried to get hushed up. I'm hereby removing the Afd text block. -- Rhun 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Robertson[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly autobiographical article. Mayor of a town with a population under 20,000. --м info 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this person meet notability if he were a member of the state legislature, rather than a small-town mayor? Where is the 20,000 population criteria determined? Would a mayor of Plains, Georgia, for example, be eligible because that town obtained attention through Jimmy Carter. What about a mayor of Crawford, Texas? I read somewhere on the board that notability is notability in the local area, not statewide.

Billy Hathorn 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through a half dozen or so Articles for deletion. (I had never looked through the list before.) I found all of those articles vastly inferior to the articles on these two mayors Bill Robertson and Paul A. Brown. The Robertson and Brown articles meet the standards for any local politicians and are well-written. The other articles that I checked for the most part made no sense at all and were poorly written and organized.

Billy Hathorn 16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the Dozen 3[edit]

Cheaper by the Dozen 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Movie does not exist. It is not in preproduction, there is no script and no actors have been signed to work on this movie. The only speculation that exists stems from fans of the first 2 movies. Mothh 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero Party[edit]

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

The article F-Zero Party has been an orphan since its creation two edits ago, and doesn't seem to make sense to me. My guess is that it is a list of possible characters in the game F-Zero GX, but if so should be merged into that article or at least wikified. V-Man737 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fagdrag[edit]

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

Fagdrag is up for deletion because of 1) being a non-notable slang term and 2) the article is trollish in nature. It is the sole contribution of its sole contributor, User:Bjarkia. A Google search reveals that the term exists either in inflammatory environments, or by a different definition. V-Man737 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not an Elvish-to-English dictionary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faidwen[edit]

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

Faidwen is up for deletion as it has no notability (supposedly meaning "land of release" in Elvish); at the very least, it ought to be merged with the article on Elvish in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Man737 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, local used car dealer, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Choice Car Sales[edit]

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

Advertisement. Only contribution of User:Sarimali, besides some vandalism in an article relating to his name. V-Man737 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Grand Desert[edit]

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

A thinly-veiled (and trite) advertisement for the resort of this name, as a Google search reveals. Even with a restricted search, the results skirt the notion of "resort." V-Man737 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Ink[edit]

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

Faith Ink as of now is a soapbox, and seems to have been created by the owner or a close associate. If the company is notable (I've neglected my Google search), it would be worth a rewrite, but until then the article needs to not exist. V-Man737 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Falconer's formula. NawlinWiki 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falconer formula[edit]

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

Already has mention in Falconer's formula (which is better-maintained). V-Man737 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Oriented Wrestling League (FOWL Entertainment)[edit]

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

Family Oriented Wrestling League (FOWL Entertainment), besides being a mouthful, seems to be a bit of a vanity page. It is the sole contribution of its sole contributor, User:Mikey Genocide. V-Man737 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faspitch[edit]

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

Unreferenced local band. V-Man737 09:30, 15 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, Coredesat 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Yuser31415 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fastweb.com[edit]

Fastweb.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

The article Fastweb.com is quite POV and reads like an ad. Either it needs to be deleted, or an unbiased editor should completely rewrite it. V-Man737 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete both, a7, amateur football team, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fc:ssl[edit]

Fc:ssl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

I give props to the author of this page; it is very well-typed and it looks neat. The main problem is that it is about a local football team, and gives no third-party references. If the article is kept, it needs a bit more wikification as well as "references" and "external links" (making sure there is a difference) sections. V-Man737 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page seems to duplicate template. Also applying prior precedent as established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXX. No offense taken if anybody takes this to DRV -- in particular, if there's anything that needs undeleting to be merged, you need only let me know. Luna Santin 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Iowa Senators[edit]

List of current Iowa Senators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This list simply duplicates the information found in ((Current Iowa Senators)) without providing any of the unique, useful information that would justify keeping it around. The normal process would be to simply merge this with the article it duplicates, but the template already contains all the relevant information and redirecting from an article to a template just didn't feel right. Tim4christ17 talk 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification I would be fine with merging the list into the Iowa Senate article to create a result similar to what currently exists at Alaska Senate. I simply do not believe it merits its own separate article. --Tim4christ17 talk 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article is to be merged or kept, it really needs to be cleaned up. I noticed a number of inconsistencies between the list and template. The template appears to be more correct.[39]--Kubigula (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polywel[edit]

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

Marked non-notable since January 3 without rebuttal Brianhe 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott-Riggs[edit]

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

Notability has been questioned since November 2006. Less than 100 Google hits of "Scott Riggs" are associated when "105.3" or "KIOZ" are added. Most of the others appear to refer to a different man with the same name. YechielMan 02:15, 14 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, Coredesat 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article definitely. There is a longer article with his name (correctly) unhyphenated at Scott Riggs (radio personality). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld syncope[edit]

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

Proposed: This article is obviously an attempt at humor, presumably by a fan of the show, Seinfeld. Very well done, I must add, but still a joke and should be removed. I leave it up to the first Admin that wanders by as to whether this is a candidate for Speedy Delete. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I'm impressed to find that there are Wikipedians who are able to reverse themselves. Thank you, Bill, for restoring my faith in Wikipedia as an institution that seeks to share knowledge. Mauralarkins 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been more impressive if I had Googled it FIRST but I was doing stacks and stacks of reverts when I ran into this page, and really had convinced myself it was a very well done fake page. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion[edit]

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This book's independent notability is not apparent. I recommend a deletion, but there may be a sentence or two that can be merged to John Zaller, with a redirect. YechielMan 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: cited >1200 times according to Google Scholar, which indicates a considerable impact.--Eysen 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article was initially created by copying text from the John Zaller article; I have now made significant revisions (in fact, the main text has been wholly replaced) and additions. As regards notability in particular, the article now discusses the implications of the book for public opinion research and also sources a further article by Zaller that references the book. The book is a must-read in nearly all advanced American Politics, US Government, or Public Policy courses. The article could definitely use improvement, but it should be kept for future expansion and improvement. Black Falcon 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Earth Effect[edit]

The Planet Earth Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Made-up expression. Description of a conventional montage which was certainly not created by Planet Earth. The two users who have done all but one of the edits (and I suspect they're the same person) both have a history of vandalism HornetMike 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A3. -- Steel 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable websites[edit]

List of PlayStation Portable websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:NOT in a number of areas - Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links - this is just a collection of external links. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers - that's all this is - a guide to sites that are suitable for the PSP. Larry laptop 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks - CSD A3 is one of the one's that I'm not familar with - I'll remember it for future reference. --Larry laptop 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I put this page to AfD for second nomination because of its biased intonation, also its controversial features. This article totally bases on a single view from a book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" by the late researcher C.A.Tripp. The book itself is among controversy and a lot of other biographists and researchers on AL's life have made counter-arguments against this theory. Up til now no one can bear out the tangibility of the thesis. As I've said above, this article bases on almost every proofs that Mr Tripp used to convince his idea, which leads to the complexion of the article looks like a script of original research. In other word, the article can be seen as a brief material of the book. Moreover, if this article exists, we must create another article called "Counter-arguments for SoAL thesis". Wikipedia is not a source which only reflects one-sided viewpoints. AbelinCAusesobad 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any reason, Mactographer? Jeffpw 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter of 1976-1977[edit]

Winter of 1976-1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Page appears to contain original research, is an item of unsure significance, and contains a localized viewpoint.Fundamentaldan 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlqvist[edit]

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

This particular scientist is not notable and fails the WP:PROF test as well as considerations at WP:BIO and WP:SCI. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, keep argument changed to delete during the course of the AFD. --Coredesat 08:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Richardson[edit]

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

Probable non-notable bio, seems to fail WP:BIO. Although he does have an IMDB profile (link is in the article), he seems to lack other significant sources (at least that are provided here), so currently fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor guy? what mayor guy? the previous article is about a teenage guitar player. Bwithh 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow my comment for Bill Robertson, discussed higher up this page, wound up here. Probably my mistake.--Wehwalt 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was originally for the "current Ben" - the British actor/filmmaker. However neither appear notable and both should be deleted, IMO. If anyone feels that the "other Ben" is notable, however, I think a vote of "keep with a revert to the revision noted above" would suffice, no? My apologies for any confusion created here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete --Tone 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who did a disappearing act[edit]

List of celebrities who did a disappearing act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Although I can see the validity of this as a topic, it should really be a category not an article, and upon detailed perusal it seems to be a joke. Should probably be deleted, although I will be happy to change my mind if anyone improves the article. Walton monarchist89 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't even think it's funny enough for BJAODN. Walton monarchist89 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G4 by Will Beback.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass[edit]

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

(Auto)biography of a mathematician who does not, I believe, pass WP:PROF. Previous nomination last August ended in delete, roughly a dozen !votes to two, and has since been blanked by Jimbo. I would encourage you to look at his own resume here to come to a conclusion about his notability. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more detailed in my nomination, especially as the previous AfD has been blanked. Main contributions appear to have been on Zariski surfaces, the importace of which I cannot speak to, but which didn't impress many participants in the last AfD. His web page lists 32 publications between 1980 and 1994; a solid record but hardly outstanding. His political activity is certainly non-notable (one editor pointed out that he was not even in the NY Times' of candidates). This article has expunged most of the name-dropping and dubious claims of the previous article, although a section on work with Solidarity has been marked as "citation needed". Overall, a mathematician of borderline importance with a tendency to WP:COI. bikeable (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make things clearer: the debate was blanked but the history is still available here. Please read everyone. Also this is not the second time but maybe fifth time the article has been made. See this list. Mhym
Also, note Piotrek Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piotrus Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The work on Zariski Surfaces is quite fundamental.Outstanding students listed in Wikipedia.Political activity consistant from pre solidarity days in Poland to current run for US Congress District 22 of Florida.Created a coalition of independent candidates in Florida against considerable odds. The Ulam Quarterly Journal was a true milestone in electronic publishing and continues to exert considerable influence on research. Dr Piotr Blass


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Salix Alba for your objectivity! As for mainstream coverage there are two articles in our Palm Beach Post both available on line and also a couple of positive comments in the Sun Sentinel dealing with the 2006 governor election. Getting mainstream media coverage in Florida is quite difficult as you may know as as evidenced by the Sun Sentinel article. I am in the process of getting letters from the Michnik people about my role in the democratic opposition in Poland in the period 1961-1989 and shall make them available to the wikipedia community. Thank you for reckognizing the role of the Ulam stuff and collaboration with Grothendieck. Also several of my students are already in Wikipedia. Today is MLK day: We shall overcome! best wishes Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com ps I believe that my friend Mhem is at the University of Miami---Nobody is a prophet in his own country--- shalom Dr Piotr Blass pb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, given his numerous runs for office, ect. Mcr616 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and not four as claimed above . Also the book "Zariski Surfaces and differential equations in char p>0 " by Piotr Blass and Jeff Lang has sold thousands of copies via Marcel Dekker and can be found in most research libraries in America,Europe,Asia and Australia as can be verified by library search

as for the importance of the Ulam Quarterly Journal questioned above it contains several papers by Grothendieck,Jacobson,Erdos,Duncan etc clearly world class mathematicians

thank you

dr piotr blass

  • Mhym said there were four hits for "Zariski surface", not "Piotr Blass". When I did a Google Scholar search for "Piotr Blass", I got 23 hits. [44] However, you need to look at the quality of the hits. Some are duplicates of each other and others are completely irrelevant and inconsequential. For example, one of the Google Scholar hits is a letter sent to the editor of AMS requesting that people send Dr Blass notes so he can compile them into a book for an ill colleague. The 91 hits you claim are for a search of the name without quotation marks. The problem with that is it brings up hits for completely different people, such as many for Andreas Blass, Piotr Sztompka and Piotr Pieranski. That is completely misleading. Heck, my name searched your way brings up 629 Google Scholar hits! [45] Sarah 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you google piotr blass you will find over 20 000 hits with at least several thousand totally relevent.Since you are not a mathematician I apologize that my work is a little hard to appreciate as it deals with quite esoteric algebraic geometry. Still it has been and continues to be quite notable as evidenced by the interest around the world in zariski surfaces well documented in wikipedia. I am the founder of this theory.All the best Dr Piotr Blass

And as I said before, googling someone's name without quotation marks is extremely misleading. Searching my name in this way brings up 288,000 g-hits [47]. It proves absolutely nothing. Your name in quotation marks brings up 227 distinct (of 607 total) G-hits [48] Perhaps you would care to respond to that? What we are looking for are verifiable, reliable sources, not hundreds of hits for all the blogs and forums you've posted to plus thousands more for pages that are not at all relevant.
Wikipedia doesn't discredit an opinion simply because someone may or may not be a mathematician. Please deal with the relevant policies and guidelines. If the article does not conform with our policies, we cannot keep it. Sarah 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah for your stimulating comments.I certainly need to do a better job in explaining the relevence of my mathematical work.Perhaps my collaborators and students will also help me here.For example Jeffrey Lang ,Mark Spivakovski and several others have offered to do so. I will be happy to send to you Sarah some of my expository work.Perhaps my paper on Mathematics and Civilization would interest you? best wishes.

dr piotr blass

Request to mathematicians:Please take a look at my book:Zariski surfaces and differential equations in characteristic p>0,Marcell Dekker probably in your library since 1987 as well as my work in Compositio as you are evaluating notability. Also Jeffrey Lang ,Chris Skinner,Scot Flansburg are among my rather numerous students.Finally I studied and collaborated with Oscar Zariski , John Tate,David Mumford,Heisuke Hironaka, Alexander Grothendieck and Pierre Deligne among others.

I know that wikipedia will not wish to act in the sad spirit of a cultural revolution china style.

thank you for not deleting the piotr blass page in advance!

Galois Lives!

best

Dr piotr blass

Dear Wikipedia friends,

One more remark:The main proponents of delete and those who question notability have chosen to remain anonymous.We do not know their names. On the other hand those who support my entry are out in the open we know their names and their qualifications. I may be from the old school but let me say that I never paid much attention to anonymous letters and attacks against my qualifications. I hope that Jim Wales and the senior editors of Wikipedia will see to it that my entry is judged fairly. With zariski surfaces and ega 5 work firmly recognized by wikipedia and with my students such as Jeffrey Lang having their own pages it makes very little sense to deny notability of my work and political activity. Thank you Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com www.piotrblass.com

ps:I just looked at some of the talk pages of critics and proponents of deletion I found sarcasm and hi fives and taking turns to criticise and delete. I am asking Jim Wales to look into this situation. I am sure that the truth will prevail. Best wishes to all Dr Piotr Blass

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hipster[edit]

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

Unsourced protologism. Repeatedly reposted speedy, bringing here for consensus decision. NawlinWiki 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. The article satisfies a whole concert of speedy deletion criteria. It is probable stealth advertising for a product. It contains unsourced controversial material (allegations that xe is a criminal) about an identifiable living person. It has no sources, and almost no content that is actually concrete rather than vague innuendo. Uncle G 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy[edit]

Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is either original research or a hoax, as there are no ghits on it anywhere. Also, the image is a copyvio too. No references or sources are cited, either. --SunStar Nettalk 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss point[edit]

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

Is this really an encyclopedic subject? If anything it seems more like a dictionary definition. PC78 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagna cell[edit]

Nonsense. Deleted, but got undeleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Nee[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:PORN BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRIP Linhas Aereas[edit]

Company does not appear to be notable. Stebbins 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheism[edit]

Historical persecution by atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is unsourced and simply a list. On top of that, it assumes that 'atheism' is some form of systematic organized religion. Perhaps the author had intended the page to be about persecution by totalitarian governments? or by communist governments? or something along those lines? But in addition to the title problems, just look at the article for yourself and judge whether it is encyclopedic or not. The poor name choice, lack of citations, and lack of content/list format is enough for me to propose this deleition. Andrew c 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4. LoveMonkey 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first error seems to be that you don't even know what atheism is. Atheism is not irreligion; it's the absence of theism, not the absence of religiosity. There are many religious people who are atheists. Before you try to make any more articles about atheism, why don't you actually read some of the Atheism article so you have some idea of what the word means? -Silence 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously open to an article like this. I believe I created Historical persecution by atheists, which was deleted about a year ago. However this one in particular isn't really working I think. You might want to just add something to State atheism or Society of the Godless. Or after this is deleted you can discuss creating an article on "Religious persecution by secular ideologies" or something. I'd consider that when the last one was deleted, but I forgot about the idea.--T. Anthony 10:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - Christian, Muslims, and Jews are the only ones who have "persecution by" articles. This seems like a potential bias against Abrahamic religions. It might be politically incorrect to say, but there were Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist (Emperor Wuzong of Tang), and Pagan regimes that engaged in persecutions.--T. Anthony 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have to understand that in many societies Buddhism didn't remain in a purified non-theistic form. I'm not sure many schools of Buddhism were every atheist per se, non-theist is more accurate.. Now in Theravada the nontheism outlook mostly survived, but in Mahayana God-like ideals did emerge to some extent. See God in Buddhism. In addition many to most societies mixed their Buddhism with pre-Buddhist beliefs. Hence many Chinese maintained their earlier belief in Gods and mixed in Buddhism to it. To see Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist as "atheistic" is, almost certainly, wrong. To see them as even "nontheist" is perhaps misleading.--T. Anthony 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nontheist is a nonsense word and mere synonym for atheist. I've never liked it. Regardless, large numbers of Buddhists remained atheist, and at the very least Buddhism never had a personal God. Buddhism exists in theistic forms, but it's not exactly highly dogmatic in any case, and even theistic forms never focused on an explicit deity. The article's allusions to it are just silly. ~Switch t 10:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the reverse of "Persecution by secular ideologies" or atheist regimes. Meaning if anyone wants a Historical persecution by theistic ideologies or Historical persecution by theocracies I would have no objection. I don't know how Love Monkey feels on that.
I honestly don't see the value of such a page. There is no legitimate scholarship that indicates a causation or important correlation between belief in God and historical persecution. (There are many studies that show an inverse correlation between religiosity and religious tolerance, but these are purely in a modern context, not a historical one, and deal with individuals, not regimes.) Endorsing such a correlation is neither neutral nor verifiable, and even gathering the data in such a format is tantamount to Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be like having a "Historical persecution by black people" article, and then rather than simply deleting it because of its uselessness and inherent POV advocacy, arguing for making a "Historical persecution by white people" article to "balance the scales". Creating a second pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article doesn't resolve the problems inherent in creating a first pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article; two wrongs don't make a right. -Silence 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't believe in any of the "Historical persecution by" articles. However if we're going to have them than I don't see why "by theocracies" or "by state atheism" is any more odd or objectionable than the ones we have. I mean Historical persecution by Christians could be seen as making a correlation according to what you indicate. If so it's making a correlation that is misleading or confusing. After all the title is not specifying and Christians aren't monolithic. So what Christians are doing the persection? If all of them, how? I mean were the Shakers or Christadelphians persecuting anyone? Or in the earlier eras how about the Saint Thomas Christians, who exactly were they persecuting? If not all of them, why the blanket statement about Christians in general?--T. Anthony 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is crucial difference though, the phrase "persecution by Christians" is at least used by people outside wikipedia, while "persecution by atheists" is not! --Merzul 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that all that convincing. Yeah the exact "persecution by atheists" isn't used that much, neither is "persecution by state atheism." However to say the second doesn't exist as a concept, as I was clearly meaning the second, is odd. State atheism is different and I specified that's what I meant. See "State atheism" persecution.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, something like "Religious persecution in atheist states" could be a well sourced article. I was a bit hasty in judging your arguments. --Merzul 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but rather than rush to make another new article, why not start with a "Religious persecution" section in State atheism, since that article is currently a stub? -Silence 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Historical persecution by Christians should also be deleted for the reasons given by T. Anthony. However, that's not the article at issue here. If someone wants to AfD that one too, that's fine with me. --OinkOink 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. I'm pretty sure I voted deleted on this one.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Brown[edit]

Paul A. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable. Mayor of city with less than 20,000 Bellhalla 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that mayors on Wikipedia must be from a city of more than 20,000? I had not heard of this 20,000 number until Jan. 15. Isn't any elected official notable in is locality? Is the test for notability in the person's local area, rather than statewide or national? It seems to me that each article has merit on its own and that there should not be some kind of rule about 20,000 population.

Billy Hathorn 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown had an unusual life story. He was mayor for only a year. The way his career ended may be as important as his career. This is local history, and there is a place for local history on Wikipedia.

Billy Hathorn 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat pants[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and some of the more humorous content seems to be verging on WP:NFT. Walton monarchist89 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was The result of this debate is Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Nishkid64 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIK LAN-Party[edit]

SIK LAN-Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Do we really need a page consisting entirely of links? Walton monarchist89 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. If there is anything worth merging, it'll still be there in the history. Majorly (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Bliss[edit]

W. W. Bliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Duplicate of William Wallace Smith Bliss, a lengthier and more extensive article. PC78 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BiznezSearch.com[edit]

BiznezSearch.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This web site does not have any greater significance than many of its kind and wikipedia is not a directory of commercial services. It fails WP:WEB. It has already been speedy deleted and recreated 4 times since last November. Tyrenius 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investment and Financial Risk Management[edit]

Investment and Financial Risk Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Simple course description of an undergaduate course at a university not asserting its importance. In short, a vanity page of a lecturer. There is no encyclopedic content, acting more like a noticeboard. The course title itself is a simple rewording instead of "corporate finance", and the course is simply a Bachelor of Commerce degree with a specialization in corporate finance. Any encyclopedic information which may ever be added is already present in the better-suited articles on corporate finance, finance and Master of Science in Finance. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, positively asserts subject's nonnotability. NawlinWiki 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalynn Dior[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this article. No Google hits. I'm thinking spoof. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:V. AFD is not a vote, and the vast majority of keep arguments give no reasons why the article should be kept, and the ones that are more than just "keep" either admit or do not address the lack of reliable sources. The one reference provided does not give a name for the weapon in the picture. --Coredesat 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek[edit]

Srbosjek does exist --Svetislav Jovanović 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Srbo-sjek.jpg
Yet more evidence. --Svetislav Jovanović 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srbosjek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I translate the Articel to the german Wikipedia. But there it will be delete because there are no references and they think it is a not true. So i think if in the english wikipedia is no referenc too it should be deletet because it can be a lie. Schlauischlumpf 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found another picture, see this Jasenovac photo archive, specifically the last image. It seems based on the illustration, that "Graviso" or "Grawiso" is written on the strap. // Laughing Man 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, there is a mention on an English language forum ([49]) that says that the Hitler-Jugend used a knife called the "Grawiso" so that might be another direction to take the search to find better sources about this knife. // Laughing Man 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat picture on the holocaust memorial museum is sourced from Yugoslavia, one of the combantants with the state of Croatia of that time which brings into question it's reliability. Is there any mention of it from the official Jasenovac camp museum - I had a look @ the website[50] & couldn't find any mention of the Srbosjek. It would be strange if the museum, the alleged site where the weapon was used had no mention of it. iruka 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information about this knife could come only from Yugoslavia. Please don’t forget that Croatia was integral part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later after the World War Two Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia was never in war with Yugoslavia since later didn’t existed during occupation by Axis powers. Do we have to presume that the Jasenovac camp museum is only museum in the world that has reliable information about what happened in this concentration camp during World War Two? During war between ex Yugoslav states, Croatia went trough revival of Ustashi ideology which in many ways affected the comprehension of history of NDH and its crimes. I don’t believe that any museum in Croatia could be objective about Jasenovac and its significance. What I don’t understand is why facts presented on United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website aren’t good enough to be used on Wikipedia. Do we have to presume that this museum couldn’t preserve objectivity or even that is spread false information about Holocaust. Is their criteria lower then the criteria of Wikipedia? I don’t think so. --Marko M 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.
Croatia was in conflict with Yugoslavia 3 times:
  • the first Yugoslavia was littered with ethnic conflict between the Croats & the Yugoslav security structures dominated by Serbs, prompting protests about the Croats plight @ the League of Nations by intellectuals like Albert Eienstein. This continued until the formation of the Banovina of Croatia;
  • In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia. It was in their interest to portray their military & idealogical enemies in the worst possible light, with the aim of increasing the size war reparations, but also to legitimize the Communist governments' role in saving the peoples of Yugoslavia from the horrors of nationalism. So various myths were invented, such as [51]. Hence the need for a multitude of reliable sources;
Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time. Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism. (2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of). If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Ahh, yeah? Assuming you are not trolling, let me address your concerns:

Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time.

  • Who said anything about Chetniks being a negative connotation?;
  • Dominant portion of the military of the first Yugoslavia became Chetnik formations after the country's dissolution - this is what the units called themselves [52]. The denotion "Serb" was to distinguish it from the multinational Partisans;
  • NDH security structures included the fascist Ustasha militia, whilst the majority were the non-political Home Gaurd that was the successor to the Imperial Croatian Home Guard. Hence one cannot use sweeping generalisations to describe a mixed forces;
  • NDH security structures fought against both Chetniks & Partisans, hence, they fought against two Yugoslavias, the forces of the then defunct 1st Yugoslavia, and forces that envisaged a second communist Yugoslavia. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism.

  • Not propaganda; fact, precipated by the murder of Croat intellectual Milan Sufflay - refer New York Times article about the death of Šufflay & Einstein/Mann appeal. It's relevance was to provide evidence of conflict b/w Croats & Yugoslav forces which in turn goes to the point of reliability of "Yugoslav" (a.k.a Serb) sources. Quoting a "famous person" as you put it, means that the source can be found more easily;
  • The Communist leadership was concerned about nationalism - you may want to read some of the marxist literature. The federal nature of second Yugoslavia was to reassure the smaller communities that the Greater Serbia hegemony of the first Yugoslavia would not be repeated, as well as a first step of overcoming the nationalist opiate that had hindered the workers struggle for freedom. I'm sure you get the picture. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of).

Pls reread what I wrote:

In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia.

How does this imply they were one force? I would have thought the "as well as" was a denotion of separate forces as well as explicitly mentioning that the Partisans were communist. Note, I had also included an interwiki link for those that wanted more information on the chetnik movement. Note also the recognition that the two forces represented the disparate 1st & 2nd Yugoslavias. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Don't know how to interpret the long reply that resembles a character assasination job, full of strawmen, and in response to a tangential point. The key point:

The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.

still stands & was unaddressed in your long reply. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not addressing that fact, I was addressing your faulty arguments, which still stands. Sorry. But to address that claim, there is no argument against the existance of the knife, what it looked like, what it was used for, who it was used against, that there was a competition involving the knife, etc. So since there is no argument regarding these claims, and only an argument regarding its name, why don't you make yourself more useful, and provide an appropriate name for the knife? Thanks for all your help. :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
But there are arguments against the existence of the knife - namely:
  • there were a number of myths propagated by Yugoslavia in order to delegitimise the cause of Croatian independence, the biggest threat to the states existance. Examples of such myths include [53], [54], & [55];
  • the main independent source, the holocaust museum sourced it's information from Yugoslavia: courtesy of Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije - "Peoples Revolution of Yugoslavia Museum";
  • the source article talked about a competition with a butcher knife - something that was at odds with what is described on the wikipedia article. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the 1990's.
Croatia did not have a resurgence of Ustasha ideology during the war b/w ex-Yugoslav states, as claimed above. What they did have was opening up of the communist archives so that historians could have access to documents untainted by the communist party presure. iruka
Comment Noone is making claims that hundreds of people were killed with the Bowie knife. And the srbosjek is not known beyond the Serbian realm. Also, that the article stems from the former Yugoslavia where distortion and propaganda & a recent war occured, means a multitude of reliable sources (not self-referencing) are needed. These standards are required to maintain the quality of wikipedia. iruka 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Srbosjek" is also good known in the croatian realm, although no one really know what it is, but the word itself is know good enough, so I suppose neither the serbs know what this word _exactly_ describes, and if the knife on this picture _is_ really it, and if the knife was used _under this name_ in the concentraation camps, as the article suggests, i.e if the contents this article should be kept under this name. As of now, despite the many "Keeps", the connection between the actual article title, the existing word "Srbosjek" and its content (especially the pictures), has not been verified to put it into a internationally accessible encyclopedia as a verified fact when no one can verify it. -- Rhun 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife. Of course, I need reliable source to verify this claim despite the fact that it’s historically correct. Problem with administration on most Wikipedias including this one is that administrators just won’t go further to resolve problem like this. True administrator would already be contacting United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. and starting enquiry about origins of photograph representing Srbosjek. What ever the outcome of this enquiry would be, it would surly benefit Wikipedia by confirming the content of this article or by denying it. The later outcome could lead to correction of information on the official site of US Holocaust Memorial Museum which would raise the reputation of Wikipedia. But who am I to teach you how to do your job. I’ll wait and see the outcome of this vote and do what ever I can to find sources that would satisfy your criteria. --Marko M 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following claim:

Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife.

is almost impossible to verify. To be analogous to the article, the claim would have to say that thousands of people were killed in one small location in the US? Propaganda relies on half-truths, unstructured anecdotal experiences & unverifiable claims. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we have collected as of now show that this depicted curved knife existed and was used by the Ustasha, but not that exactly this knife was named "Srbosjek" (all the sources mention a "graviso" type of knife), and that this word was coined there and not later and not used colloquialy for any type of knife, like for example here in the 90s bosnian war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhun (talk • contribs)
SOURCES>>>
http://www.jasenovac.org/
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac/
1. The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books, 1992.
2. Witness to Jasenovac's Hell Ilija Ivanovic, Wanda Schindley (Editor), Aleksandra Lazic (Translator) Dallas Publishing, 2002
3. Crimes in the Jasenovac Camp, State Commission investigation of crimes of the occupiers and their collaborators in Croatia, Zagreb, 1946.
4. Ustasha Camps by Mirko Percen, Globus, Zagreb, 1966. Second expanded printing 1990.
5. Ustashi and the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945, by Fikreta Jelic-Butic, Liber, Zagreb, 1977.
6. Romans, J. Jews of Yugoslavia, 1941- 1945: Victims of Genocide and Freedom Fighters, Belgrade, 1982
7. Antisemitism in the anti-fascist Holocaust: a collection of works, The Jewish Center, Zagreb, 1996.
8. The Jasenovac Concentration Camp, by Antun Miletic, Volumes One and Two, Belgrade, 1986. Volume Three, Belgrade, 1987. Second edition, 1993.
9. Hell's Torture Chamber by Djordje Milica, Zagreb, 1945.
Anyone got those books to find the exact page numbers where srbosjek is mentioned? These books are used as sources for a site talking about srbosjek so they do include references, but we need page numbers. Stop The Lies 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
Comment Trace back to the original sources that these books cite - I think you'll find it stems from the same tainted Yugoslav government of the time. Citing references that self-reference each other is unreliable. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming that you own each of these books and have checked every single reference used in them? Either that, or you claim that a reliable source referring to a srbosjek does not exist, anywhere. Both of these claims, are simply absurd (since I strongly doubt you own each of these books, if any, and also, you cannot possibly have come across all of the sources in existance referring to the srbosjek), and therefore, I suggest you refrain from making such illogical claims. Thank you. :) Stop The Lies 05:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
Let me spell it out for you:
  • If a number of different sources cross-reference each other, but are traced to the same origin i.e. one of the parties to the conflict, then thats a POV issue;
Yep :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
  • I have checked the Holocaust museum reference, & it is sourced from Yugoslavia - a combatant against the Croat state of the time;
Yes, Yugoslavia did fight the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies And prior to that the democratically elected government & people of Croatia in the first Yugoslavia, and after that again in the 1990's as the second Yugoslavia fell apart. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of NPOV, the sources of these other sources need to be traced back b/c if it comes from the same source, because it is well known technique of the then Yugoslav secretpolice to disseminate propaganda, and then through a process of constant re-referencing & re-quoting, it becomes legitimised by repetition - the if you say it ofetn enough then it's true phenomenon. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more sources are needed for the usage/purpose/appearance etc. of the tool, only for the name. If you could provide some, that would be great. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
Non-Yugoslav sources (that do not in turn reference Yugoslav sources) are needed to corroborate the Yugoslav sources. This is because, as it has been pointed out, one side in a conflict will tend to portray the other side as bestial. iruka
You are voting for "keep" and at the same time acknowledging the lack of sources?? How does that work? Its not that the "Serbs" are a not reliable source, its the fact that we as of now dont have any third party aknowledging the authenticity of this word "Srbosjek" like we have for the genocide in Jasenovac. The Serbs and Croatians were engaged in a war and decades of mutual nationalistic hatred, and there was a _LOT_ of propaganda going on between them, so without third party review of the information (like for example, the books you cited) you just cant take it as a "proven fact" for an international encyclopedia. So how can you vote to "Keep" an article called "Srbosjek" when neither of your two pages mentioned above actually mentiones the word at all? I think its pretty clear what was happening at Jasenovac, and who was Petar Brzica, but evidence is also needed for the word and article title itself. When the references only mention that the Jasenovac-knife was named "graviso", why should the article stay as "Srbosjek"? Thats the missing part. Linking more and more sites dealing with the atrocitiese at Jasenovac is useless, when they dont identify the knife as "Srbosjek". Thanks, -- Rhun 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say sources don't exist. I said there is a 'lack' of sources, also known as an 'insufficient' amount, aka: NOT ENOUGH, not 'not any at all'. And to add to that, most people believe there is a lack of sources because the sources are 'Yugoslavian' or 'Serbian' and therefore, considered unreliable (you yourself are an example of this, as you claim that two sources -serbian and croat- are unreliable and not sufficient, when we all know if the American gov't issued a statement, it would be accepted as truth almost immediately). The word need not be mentioned, when the picture, which is clearly identified by two entire peoples as the 'srbosjek' is included in the source. In addition, I have come across the term (along with a photo reference) in books, which I unfortunately do not have in my possession any longer so I cannot provide their names or find the page numbers to provide an exact reference, therefore, the references DO exist out there, there is no doubt about it. This is why I vote for keep. Please read more carefully, thanks :) Stop The Lies 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
It is common practice with two war parties accusing each other of wartime atrocities to exaggregate the opponent's crimes and to hush up the own ones. The US itself does this all the time (genie weapons of mass destruction, kuwait babies torn from their incubators, concentration camps in kosovo, and so on), so I would take any of the news issued from the white house regarding someone theyre preparing a war on with a grain of salt. The same way I wouldnt trust any serbian or croatian accusing the opponent of some atrocity without _anybody_ neutral to this conflict verifying this. Example Jasenovac: the estimations on the number of victims go from 50.000 (croatian number) up to 600.000 (serbian number). Its fairly likely that the truth lies there in between, and that both sides try to fake the numbers in their "favor" still today and therefore are not to be trusted. So I acknowledge third party (like the USHMM) pictures of the knife, and a description of its usage as reliable, but wouldnt take the serbian-only sources as facts, when in this 60 years since the WW2 _NOBODY_ not even the jewish holocaust organisations cared to verify those sources. Thankfully, as you see, we have now gathered almost complete information about the knife, its usage, Brzica, but still lack _verification_ of the name. Its not enough having _one_ war party accusing the other side of war crimes, and writing books about it, you also need a third, neutral and unbiased party verifying those. Its a basic scientific principle. Hypothesis leading to third party verification. So it would be nice having someone verify that this glove knife was actually called srbosjek there in Jasenovac, and that it isnt a common croat or serb word made up earlier or later and used for any type of knife, so having "entire two people" claiming they reckognize it from somwhere, but not being able to back it up, is, like you said, not enough. Greetings, -- Rhun 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I am glad all this information has been found, thank you for all of your help. Now the article can be saved. There is no basis for a deletion of an entire article due to a dispute over its name. Many articles have their names disputed, but it would be absurd to delete them entirely for that reason. Therefore, the article can only result in keep. So, it appears there is a dispute regarding the name of the knife, but not its usage. Its usage was clear: to cut Serbs. Therefore, if 'Srbosjek' is a disputed term, perhaps some names for the article might be 'Ustasa Knife', 'WWII Ustasa Knife', 'Knife-formerly-known-as-srbosjek", OR we can simply call it 'The WWII Knife used to Cut Serbs' (referring to its use), in which case, we might as well call it 'Serb-cutter', or better yet, stick with the original, 'Srbosjek'. Anyone have any ideas for names, which I have not mentioned? Stop The Lies 08:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
Given the gulf b/w what the sources say & what was written, then deletion of the article seems warranted. Also scrutiny of any purported sources is required since the srbosjek has the hall marks of propaganda, and given the sources to date come from a opposing side in a war. I can't help but notice that most comments on here claim the Srbosjek as a reality by virtue of anecdotal or faith factors, but very few reliable sources have been provided. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"hall marks of propaganda"??? The only way you can claim that the srbosjek has ONE "hallmark" of propaganda is in its name. Which may or may not be true. We were not there when the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were killed at Jasenovac with the tool, so we cannot say if the term was coined AT THE TIME it was used, or later. Other than that, you have no argument. Please contribute to Wikipedia by providing what you think is an appropriate name for the tool, given the sources. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
You mean Serbs, Jews, Gypsies & Croats who were killed at Jasenovac. There is no evidence of a specific knife designed for killing concentration camp inmates. It's on the propaganda radar b/c it is as ridiculous as if someone was to claim that Srebrenica's Muslim victims were killed by a specially designed gun called something obscure. And you would not doubt be going, but it's a gun. Likewise with this alleged knife - some victims were killed by a bullet, others by a knife, other yet again by a mallet, then others were worked to death or were allowed to starved and others hanged. Incidently, questioning the notion of the Srbosjek doesn't diminish the suffereing or existence the victims in those camps. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There IS doubt or there ISN'T doubt? Judging by what you said later "the article most certainly should not be deleted", I am guessing you meant, there 'isn't' doubt.
Yes that is what I meant -- I have corrected my post, thank you. // Laughing Man 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: User:Marinko (also known as 'iruka') I will do my best to refrain from answering your replies, consider this a reply to everything you have just said and will in the future. You almost blamed me for trolling, yet it is you who is trolling. You blamed me for ignoring your arguments in my replies, which I didn't, when it is you who ignores my arguments in your replies (again and again), and goes off on a tangent to argue something very irrelevant to this talk page. And it seems one of your MAIN arguments is that MYTHS WERE CREATED, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE A MYTH AS WELL... Great argument, my friend! Wait no.. not really, you're sounding a lot like Descartes (when he determined the only truth is he thinks therefore he exists). Also, something so simple, where you mentioned that during WWII Yugoslavia fought Croatia, I agreed with you 100%, but since I mentioned that Croatia was at the time a Nazi puppet state, this was obviously not to your liking, so you decided to add that Yugoslavia fought against Croatia at other times, when Croatia was not a Nazi state (which is arguable), when you had ALREADY MADE THAT CLAIM, and I did not argue it there! This shows a personal bias, and that your arguments should be read very cautiously by other users. Stop The Lies 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehfuz language[edit]

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

I have not been able to find anything to corroborate its existence here. Perhaps someone else can Rmky87 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? There's nothing which seems to link this likely hoax article to Israel or the Arabs who live there. Argyriou (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • assuming 'Palastinian-Baharistan' has nothing to do with the former british mandate have removed it. re 'punjab' have added to indian  ⇒ bsnowball  10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find a listing at http://www.ethnologue.com/ which is where I would expect to find an article on almost any language. Could it be an argot or something other than a separate language? But in the absence of ghits, I have to !vote delete. --Eastmain 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense, on stilts. Argyriou (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Angr 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Glad to learn that "The girls and women were stated as one of the rare combine of mixed beauty and rich divine features," though this observation seems to confirm that this article doesn't really have a proper subject to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. The puppetry is annoying, but the Keep argument is still the stronger. Herostratus 07:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vincent Black Shadow[edit]

The Vincent Black Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC, as there's no indication that their release is notable, and their record label is itself of very questionable notability (and even if sufficiently notable, cannot be said to be a major label by any means). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Performed on all 50 Warped Tour dates; also toured in Germany. Was Fuse TV's #1 video over Panic at the Disco, Timberlake, and others (not sure if this is significant enough). Lead singer hosted presented award/hosted Fuse TV's Chainsaw Awards (once again not sure is significant enough). --piff133 02:41, 17 January 2007

KEEP Watching their music video right now on MTV Hits, which is also available on the DVD for the horror film Feast. I'd say that's notable enough. --User:pogonrudie 3:48, January 17th, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.243.254 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep Seems like a notable band by reading the article and by reading the above comments. semper fi — Moe 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it affect your vote that piff133's only two edits are to this AfD discussion and that 63.199.243.254 forged a signature from pogonrudie? --Nlu (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Despite the fact that either:
1) Piff133's only edits to Wikipedia is this AFD
2) 63.199.243.254 "forged" a signature (I doubt he tried to forge it, he was probably logged out and commented under his IP)
3) Or that Piff1333 and Pogonrudie/63.199.243.254 may be the same user. Either way, I still think the band deserves an article.
But I do suggest that we slap a ((expand)) template on it so that people interested will cleanup an expand what we do have. Some of the comments above make it seem like we are possibly missing information on this band that may be worth noting. If you like, whenever I get the chance, I will try to work on it myself. semper fi — Moe 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:V although I don't appreciate the apparent sockpuppetry above. Note the all caps. House of Scandal 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will redirect to Religious perspectives on Jesus. --Coredesat 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Christian views of Jesus[edit]

Non-Christian views of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is wikipedia, not wikiquote. Furthermore, the topic of this article is clearly covered in Religious perspectives on Jesus and Jesus and history. There was no reason to create this spinout article, and no prior discussion. Furthermore, it is extremely POV. Every quote is a puff piece about Jesus. Is it really representative of the non_Christian view of Jesus? Andrew c 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral We have "Non-Islamic views of Muhammad". The neutrality problem can be dealt with. But it might be better to move this to wikiquote. --Aminz 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote, this is merely a collection of quotations, with a single bland introductory phrase. Not even a bare-bones article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Religious perspectives on Jesus - non-Christian views are already covered and several of them have their own article. --BigDT 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Sophia 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good idea, but topic is already covered under Religious perspectives on Jesus - redirect there, wikiquote the content. Pastordavid 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Should be kept, but irrelevant in wikipedia. Put into wikiquote ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is also an article Christian views of Jesus - very POV. It talks about how one group of people views Jesus. You can't have a NPOV article that discusses how people view a topic. The Christian POV (view) of Jesus is very different from the Jewish POV (view) of him. With expansion, the Non-Christian views of Jesus can be made into a good article. Goalie1998 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - just because we do not have another article by this title does not mean we do not have this content. The Religious views article covers the Christian and many non-Christian POVs. Then we have the series on Jesus and History which covers the scholarly/historian/secular POV. I believe because of existing content, there is no need for this specific spinout article. Furthermore, look and read the current article. If we transwikified the quotes to wikiquote, what would we be left with? And do the quotes actually represent tha various non-Christian POVs on Jesus? Or just selected quotes of non-Chrsitians saying good things about him? The reason why I am commenting is in reply to your post at Talk:Jesus. I wanted to keep all the discussion centralized. Sorry if I am repeating myself.-Andrew c 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize now that I wasn't being clear at all before. There should be an article "Non-Christian views of Jesus." But I do believe what is currently in the article does not belong. My point by bringing up the Christian Views of Jesus was to show that most of the content in that article is covered in other articles as well, but we still have it to organize it into one article. I believe that we can do the same with "Non-Christian views of Jesus." Goalie1998 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect/transwiki as above. One POV fork does not justify another. Grover cleveland 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above: POV fork; We already have the Jesus and history which links to several different viewpoints, many discussed already in Historical Jesus, as well as Religious perspectives on Jesus, linking to many religious views. There's no need to separate it like this. —Aiden 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Beit Or 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game music (Capcom)[edit]

Video game music (Capcom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Violated WP:OR. No citations for something that has to be. Hardly any activity on it in months. Also an orphan. NMajdan•talk 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I feel this information passes WP:V (information like the number of tracks and the publisher can be verified from the primary source) and that it is not OR, but this is a badly organized and incomplete and broken list which is probably not of any use. — brighterorange (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Brighterorgange Madmedea 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list of no real use Avalon 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with the List of video game music articles that were nominated for deletion, there's no real point in creating a music database on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Herostratus 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of the Supernatural[edit]

Atlas of the Supernatural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails both WP:N in general and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books). Tried ((prod)), contested by Cimon Avaro with the edit summary "exsqueeze me, it even gives the ISBN." Having an ISBN number doesn't make it notable... Google does not help its case: it is for sale here and there but no reviews or anything. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The nominator says it all. CiaranG 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... Addhoc 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Ares[edit]

The Legend of Ares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT as the entire article reads like a how-to for the video game. Article should be deleted and completely rewritten. NMajdan•talk 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that everything below the introduction needs to go. I'm willing to spend some time re-writing this. In fact, I'd just finished wikifying the introduction as you tagged for deletion :) I'm very new to the wiki, so I'm not sure how the deletion process works, but I'm happy to edit the existing article to make it encyclopedic, rather than delete Superfurrycannibal 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial delete. Agree with Superfurrycannibal - introduction should be retained as a stub and the rest deleted. Madmedea 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is actually a "keep" opinion, given that it does not anywhere involve an administrator hitting the delete button. If you want an article edited, be bold and edit it! Uncle G 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial delete per previous entries.Itsmejudith 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag for "this article should be completely rewritten" is ((cleanup-rewrite)), not ((afd1)). AFD is not cleanup, and rewriting is a matter of cleanup. Please only nominate articles for deletion where an administrator hitting a delete button is the only solution to the problem. Uncle G 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like it's notable to me, just needs sourcing and drastically cleaning up - no reason for an AfD. CiaranG 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs massive cleanup. Also, AfD is not for cleanup. --Alan Au 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AfD is not cleanup! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teltron Tube[edit]

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

A search on Google turns up 304 hits on this product, though it omits all but 90-odd; of these, several are Wikipedia mirrors, the rest being sales of some sort. The rest of the links are generally tangential mentions, largely to do with courses and the sort; in short, it doesn't appear to be notable. --Talon Artaine (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a type of scientific apparatus that is widely used. This article could use a good rewrite, but it will remain essentially a short article. I don't know what the standard for notability of scientific apparatus is, but I would expect that wide usage in schools would contribute significantly to notability. --Bejnar 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although its only current purpose is for education, it has had some historical significance and should be kept. It could possibly be merged with some other article, unless someone feels like rewriting it. HymylyT@C 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep though it was not unreasonable to propose this for AfD. I accept Bejnar & Hymyly's knowledge about the wide use, but it should have been said in the article. DGG 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request (trying to blank the page) and per WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 05:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Paranormal Reporting Center[edit]

Worldwide Paranormal Reporting Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

According to the removed prod, "Not notable - no alexa ranking, only relevant hit is the myspace page, has only been around since summer 2006, and as article says, this page is "trying to market its existence" FisherQueen (Talk) 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not a search engine, WWPRC is an online database archiving paranormal activity throughout the world, it can't be in Wikipedia because it is not high enough in the alexa ranking?? It doesn't matter how long it has been around, people wants to report paranormal activities and they want to know what WWPRC is and as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should provide the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studgate (talk • contribs)
  • An online reporting center needs people to report things, why they should not want to market their existence???, if nobody reports, there is no reporting. This is not even the point, youtube is only 1 year old but nobody says anything about how old are they, why??? don't know but it is a shame to delete an article about an online database reporting paranormal activities... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studgate (talk • contribs)
  • Delete If it were notable, the article would need a complete rewrite to remove the appallingly unencyclopedic level of POV, puffery, we this and our that. But it isn't. CiaranG 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their so called website is a form, they use MySpace, which is a mark against any self-respecting organization, the article uses first person, four Google hits. Spam. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it not be appropriate to speedy this per A7 and/or WP:SNOW? The author has now attempted to blank the article, but been reverted by a bot. CiaranG 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like advertising. CSD:G11? Too many "Ours" and "you" in it for comfort. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been included in the WP:PARA AFD noticeboard ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HW2: Pirates Mod[edit]

HW2: Pirates Mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Self nomination Fails WP:NN. Article is about a mod for the computer game Homeworld 2, and doesn't state importance. Tuxide 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor gun[edit]

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

This seems to be an extremely uncommon phrase. I can find no google result that is not derived from WP. There's a reference on the talk page to a use in a discussion forum. That seems to be it. Extremely rare slang, doesn't seem up to WP standards. Wehwalt 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No sources (so fails WP:V) and a google search provides 1200 results and nothing relevant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable neologism, definite regional interest, and failure of WP:V. --Dennisthe2 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topic is too specialized for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It is a slang term that is easily verifiable as it is widely used in significant parts of the the firearms community in the US, especially among the blogging part of the firearms community, but which hasn't become notable outside this rather narrow use. Topic thus currently fails the general notability criteria for WP. Yaf 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Strong keep. It is a common term on many gun mailing lists that are not simply of regional interest. Is Wikipedia only a free rendition of a semi-commercial encyclopedia, or should it be more powerful than this, capturing a wider, more pithy range of expressions, argot, and jargon, in addition to capturing more widely spread slang terminologies? If we are only duplicating the Encyclopedia Britannica, or wish to censure the content of Wikipedia, then clearly doctor gun doesn't belong in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if we are capturing the admittedly more fringe elements of society, with their rich argot, then there is value in capturing "doctor gun" as well. We have an opportunity to be much more powerful than commercial encyclopedias, if we so choose. Wikipedia is also not supposed to be censured. As for citing a google or yahoo search, as google and yahoo routinely censure many topics dealing with firearms, using such a search is often not an accurate indication of usage of many firearm terms. However, if one does a blog search, one can see there are moderately common usages of the term. Unfortunately, none of them can be cited here because their URLs automagically trigger the blacklisted spam filter and are auto-blocked on Wikipedia. Yaf 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Yaf originated the article and did a majority of the edits.--Wehwalt 12:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yaf, I do appreciate the correction in the regional bit, but my !vote still stands. I encourage you to change our minds, but keep in mind that there must be notability that reaches outside of the focus (firearms, in this case), and verifiability per the terms on that link. Semi important: it shouldn't read like a dictionary entry, insightful (and well written) though it may be. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is completely unverified and the search for sources doesn't look good. Also, Yaf, if you think this is worth keeping then by all means, please provide relevant sources that prove this. All articles must show notability and be verifiable, this topic doesn't seem to do either. This is not a place to discuss whether or not these policies are good ones. --The Way 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As blogs are not considered a viable source and are blocked on WP from being inserted even in comments such as here, verifiability is not possible to prove for citing common usage in firearms blogs due to their URLs being considered blacklisted and hence blocked by the edit verification protections in place on WP. This topic is not verifiable by the current rules enforced on WP. (This is not an advocacy for changing or keeping these rules, incidentally.) Yaf 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon actors[edit]

List of Nickelodeon actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Pure indiscriminate listcruft. Creating a channel's entire list of actors is almost unlimited and unmaintainable. Would be better as a category. -- Wikipedical 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make into Category. & no category SkierRMH,19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not categorize. Actor by network is bad precedent. Otto4711 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no cat. The list's definition is way too indiscriminate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT categorize I'm not sure about the list, but I know this would be deleted as a category. Similar categories have been routinely deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dugwiki (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (video game)[edit]

Rather minor game as far as I can tell, little information on the page or links from other pages. CyberGhostface 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to be a real game, and since it was actually released commercially, it's notable enough and information can likely be found to expand the article. Needs cleanup and expansion though. Yes, the site says it's rare and almost forgotten, but that's enough. And just because the article only has little information or incoming links is not a reason as such to delete the article... if the subject is notable, the article can be expanded. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've substantially rewritten the page, adding several references. This game has a significant place in videogame history as one of the first truly violent games, as well as notability now among the large community of Atari 2600 collectors as a sought-after rarity. Pinball22 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Herostratus 07:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' South[edit]

Lil' South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No reliable sources and vanity issues. Fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have founded a successful record label which cannot be reliably found on Google[56]. Artist's full name gets zero ghits[57]. Wikipedia is not MySpace -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely non-notable in every way possible. Only claim to fame appears to be the inability to carry mixtapes around without dropping them. CiaranG 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm surprised this wasn't ((db-band))'d - does not come within a mile of the somewhat inclusive WP:MUSIC guideline. No sources, no possibility of ever finding sources without interviewing the man himself and his nearest and dearest (but that's a no-no: WP:NOR), so fails WP:V. When newspapers and magazines and major websites start writing about Get-Wit-it-South, then we can have an article on Mr Kirkland. Until then, his autobiography should remain on MySpace. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient argument made for notability. on top of which at least half the material is pasted from a web site. Herostratus 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah W. Flake[edit]

Elijah W. Flake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not every Civil War soldier is encyclopedic. This article, proffered by an apparent relative, is a doubtful case regarding notability at best. His service is unexceptional; his (I assume) prominent relative doesn't make him notable. The only thing that even brings him close to notability is that he dictated his experiences of the Monitor/Merrimac battle, and that account doesn't seem greatly relied on by historians. I found it on a long list of references about the Monitor. Wehwalt 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Someone who wrote a first hand history of one of the most important 19th century naval battles 52 years after the event might be expected to be a cited source in histories of the first battle between ironclads, so I am surprised to find few Google hits and no cites in the Proquest database of publications or in Google Scholar. He is apparently mentioned on p. 103 of "Covered with Glory: The 26th North Carolina Infantry at the Battle of Gettysburg (Paperback) by Rod Gragg," per Amazon.com. Edison 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not surprising. If Flake didn't have a post which allowed him to observe much, his pamphlet probably wouldn't have been too informative. And his memory likely had faded in 52 years.--Wehwalt 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hundreds of people served on the Virginia, and many veterans wrote pamphlets (most distributed locally). Being present at a famous battle isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the keep argument does not address the concern provided by the nominator from a policy or guideline standpoint. --Coredesat 08:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Gigler[edit]

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

This article meets no notability criteria, does not cite sources, focuses on trivial information, and was quite likely created for self-promotion by User:Dr_dom. Ctu2485 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject does not meet notability standards and the case could be made that, indeed, notability isn't even asserted. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would agree that notability is not asserted. Dar-Ape 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dominik's primary interest on "our environment and how it shapes the human," which he explores through a unique and compelling style of portrait and documentary photography meets his Bio.DoDoBirds 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and for the curious, DoDoBirds comment is posted from here . Static Universe 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. The raw vote totals are 4 Delete, 2 Keep, 6 Merge, with two Keep or Merge. Since I don't want to merge the article (see below), I'll use the discretion granted by the latter two and count those as Keep, giving 4-4-6 as the Delete-Keep-Merge totals. There is clearly no numberical consensus to delete, and the Delete arguments are not made strongly, mostly being variations of "per nom", although the nominator does make a good case.

As to merging: first of all, some of the Merge votes are "merge with something", which hardly really counts; the merge target seemed to eventually focus on Windows XP. I don't see this as a good merge target, at all. If this material doesn't deserve its own article, how does it deserve pride of place in an important article such as Windows XP. Merging it into that article would be a significant promotion of the material, and I don't think that all of the Merge commentors thought that through. Further, Windows XP is an important article that potentially contains or could contain a lot of important material, yet has to be kept down to size. Merging in this material would potentially force the removal (or the non-addition) of more important material. The material could perhaps be severely redacted before the merge, but it's not clear to me how to do this, what material could be deleted; it all seems of more or less equal importance. This could be a failure of imagination on my part. Anyway, I don't see Merge as a good result.

On the other hand, I don't want to wimp out with a No Consensus. Ten of fourteen commentors thought that the masterial should be retained in some fashion, and that, along with no great weakness of arguments, leads to a Keep result. Herostratus 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FCKGW[edit]

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

Article about a CD key once used for pirated copies of Microsoft Windows. Previously kept as no consensus. If there's notability here, it's lost on me. It used to be, before Microsoft started cracking down on such things that you could search for serialz or warez and find your heart's content of CD keys for Windows - so I'm not sure why this one really matters. You probably still can for other things. The only source is from a warez website, so that's not exactly reliable. BigDT 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Information is accurate and of historical value. H264 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is neither encyclopedic nor notable. Soltak | Talk 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge into... something - While the exact term "FCKGW" was not covered in the media directly (probably for legal reasons) the fact that a copy of Windows XP was pirated more than a month before its official release was. This article would probably work best as a section of an article on Windows piracy, or Microsoft PR nightmares, or something along those lines; while it is a notable event, it is probably not notable enough for its own article. As to the notability of "FCKGW" specifically, Microsoft specifically banned any serial keys containing that string for all their products, even Office. It may be hard to verify, but the act has promoted "FCKGW" to notable status in many circles. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see obvious reasons FCKGW would be banned as being part of a key having nothing to do with piracy (fill in the missing letter U, as appropriate). But is that really a notable event? Everyone has blacklists and I'm sure Microsoft has other strings that they blacklist from being in their product keys as well. As for the piracy ... in my college days, having a copy of a program before it was released was nothing. Guys on my hall played Age of Empires for a month or so before it came out. (Obviously, now, I have different values and opinions than I did at the time.) I don't know ... maybe it's a minor internet meme or something ... but it just sounds like a warez group wanting to promote itself. --BigDT 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time it was definitely notable, as it affected numerous other pieces of software that (arguably) had not been pirated with that key. As far as being a warez group promoting itself, that would be unnecessary, given that the group received all the attention it could ever want via media coverage of the initial piracy incident. "FCKGW" was just the most memorable part of the key they used. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are probably three unique sentences here that aren't in other articles. Being released early wasn't anything notable. Microsoft has a six week lag from RTM to Retail. All the beta testers - public and private (few hundred thousand), plus every Microsoft employee/contractor/vendor (about 200,000 people), so having a copy of XP before it was "released" was pretty boring. The only notable thing was that this key was a volume license. Big woop. SchmuckyTheCat 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more than just beta testers ... I've had Vista installed on a test box for six months because we have an MSDN subscription. Anyone on the planet with $1500 or whatever it runs can get MSDN. --BigDT 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. What next, serialz for Photoshop? Office? Flyingtoaster1337 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into something. I think it is significant enough. --Ihmhi 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but not delete. I personally found this page helpful and have actually come across this on occasion before finding it on Wikipedia i.e. significant. Merge it to Windows XP or soemthing. Big ups to the hacker who did this. --Hollerbackgril 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Intresting enough to warrent mentions but not all together too important since the key is now defunct with current versions of Windows XP Jamesbuc
  • Merge. Very informative; what happened to the pic of the guy holding up the fckgw disk? --frothT 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've noticed a lot of merge votes but no further specifics. Merge into what? Soltak | Talk 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seen it referenced enough on other websites like digg and slashdot to warrant a page about. 71.34.10.45 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Are anon users permitted to vote in afd? If so I'll log out and make thirty or so delete entries. ;-) Soltak | Talk 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go right ahead and do that, you'll see what happens ;-). also I said to merge into Windows XP article, you seem to have ignored me.--Hollerbackgril 04:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I missed that one. Stupid comment withdrawn. Soltak | Talk 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - While I believe that this should not be a stand-alone article, I do believe it should be kept. Perhaps merge with Windows_xp. I think this article has enough merit to keep, but a blurb about a specific CD Key for Windows XP should belong within the main article. Perhaps under a heading for "Windows XP Release". If anyone has a better suggestion on where to merge this, please speak up. Commodorepants 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The place to merge it is volume license key. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - it is part of the history of license keys, windows, xp, activation, etc. Pck (pun intended) one and merge it in somewhere. Should probably also be added to some list of 5 letter combinations. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Windows XP#Product activation. Pomte 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosier[edit]

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

Musician's autobigraphy. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete unless sources can be found to show his Notability RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tried to find some independent evidence of notability. Couldn't. CiaranG 11:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smarandache-Wellin number[edit]

Smarandache-Wellin number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable and mathematically trivial concept. All sources are links to sites such as PlanetMath, MathWorld, etc, with similar depth of content to the article itself; Smarandache's own work on the subject is self-published and no papers referring to this concept can be found on MathSciNet or Google Scholar. —David Eppstein 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination.--CSTAR 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in multiple secondary sources (MathWorld, PlanetMath, OEIS etc.). Lack of references in academic papers/journals is not sufficient grounds for deletion if other secondary sources exist. Neither is mathematical triviality - mathematically trivial concepts may still be encyclopaedic e.g. casting out nines. Gandalf61 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with that is that those sources (OEIS in particular) aren't discriminating. It'd be like claiming someone was notable based on being in three different phone books. Any academic topic that is anything like notable will have a dozen articles in journals--they've a very low standard for entry, really. It's true that lack of journal articles doesn't automatically disqualify something--but it's a good indicator that the thing isn't notable, in the absence of news stories or books on the subject. --Sopoforic 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a groundbreaking theory, but still sourced and may be interesting to some people.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Copeland–Erdős constant. OEIS accepts almost everything with little or no editing, but not MathWorld and Prime Pages. There is also a reference (I haven't checked it) to a book by Carl Pomerance. Enough references to deserve mention for a math topic but doesn't need its own article. PrimeHunter 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one reference in the Crandall–Pomerance book, in a long list of "research problems", on pages 75–82. Problem 1.86 is: "Study the Smarandache–Wellin numbers, being ...".  --LambiamTalk 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Although the OEIS does accept a lot these days, notice that the sequence of Smarandache-Wellin numbers has a relatively low A-number, and that the entry has five paper references, five Web links, and Mathematica and PARI programs.
    Comment. It does not have "five paper references". It has three. One additional item is the Pomerance item mentioned above; another is Smarandache's own collected works;. Of the three other references, two are to the "Smarandache Notions Journal", which is published by Smarandache. The last is from Abstracts of the American Mathematical society, which means that the paper was not published, but that the author wished to announce his result. Such abstracts are brief summaries of paper content; some, but not all of the papers were presented at AMS annual or sectional meetings. -- Dominus 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Of the five web links, two are to Wolfram Mathworld and three are to Smarandache's web site, including one link to his own collected works and one to the on-line version of the "Smarandache Notions Journal" I mentioned above. -- Dominus 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. What if Smarandache is a Ramanujan who hasn't found his Hardy? And do we also have a low opinion of Kaprekar, who concerned himself mostly with base-specific concepts? Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:And, incidentally, having the programs means nothing except that someone bothered to write up the code for the series; I've submitted code for several sequences myself. --Sopoforic 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per what Gandalf61 and Ioannes Pragensis have said. PrimeFan 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. -- Dominus 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's true that not everything that ends up in the OEIS might be encyclopaedic (although I can't say with certainy either way), but I think that these definitely are. They're mentioned in a mathematical textbook, they're listed at Weisstein's site (Mathworld), and they're discussed on other websites; of course they're not as important a concept as, say, Hilbert spaces, but the claim that the concept is "non-notable and mathematically trivial" is simply and obviously wrong. Furthermore, I think we'd do well to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia: we can afford to have entries even on relatively obscure topics, so long as they're important in *some* way, and these certainly are. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think that these are important? What about the subject makes it notable? Because despite the length of your comment, all I can tell from it about your opinion of the specific page under AfD is that you disagree with the nomination. —David Eppstein 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The deletion nominator, David Eppstein, has done excellent work on improving the articles on Sylvester's sequence and related topics. If I ever had to vote on something knowing only his position, I would vote the same as him. Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this was a paper encyclopedia of general knowledge, I'd have to vote delete. But if this was a paper encyclopedia of mathematics, I'd have to vote keep. As it happens, there is a paper encyclopedia of mathematics that has an entry on Smarandache-Wellin numbers, the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, the paper forerunner to Mathworld. My opinion is that if it is good enough for a paper encyclopedia of mathematics, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The author of that encyclopedia, Eric W. Weisstein, has personally searched large primes among these numbers. [58][59] (This adds to notability in my opinion) PrimeHunter 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have a copy of that paper encyclopedia, and it doesn't actually have a separate entry for Smarandache-Wellin number. The concept, however, with a reference to the OEIS listing, is mentioned at the entries on Consecutive Number Sequence, Copeland-Erdos Constant and Smarandache Sequences. CompositeFan 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept of the article is hardly useful or interesting, and we know well who it is named after, but as far as Wikipedia notability standards go, I would think the article is notable enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Who's Wellin?--CSTAR 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul R. Wellin at Wolfram Research.[60]  --LambiamTalk 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was assuming Paul Wellin too, because of the Weisstein connection, but I couldn't find a source that confirmed this. Gandalf61 09:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry I've been away, but in my absence, otehrs have done for this article what I wanted to do when I first learned of this deltion debate. Numerao 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a test case for Wikipedia:Notability (science) when Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is surely a more relevant guideline for this AfD ? (answered at trialsanderrors talk page) Gandalf61 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On its own it seemed at first a trivial concept, but the notion of S-W numbers that are themselves prime is intruiging and there are some interesting refs which I'll add if they aren't there already NBeale 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination --Drieux 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Sacco[edit]

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

Hoax. A quick glance at Sport Club Corinthians Paulista#Current Squad 2007 for the sake of argument has no such player listed. Google search gets 32 hits, all from WP forks. Fvasconcellos 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless someone has some reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing I could find to prove his existence. Qwghlm 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be proved he plays under a different "Brazilian-style" name - certainly there's no player listed here with a name resembling his..... ChrisTheDude 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hoax: nothing can be found to prove this guy's existence. --SunStar Nettalk 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player unlisted at Sport Club Corinthians Paulista official site. --Bob 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's actually listed by the same author in June 1#Births as being born in 1988, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's playing for a Corinthians junior team :). In any case, not notable. --Park70 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Angelo 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy G11 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zlinternational[edit]

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

This is a non notable web site. Fails WP:WEB. By its own admission it was recently created and the goal now is to get publicity. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia WP:NOT. Prod dropped by author. Obina 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7 (db-web). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to find a contractor[edit]

How to find a contractor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I commend User:Construction Deal on such a well-written article, but wikipedia simply isn't the place for it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki - perhaps Wikibooks or Wikisource? Not sure which one this should go to. Worth keeping per nom, no doubt, but not here. --Dennisthe2 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/recommend WikiHow to author Probably not suitable for Wikibooks or Wikisource. WikiHow is much more appropriate, but its not a Wikimedia project and uses a different licensing scheme (so transwiki is probably not possible). Bwithh 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that, if the author hasn't done so already, I'd propose that it be kept nonetheless until it's transferred to WikiHow, with the ((db-transwiki)) speedy tag placed when that's completed. Yeah, it's not a strict transwiki, but close enough. --Dennisthe2 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not of any real use, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. I suggest that you should search the Yellow Pages (that's what Yellow Pages is for) and no need for such guides. Terence Ong 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a bad contractor can bankrupt you. There is a need for such guides... wikipedia just isn't the place. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe I can come up with a way to re-write it. Make it less of a How-To guide. Any suggestions would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Construction Deal (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    We might be able to merge some of it into contractor... Hmmm but I really do thing it should be uploaded to http://www.wikihow.com/About-wikiHow. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like JS' idea, but if anything, I suppose linking from contractor to an article (if it doesn't yet exist) on Wikihow would definitely be the way to go. Damn straight we need this, at any rate - so no doubt you did a beautiful job here. =) At any rate, thanks for the understanding as we go through this. --Dennisthe2 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again - I'll upload to wikihow (still learning all about this) and hopefully I won't have any problems there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Construction Deal (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religiopath[edit]

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

Editors have resisted suggestion to add sources. The article reads like OR and is basically a platform for a (admittedly recently coined) neologism. The NPOV tag has been repeatedly removed and the prod tag was removed. Without sources documenting use, this article is the perfect example of how to fail WP:NEO. janejellyroll 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely original research. Ganfon 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not only OR, but I'm calling WP:COI here. Check edit history on the article. --Dennisthe2 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is a joke. KazakhPol 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article, "Being a recently coined term, it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner." Nuf said. Edison 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not know if it is a joke, or an attempt to make a serious article; I hope not. It is a neologism attracting only 11 unique GHits.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete word that the article itself acknowledges to be a neologism ("Being a recently coined term"), that the article itself acknowledges to lack notability ("it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner"), and that the article itself acknowledges is found only in a source that does not meet the reliable source guidelines ("However, the effects of religiopathy have been discussed on numerous Ezboard message boars starting in November 2006."). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been added noting that it is not an original source. Prior newspaper discussions of the word have been noted. --Leofff 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Leofff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. As a neologism, this is mostly self-explanatory, and inherently PoV. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Updated information would seem to indicate that this article no longer violates the neologism guidelines. It should be modified, but not deleted. - WikAA1 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — WikAA1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources. But it should be modified to remove the POV. - Talkingfish2 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Talkingfish21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources.24.27.7.198
  • Delete - If the word is actually in wide usage (which you couldn't prove by me), it is certainly too new for the kind of analysis (division into "camps" and analysis of the "nature") that this page purports to report on. The fact that the creator of the article ("Leoff") appears also to be author of the only link (& reference) provided on the site makes it seem all the more that this is OR, and possibly advert. Pastordavid 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - no citations merely assertions they exist. Addhoc 12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's my beef on deleting this. It's a real word, independently noted in verifiable sources. It has gained a prominence amongst a certain subset of the internet. It's a term and it means something. It describes a belief that is held amongst a large number of people. Wikipedia has 1.3 or so million entries. On what basis can this be legitimately excluded? madeup 22:03, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)
  • Keep I have substantially modified the article. madeup 23:15, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete for being a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("Copyrights © 2007 Jeffrey Robert Adams All Rights Reserved") non-GFDL web page — the subject's own autobiographyon xyr own web site. Uncle G 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Robert Adams[edit]

Jeffrey Robert Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

If this is the abridged conversion story, I would hate to see the full version. First person autobiography / sermon. Is he notable enough even to retain the first paragraph? -- RHaworth 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would answer the question "no" and delete. Blendedfolk is simply not notable and its founder isn't either; I don't see anything that places him in a different class to any other catholic convert. Sam Blacketer 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dilpazier Aslam[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. He was a trainee journalist for The Guardian until he got fired. Big deal. Normally I would suggest merging into Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the page already mentions him and the incident that resulted in his firing. Few remember his 15 minutes of fame. KazakhPol 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. KazakhPol has nominated this for deletion because he tried and failed to have Category:Terrorism in Britain added to the page. He is on a mission to call people associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group, "terrorists," although the group has no known links to terrorism. Aslam was fired by The Guardian over his membership of the group because it is regarded as antisemitic, not because it's involved in terrorism. K-Pol has been disrupting Hizb ut-Tahrir for some time, routinely calling editors who disagree with him "liars" and "vandals," and this nom is part of the same pattern of disruption. Aslam's case is a significant one. A major newspaper firing a journalist because of the political party he belongs was an issue that made the news in the UK at the time, and it is still discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. This nomination has nothing to do with categories. 2. I removed references to HuT as a terrorist organization earlier today. 3. HuT's ties to terrorism are irrelevant to this discussion. 4. If you read The Guardian's statement you will see they said it incited violence against Jews, not just that it was antisemitic. 5. The accusation that I am disrupting HuT is ludicrous. SV needs to distinguish between editing disagreements and disruption. 6. Your last point is the only genuine one, although you have failed to provide diffs that establish notability. KazakhPol 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete KazakhPol may be abusing WP:POINT, if there's stronger proof of this, I may vote for a procedural keep. As for the article itself - a blogstorm in a teacup over a trainee journalist. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or an archive for recording blogosphere story-of-the-weeks. Bwithh 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep effectively losing your job because of your religion, & the type of job & circumstances, will make one notable. just needs one more source to meet 'multiple independent sources'.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His religion? Are you serious? Do you know how many Muslim Britons work for The Guardian? KazakhPol 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; over and above the controversy surrounding his sacking from The Guardian (which has little press coverage outside that paper), his previous receipt of George Viner award from fellow journalists marked notability per WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --bainer (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makbool Javaid[edit]

Closer's notes
All editors in favour of deletion raised BLP issues which were not satisfactorily addressed by those editors in favour of keeping the article. These issues are the reason for deletion. This article is not to be recreated in this form.

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

Not notable. Held an obscure job in the British government, was apparently (falsely?) accused of being a member of Al-Muhajiroun, and got 15 minutes of fame. While I could definitely see articles on ex-HuT leader Zaloom, or the other leaders of HuT and Muhajiroun, Javaid is not notable. KazakhPol 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep If he was in charge of litigation within the Commission for Racial Equality, is this not at least minimal notability?--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify his past position as head of legal at the CRE, the legal department is one of 7 directorates that fall under the oversight of 15 commissioners (which does not include head of legal)[61]. Individual commissioners are listed by name with detailed bios on the CRE site[62], but the head of legal affairs is not listed in this way. I think only the chair of the CRE has any ex officio claim to encyclopedic notability as head of a significant quango. Bwithh 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete under WP:BLP. Checked this on Factiva and this lawyer was falsely accused of having terrorist links in the tabloid Sunday Mirror in 1998. This generated a couple of articles in The Lawyer, a legal industry journal, in which the Javaid denied these allegations. The Times followed up with an article explaining Javaid's defense of himself with the editorial note:"Editorial note: We accept Makbool Javaid's assurances that he does not support and has never had any contact with Osama bin Laden, and that he has never supported or been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind." Couldn't find any other hits beyond these four on this story. It seems that Javaid acted as a civil liberties legal observer of a fundamentalist group which may have subsequently exaggerated their relationship with him for their own credibility. Javaid's position in the race relations forum (which he was given in spite of the "scandal") is not especially notable - there are ~28 other members, and it doesnt seem to be a particularly important government body - it meets every few months to offer advice to the Home Secretary and that seems to be it. I would argue that there is no ex officio encyclopedic notability from being Head of Legal at the Commission for Racial Equality - this is not a particularly high bureaucratic position. Recommend deletion under WP:BLP, to avoid causing Javaid unnecessary embarrassment over a false accusation that caused a minor splash 8+ years ago. Bwithh 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep

Makbool Javaid is a prominent lawyer and an active islamist campaigner, who was a founder of the well known radical islamist group, Al Muhajiroun. He signed a fatwa calling for "the Muslims around the world, including the Muslims in the USA and in Britain, to confront by all means whether verbally, financially, politically or militarily the US and British aggression and to do their Islamic duty in relieving the Iraqi people from the unjust sanctions".

These are matters of public interest, and Makbool Javaid is an important lawyer and islamist political activist. This page should stay.

Al Muhajiroun are admirers of Osama Bin Laden. However, to suggest that he is or was a "supporter" is implicit in his association with that group, and is not of central relevance.

Al Muhajiroun members have been invoved in terrorism. However, Al Muhajiroun is not a terrorist organisation. It is wrong to suggest that a member of Al Muhajiroun is necessarily a supporter of terrorism. What we say about Makbool Javaid's political and religious beliefs should be limited to what is verifiable about him. User:Bukhari please sign your posts

  • Strong delete Bukhari, Please sign your posts. Mr Javaid was not a founder of the group, and was not a member. This article could be considered libel, and as stated before he agreed an out of court settlement in his libel case against the british, mainly tabloid, newspapers. He seems to be a victim of sensationalism, and a desire to attack government quango's by proxy, because he was linked to one. A google group chat forum is not a credible reference as to who signed what over 5 years ago, so there currently is not credible referenced claim that he signed that fatwa. It seems that Al-Muhajiroun got a bit over-zealos in exagerating their link to him, possibly even falsifying their link for their own ends. Aaliyah Stevens 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. (you have already said delete above.--- ALM 13:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)) The so called fatwa signed by this man, is from an unsigned, and unauthenticated message posted by an individual named Gerhard Lange from Germany, in a google chat group. This is not in any way credible evidence according to wikipedia standards of reference, so if you take this acccusation out, and the false accusation that he was a member of al-muhajiroun, this man is a nobody, not a notable. Aaliyah Stevens 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge & redirect. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by height order[edit]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Worthless trivia. Soltak | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the above rationales are entirely subjective, and have no basis in policy. For a basis in policy consider verifiability and original research: The heights of the Presidents of the United States are verifiable from books such as Joseph Nathan Kane; Steven Anzovin; Janet Podell (2001). Facts About the Presidents. Hw Wilson Co. ISBN 0824210077. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), which gives a list of the various physical characteristics (height, weight, hair colour, &c.) of all U.S. Presidents on pages 600 et seq.. It is not original research to collect and arrange the Presidents of the United States by height, since that has been the subject of research such as Paul M. Sommers (January 2002). "Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?". The College Mathematics Journal. 33 (1): 14–16. doi:10.2307/1558973. and Michael A. Day (2001-09-26). "The Presidents by Height and BMI". U. S. Presidents Homework Help.. There is no basis in policy for deleting this article. Keep. Uncle G 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unencyclopedic" is certainly a basis in policy for deleting an article out of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is definitely a basis in policy. Otto4711 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unencyclopaedic" merely asserts that you believe that there is a basis in policy, without saying what that basis actually is. It is not a basis in policy itself. And "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. It is not a catch-all excuse for things that you personally think to be "trivial" and "worthless". Uncle G 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you know, I'm trying to find a nice way to say "this article is a pile of shit" and "trivia" is the best I've come up with. If there is not a specific document here that says "articles in an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic" then perhaps there should be, but to my mind it kinda goes without saying that an encyclopedia article should be encyclopedic and if it's not encyclopedic it has no place here. As for WP:NOT, I've read it, thanks. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" seems like a pretty clear endorsement that things that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia should be deleted. So to sum up, this article is a pile of shit that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...in other words, a list of presidents arranged by order of height is unencyclopedic, trivial and indiscriminate. If having the heights of presidents outside of their own articles is by some stretch of the imagination a worthwhile topic, then List of heights of United States presidential candidates does it much better by actually including the heights of the presidents and their opponents and sourcing the information and the discussion of the "the taller guy wins" meme. Which not only makes this article useless shit but redundant useless shit. Otto4711 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your argument is entirely circular, and without any foundation in policy. According to your argument, the article doesn't belong because it is "unencyclopaedic", but your only definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "I personally think that it's a pile of shit that doesn't belong here.". Wikipedia doesn't employ that as a deletion criterion, for obvious reasons. The correct definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "not in accordance with all of our content policies". You have failed to reference a single one that supports the deletion of this article. (Whereas, in contrast, it can be shown that the content is both verifiable and not original research.) You've quoted one sentence that isn't by itself a reason for deletion, since the very next sentence, which you didn't quote, explains that the actual policy is the list that follows. Once again: Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, and interesting. Good almanac entry. Lists are almanac entries not encyclopedia entries. They just need to be verefiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G's rationale. If there are academic articles (with the caveat that I think such comparisons are about as dubious as the skull measuring of bygone days) on the topic I think notability is established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates. If this article was ever to be completed, a lot of information would be duplicated, and keeping both articles together would also eliminate the existing problem we have now; namely, each article has slightly different heights for some presidents. It should also be noted that 'Homework Help' is not a reliable source for presidential information (it says so on its homepage).--Nydas(Talk) 14:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, as per Uncle G. Terence Ong 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uncle G. Also, the article does make a point about the Presidential height increasing over time so it's not redundant information to the presidential candidates height article which makes a different point. --Canley 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic trivia. If kept, this would set a precedent for all List of <X> by <physical attributes>, X could be celebrities, sportsmen, serial killers, etc. Height is relevant for basketball players, high-jump athletics, etc., but not for most occupations. Verifiable, but this should be outside the scope of wikipedia. --Vsion 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, for obvious reasons, and deleting a verifiable, not original research, article X solely because it might "set a precedent" for article Y is an ill-founded idea. Articles don't set precedents for other articles. Our content and article policies determine what we include. This is an encyclopaedia, not a court. That this list is verifiable and not original research does not imply that "all Lists of <X> by <physical attributes>, X" are verifiable and not original research. Each individual such list must be treated on its merits and with regard to what sources are available and how they treat the subject. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I disagree with Uncle G, who implies that the list of examples of what is an indiscriminate collection of information is exhaustive. This should not be an encyclopedia article, but rather the result to a relational database query. -- Alan McBeth 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- Ordinarily I would say this is silly, but given the various discussions that always erupt around election time about how height is a statistically significant factor in voter preference, it might be arguably useful. --lquilter 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why List of heights of United States presidential candidates is the superior article, since it discusses not only the heights of the winners but the heights of their opponents and the "taller equals winner" idea. Otto4711 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the only idea to discuss. I suggest looking at the thesis of the journal article that cited above. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Referenced info, and interesting, especially in relation to the question of whether voters tend to favor taller candidates for President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates This appears to be redundant with that article. Seems best to merge the two. Dugwiki 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This info is now redundant, since I made the table at List of heights of United States presidential candidates sortable by height, so this page is no longer necessary. There are a couple bits of info that should still be merged over, such as the graph, before deletion however. VegaDark 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merger precludes deletion. It is one or the other. Uncle G 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, Merge remaining content. Then redirect or delete. VegaDark 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged The article has been merged and redirected to List of heights of U.S. presidential candidates Jjmillerhistorian 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:The Epopt as an uncontested ((prod)) --BigDT 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. L. Wysong[edit]

R. L. Wysong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I proded this and no one touched it. Lacks notablity. Person who some pseudoscience in 1974 with a self published work(?) and nothing else. Subject's blogs and creationwiki are the "sources." PatriotBible 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by birthday[edit]

Delete - unencyclopedic trivia. The order in the year that the various presidents were born is irrelevant to anything. Otto4711 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a clear example of information which is verifyable, about notable people, but still not encyclodedic. What's next, xxxyyy? (removed so it is not next per WP:Beans).Obina 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete next we'll see a list of Presidents by Zodiac sign. Oh, darn, I've given them ideas.--Wehwalt 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Factual, somewhat useful, verifiable, notable, but entirely unremarkable and unencyclopedic. wtfunkymonkey 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Hmmm, off to create list of president by total score = shoe size + hat size + IQ + zip code. SkierRMH 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic listcruft, goodness, no. Terence Ong 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this kind of information should be database-generated in some future generation of mediawiki. it should not be its own article. --lquilter 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be possible to expand the article to include year of birth, and present two lists: one sorted by month/day of the year, and another sorted by birth year/month/day. If you also threw in year of death, you'd have an interesting set of tables that show relative age of each president, puts their births and deaths in historical context to each other, and that might provide some insight into how presidents born in similar years share certain cultural or philosophical traits. So while I agree that the article as is doesn't have much to offer besides a reader saying "Oh look, Harry Truman and my brother have the same birthday!", I think an expansion using birth and death years might offer some possibly useful historical information. Dugwiki 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information could be combined with List of United States Presidents by date of birth. It seems to fit the category. Just an idea. Jjmillerhistorian 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this list with the date of birth list sounds like a good idea. I'd support that too. Dugwiki 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this article a while ago when I was still a little confused about Wikipedia's policies. I would agree with a move to the birthday article - and sorry about the conflict. Mrmaroon25 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged and Redirected The article has been merged with List of United States Presidents by date of birth. The Birthday article has been redirected to this. Jjmillerhistorian 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More