< January 21	January 23 >

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst project[edit]

Very few google hits relate directly to the subject (there are other things with the same name). And while the article (parroted straight from the group's website) refers to this as a center, it is hard to say that this is more than a subset of another group without independent existance. The sources cited on it on the article page are mere mentions of the subject, or a mention of affiliation. This has real problems with notability and verifiability. Wehwalt 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Article could be progressed as information is found about the topic. Anyways Isnt wikipedia all about adding information slowly as people notice the topics...so give time for other people that know to add info about it. I Say keep it .User:EdwinCasadoBaez
Delete- Per nom--SUIT⁴² 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, VERY close to a copyvio, pretty clearly cut-and-pasted and then altered only somewhat. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG as there is lake of any 3rd party coverage or media mentions etc. --155.144.251.120 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a misunderstanding here about the requirement of coverage by independent publications meeting the WP:RS criteria as required by WP:ORG. The external articles cited appear to be web sites of related organizations rather than general media etc., and appear to fall under the WP:RS#Self-published sources criterion which generally prohibits using a self-published source such as an organizational web site for purposes of establishing notability. Has this organization gotten coverage in any sort of general media publication or scholarly work? Best, --Shirahadasha 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless such outside sources as required by WP:RS are provided. JCO312 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable org. IronDuke 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete because it fails WP:ORG, and I do agree with Starblind; article seems to be cut-and-pasted. --♥Tohru Honda13♥ 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ORG. Terence Ong 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or indication that this is a national organization, as required by WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must say, I agree with the nomination and it seems to be not very notable on Wikipedia so I'm going to have to say delete-- Tellyaddict 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Catalyst Project is an active organization that facilitates anti-racism trainings around the country. The fact that they are currently operating and have been for several years makes them worthy of an entry. I understand that not many results come up from a Google search, but my understanding is that Google ranking alone should not be the basis for a deletion. As for copyright violations, I do not believe they would sue because the description of their organization on Wikipedia is similar to the description on their own page. Is there anyone here from the US activist community with familiarity with anti-racist organizing? What's your opinion on this article? -Danspalding 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I do not believe they would sue" is definitely not good enough. We can't take chances on copvios. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ORG; notability is not established in article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Prasad (disambig)[edit]

A disambig for two people we don't have articles for, no evidence they meet WP:BIO if we did; presumably both living people, both unverified and one making potentially problematic claims about persons activities. Delete. --Peta 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's also another one of these at P. S. Prasad, but that one says it's unknown if they're the same person or not. Sheesh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. If they are two different people, we don't even know if they have the same full name or not, so we don't know if we need a disambiguation or not. --Sable232 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and two weak articles that fail to verify even if they are the same person --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the proper disambig page and the P. S. Prasad (BCCI) page, and delete the P. S. Prasad (disambig) page, please. I know this all sounds esoteric, but hear me out: The BCCI guy is notable to anyone researching the BCCI scandal, or characters like Ghaith Pharaon or Bert Lance; the Dhanalakshmi guy may or may not be as notable, but he was already listed on the Dhanalakshmi Bank page when I created a page for the BCCI guy. So I created the disambig page, only to get whacked ("almost a request for information") for having the temerity to suggest that these might be one and the same person (being as it just so happens that the Dhanalakshmi's public career seems to have taken off after the disappearance of the BCCI guy; and that he seems to have been involved in at least one other vaguely scandal-prone bank, ICICI, in the intervening time.) Since I couldn't reference that assertion, I tried separating the two, now I'm getting whacked for making this distinction. Anyway, the BCCI guy page is now referenced, and I'm happy to leave the Dhanalakshmi guy as red ink; if these do turn out to be the same person, then this is probably referenced in the non-English press somewhere and sooner or later, someone will eventually make this clarification. Until then, it seems useful to have separate bio pages (with no unsourced comments relating the two), and a dismabig page. Sheesh. --Whiskey Pete, 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambig page and rename the P. S. Prasad (BCCI) page to P. S. Prasad. There's no need to have a disambig page if only one of the articles exist. JIP | Talk 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and then move P. S. Prasad (BCCI) to P. S. Prasad. There is no evidence that the Dhanalakshmi Bank president is notable, but the BCCI person is. Finally, remove any speculation these may be the same person per WP:BLP. --Pak21 08:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 08:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both disambiguation pages, move P. S. Prasad (BCCI) page to P. S. Prasad, and mention prominently at the top of the page that there's another P.S. Prasad who works for the Dhanalakshmi Bank. That way, people looking for the BCCI guy will read about him, but anyone looking for the Dhanalakshmi Bank guy will know that it isn't the same person, and we won't have to be concerned about libel. (Given enough proof that they are different people, that is. That might need some research.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:23, 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 — normally, I am an advocate of redirects; however, there is no need in this case because of the generalized title and the lack of any merged content. — Deckill er 05:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer Club[edit]

This article is short and unimportant. The "Prayer Club" is already mentioned in Serenity (manga), it does not need its own article. Also, its neutrality is questionable, the article resembles advertising. --Candy-Panda 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serenity (manga)? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this offers no new information, and is obviously violating WP:NPOV--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:FICT as neither having the content nor notibility for own article. Possible redirect.--155.144.251.120 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and no sources. No attempt to meet WP:V. Not even a claim that subject is notable independent of the book it appears in. --Shirahadasha 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge if Serenity (manga) survives as a proper entry. JCO312 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with Serenity (manga) -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge IronDuke 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Iotha 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable or merge to Serentiy (manga). Terence Ong 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it can't stand on it's own, but could be a part of Serenity (manga). Clerks 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Serenity (manga) if the latter is kept in its own AFD, otherwise delete as a non-notable fictional group. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenity (manga). --Core desat 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Notability not established for it as per WP:FICT; companion article not very notable either. Ronbo76 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable fictional group from a series which doesn't reallly meet notability standards. It's not worthy of a redirect because of the general nature of the title. --Kunzite 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information on the members is already included in the main Serenity article. What is the merit of an article only listing their names? User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tipton academy[edit]

This article concerns an apparently non-notable school, and cites no third-party reliable sources. John254 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads as an advert. Does not satisfy the organisation notability requirements or the proposed (and now marked rejected) WP:SCHOOL policy. The line Because Tipton is a new school it is not yet on the approved list of SLM Financial schools on their website says it all - they are too new to have elicited much press ... the only notability I can find is that they are expensive ( USD$3,495 monthly after the first month) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notibility shown or found. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORP (since WP:SCHOOL doesnt apply).--155.144.251.120 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt to comply with WP:ORG. No assertion of notability. No independent sources (no sources at all other than the organization's web site). --Shirahadasha 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any assertion of notability. JCO312 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG IronDuke 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, unverifiable, WP:ORG. Terence Ong 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; fails (as others have said) WP:ORG as well as WP:CORP. Also, it reads as if this were their website, which is definitely a bad thing in an encyclopedia setting. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Very non-notable; definitely looks like ad or violates WP:NOT#MIRROR. Ronbo76 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Reads like an advert. DaveApter 15:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:36, 26 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZaDa Rider[edit]

Somebody's non-notable clone of Line Rider, currently offline with "no release date" due to the copyright issues. McGeddon 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep'-Due to the fact that it is a developig article..keep it guys maybe it becomes of extreme importance weeks later.User:EdwinCasadoBaez

Wikipedia doesn't work like this - if it did, anybody would be allowed to write an article all about their obscure web site or company or webcomic or viagra supplement, arguing that it might become extremely famous at an unknown date in the future. The moment that ZaDa Rider becomes notable, its article can be recreated. (Hangfromthefloor has already made a back-up in his user space, awaiting that day.) --McGeddon 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Also, before you delete it copy it to my user page: User:Hangfromthefloor/ZaDa_Rider Hangfromthefloor 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This game is trying to be shut down by Inxile Entertainment, which is the company of the Actual Line Rider Game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Disconnect277 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, due to non-notable software that is basic crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Future product. No notability asserted nor found.--155.144.251.120 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to no independent sources and no assertion of notability, this is unsourced speculation about a future release, clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirahadasha 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. IronDuke 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Resolute 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL.-- danntm ^T _C 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable only within its community, non-notable media attention. Hangfromthefloor 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wouldn't that be a strike against keeping it then? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an up coming game, due to be released this month.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.217.104 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 January 2007
Keep - This game is not being shut down by Inxile Entertainment. It is completely different from Linerider, and it is not in violation of the Crystal Ball rule. This game will be released, and it is not going to to be shutdown.
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of third party coverage indicating notability per WP:SOFTWARE, appears to be crystal balling. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:34, 25 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-to-article. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business-to-business (disambiguation)[edit]

~~Delete~~ Delete All - Unnecessary disambiguation page that attempts to combine somewhat unrelated pages together. Page provides a service where no need exists. --wtfunkymonkey 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete all. No need for this; the "see also" section in Business-to-business already contains the only really relevant link. —Cel ithemis 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because there is no mention of either "business-to-business financial" or "business-to-business advertising" on the main article. If you think it's too early to have a disambiguation page for the subjects, that may be the case. If you think that it should all be covered in the one article, I don't see the point. If advertising has enough importance to be discussed outside of the context of marketing, then why shouldn't B2B advertising? Oicumayberight 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is inappropriate because there's no actual disambiguation happening here. They're not five different meanings of Business-to-business, they're five different things that can be business-to-business. All of them can be mentioned in the main article and linked from there if and when they expand to their own pages. —Cel ithemis 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.
I think the main article should at least mention the various ways in which B2B is relevant. However deletion of this page is fine by me. I started a Business-to-consumer (disambiguation) page you may as well delete to. Oicumayberight 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Business-to-consumer (disambiguation) has been added to this AfD, same reasoning for deletion. --wtfunkymonkey 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nominator. Needless disambig pages that attempt to group loosely related articles together. All relevant links are already available. JIP | Talk 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom- disambigs that don't disambig. SkierRMH 07:42, 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 Keep per not having a chance in the fires of Mt. Pinatubo—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath[edit]

Speedy Delete - Both subject and primary author requests that the article be deleted per Archive 4 and 1st Afd. - Senior Hamsacharya 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless there is a legal issue involved, or subject is not notable to warrant an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD for this article appears to have been used as a form of harassment. HalfShadow 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but conjecture is not a valid ground to vote keep, Re: "appears to have been." - Senior Hamsacharya 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ. Plus, your contibutions show you've been 'fishing' for votes. HalfShadow 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination, nomination reason is not valid. Page is not 'owned' or 'authored' by anyone, info was submitted under GFDL "to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it". There is no reason to believe that someone else may not had added the information themselves if not for the above contributors.--Dacium 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to meet WP:V and WP:BIO, no WP:BLP problem. Subject's reticience and modesty is to be commended, and should be mentioned in article if it can be independently sourced. --Shirahadasha 03:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subjects desire to not be covered is not grounds to remove an otherwise notable entry. JCO312 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again.... ॐ Priyanath talk 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user Senior Hamsacharya is probably a sockpuppet of known vandal NoToFrauds AKA Terminator III and is in no position to nominate anything for deletion. 03:43, 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. --Core desat 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Tokyo[edit]

Non notable nightclub. The article is poorly written and amounts itself to a vanity article, plus a little free advertising for the "club night's" owner. It is also unclear if the name of the place is Vanity or Vanity Tokyo. Wehwalt 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a nightclub in the classical sense, but more of a rave. Not really notable; reads like an advert. --Dennisthe2 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable per WP:V and doesnt seem notable per WP:N.--Dacium 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article asserts notability. Although it doesn't source it, a quick check suggests there may be sources out there, such as this one. I have no clue who these bands are, but they have Wikipedia articles. It's entirely possible that a more thorough check for sources may result in establishing notability and meeting WP:ORG or WP:CORP, If so this AfD should be revisited. --Shirahadasha 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above--SUIT⁴² 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. MightyAtom 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a place, but a non-notable event staged at various clubs. More like a concert tour with different acts than a nightclub. It would be like the guy who totes the karaoke machine from one open-mic night to the next making an article. Main claim to WP:N is probably Jack White, but WP:BAND does not have any provisions for "concert was attended by a notable musician". Neier 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising a non-notable local event. Article doesn't have any references or sources. JIP | Talk 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's safe to dispose of this page. BuickCenturyDriver 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per everyone above... .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:21, 25 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 per nearly unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth cosmology[edit]

OR-article on the layout of the stars and planets in a fictional universe. This is an encyclopedia, not the JRR Tolkein-wiki. Please check #7 here > WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information delete Cornell Rockey 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has references. It is not WP:OR. I have the books listed and I can (and will) provide quotes for each assertion made in the article. Carcharoth 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that its not notable. Yes its correct but how is it noteable? Does the cosomolgy play a major role in the book? As per WP:FACT major characters/places should have articles, not minor ones. I find it hard to believe the structure of the cosmology has is of major important to the story of LotR but would be for other books of middle earth maybe.--Dacium 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point here is that the article is being improved all the time. I am extremely uncomfortable with the way this was nominated so soon after creation. Wikipedia articles should not have to be written fully formed, and some on-wiki development is both natural and helpful. I understand that articles have to pass a notability barrier, but that can't be fully evaluated until the article has stablised after the initial editing following its creation. The AfD could have waited a week. Wikipedia would not have imploded if the AfD had been delayed by one week. And to answer your question, yes, the cosmology is relevant to the overall strucutre of Tolkien's writings, which go far beyond just LotR. Carcharoth 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator points to #7 at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which says to avoid plot summaries. This article is not a plot summary. It should end up being an article that describes, using reliable sources, what the author said the names meant, what language they are, and where they are mentioned in Tolkien's works. Its notability comes directly from the notability of the article Middle-earth, which it should be considered a subarticle of (the Middle-earth article is too long for this to go there). It can also be considered a subarticle of Elvish languages. Carcharoth 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oi. Marking this for speedy delete as G1, "nonsense"? Twenty-six seconds after the article was created? Then slapping a 'not many pages link here' tag on it? How many newly created pages DO have alot of links to them? Then calling 'original research' on something which had thirty-six references in the initial stub? All very strange. The 'What Wikipedia is not' claim is within the bounds of reasonable (deletionist) interpretation, but I don't agree... Wikipedia also is not PAPER. Meaning that it can be the equivalent of a 'Mammals encyclopedia', plus a 'Star Trek encyclopedia', plus a 'Pokemon encyclopedia', and yes... a 'Tolkien encyclopedia'. Indeed, it already IS all of those things... as evidenced by the numerous existing pages of Tolkien articles which this one linked to. The benefit of this article is in laying out the various terms and their relationship to real world equivalents where possible. I also wanted to explore the possibility of merging some of te shorter pages on individual items into this one. I'd only made ONE edit to the page so far... there's alot left to do, but I don't see how that stub was anything like a candidate for deletion. --CBD 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gives a structural context to a considerable number of linked articles, how is that a bad thing? Well-structured and referenced, verifiable and in my opinion, notable. --Canley 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gives a structure to otherwise unrelated entities in an important (admittedly fictional) universe. Pleclech 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at first it doesn't appear to pass WP:FICT but it is a valid list of names in the fiction. It would do much better to go about removing articles these link to because they fail to be major characters or major places, rather than to start at deletion of a list.--Dacium 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For better or for worse there's a huge number of J.R.R. Tolkien articles out there. Perhaps there shouldn't be. But since there are, this article isn't any less notable or verifiable than most of the others. --Shirahadasha 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cosmology is notable, spanning several works that build on this world. The article suggests that they may not even be entirely fictional, possibly corresponding to our solar system. Pomte 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books themselves are notable, and this is merely a subset of the books. There are also a lot of similar entries for other fictional universes, for instance Narnia (world).JCO312 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for blatantly failing to include independant, third party sources. This is entirely in-universe. This is NOT a LOTR wiki or a concordance to include every possible topic relevant to LOTR. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting I promised to myself not to get involved in any more fantasy/sci fi/computer game-related AfDs. They make me too angry. I need to take a WP:CHILL. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. A lot of fiction stuff slides in. Only notable 'major' things are meant to get an article, yet if you look at LotR stuff and Harry potter even minor characters get pages and then these pages are argueed as if they are major characters even when they are blatently minor. Either way this article is more of a list and it would be much better to start with deletion of 'Ea' and 'the Void' articles since they fail WP:FICT as non major. Just be prepared for all the fans to claim that its 'not minor'.--Dacium 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, there is an active WikiProject in this area that has the subject area under control, and is (slowly) merging some of the stubs into lists. We recently merged a weapons list and a roads list and the hobbits were dealt with ages ago. It is going slowly though, because there is a lot of stuff. Give it time and things will improve. Carcharoth 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about merging all the linked stubs into this article? It seems only Arda and maybe Eru Ilúvatar are notable enough for their own articles. Pomte 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all related stubs, per Pomte. It's (just barely notable) but having small stubs that will never grow is not helpful, not even to LotR fans. IronDuke 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte. Killroy4 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. - Iotha 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to some LOTR wiki. I don't see how this is any different from all the Star Trek cruft that was moved to their wiki. Lots of OR synthesis of in-universe stuff. Recury 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP became famous for having articles like this, and this is a good one of its kind, about a series that everyone knows. The page is not just a list, because the information was assembled from a number of sources and organized. The procedural problems before it came here are also worth mentioning, and perhaps indicate an inappropriate degree of speed on the nominators part, and a totally inappropriate use of speedy--especially on a topic he must have known would be contested.. DGG 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable material, gives structure to other articles, etc per above. And gees, it's not even 24 hours old. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per there's no chance in Hell there's been a scholarly study of "Middle-earth cosmology." And, yes, it is original research if it's all being sourced from the books themselves, because that's using primary sources to write the article. It ceases to be original research when we're citing what somebody else has written about middle-earth cosmology in a reliable source. Seriously, though, sourcing everything about Tolkein's works to Tolkein's works is somehow supposed to demonstrate notability? I rarely invoke the word cruft, but this is dangerously close to being such. GassyGuy 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:No original research#What_is_excluded?... note that none of the 'original research' exclusions is remotely applicable to this article. Collecting facts from disparate sources onto a single page is NOT original research... otherwise List of English words containing Q not followed by U would be 'original research' along with virtually all of the other featured lists (not to mention the featured articles). As to 'no way in hell there has been a scholarly study'... actually there have been several (Dr. Kristine Larsen - 'A Definitive Identification of Tolkien's "Borgil"', Naomi Getty - 'Stargazing in Middle-earth', et cetera)... but there is little (read 'zero') reason to cite other people citing Tolkien. Citing the primary source for factual information (as opposed to opinion / interpretation) is anything but 'original research'. I've been pondering whether it is worthwhile to cite these scholarly studies to include their opinions on identifications NOT specified by Tolkien... which would be 'research', but not 'original'. --CBD 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No chance in hell? See Category:Tolkien studies. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, and, as far as some of the other arguments above, the best point I've seen is that it may be worthwhile to examine many of the articles linked to from this page and see how many of them really pass stand alone article guidelines. GassyGuy 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there is a discussion on the talk page on this very topic? I know I don't always look at the article's talk page before participating in and AfD, but it is surprising what you can find if you read around an article, following links and looking at talk pages, page histories, page logs, and 'what links here'. Try it some time. Carcharoth 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are planning to merge some of those short articles into this; see the article's talk page. Uthanc 06:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is blatant WP:OR. Any useful information in this article can easily be merged with something else, it isn't as though there are a shortage of Tolkien-related articles here already. --Lee Vonce 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the original research policy, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." In short, you are mis-using the term 'original research' in a way that would invalidate everything on Wikipedia. Every article is an 'original compilation' of referenced materials... but that is NOT original research, its the correct way to do things. --CBD 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but it would be more difficult for this to be a more textbook example of original reseach than it already is. This article is nothing more than the author's personal speculation and commentary wrapped around a list of links to other Tolkien articles. --Lee Vonce 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I am, thus far, the primary 'author' of the page I take exception to that accusation and would invite you to provide some basis for it. What specifically are you claiming to be 'original research'. --CBD 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the problem might be the first six entries, which haven't been referenced yet. I would hope that Lee Vonce read further than those six entries, and saw that the rest is well-referenced. But I can understand why someone not familiar with the subject matter might think that the first six entries are speculation by fans, not assertions of the author. Sticking in references and selected quotes from the 'Ambarkanta' material might help. Currently Ambarkanta redirects to the HoME volume it is in, but it would be good to have an Ambarkanta section in the Middle-earth cosmology article. Carcharoth 14:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does not appear to be "original research", but rather is a reindexing of verifiable information, apparently including good referencing. WP:NOT does not seem to apply, as it is neither a personal essay or an original analysis of the material by the article's author. WP:OR is likewise met, as everything appears to be verified and sourced, and the article is not intended to introduce new, original ideas, or do any of the other things listed under the bullet points of "What is Excluded". Indexing collections of referenced information is normally acceptable. Dugwiki 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Any chance it'll SNOW soon? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per the aboves this is notable information not original research yuckfoo 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable information on q rather complex subject, relating to the works of a famous writer. Wikipedia at its best by other words. User:Dimadick
Keep - I'm gonna assume this was spun off from middle earth which is getting really frikking huge and seems like it could use being split up. The article could clearly use work but I'm not ready to delete it without giving it a chance because there's a lot of potential. Plymouths 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eä since this is mostly a list of the named components thereof. This is not original research since the identifications are sourced (mostly to commentary by Christopher Tolkien as it happens), but the lack of third party sources suggests limited notability. Eluchil404 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first two items in the list are outside the physical realm, so Eä (the universe) was merged into it instead. Uthanc 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did notice that, which is why I didn't change mostly to entirely in my previous comment. I still think that having Eä as the main article with links to the Timeless Halls and the Void is the best way to organize this, but that's mostly just an article title dispute (I certainly prefer Quenya titles but few others do) since the final form (minor entities merged into a single article) would be essentially the same. Eluchil404 13:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. I think some of the confusion the opposers have with Tolkien's fiction is that they want interpretive references as opposed to the historical references (i.e. the Christopher Tolkien refs). There aren't that many interpretational references out there because Tolkien emphatically states his work was not alegory. As a constructed history (of incredible impact), Tolkien's work deserves special consideration in relation to the drawing of sources from his son and the work itself. If this was a real historical or astronomical article, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Irongargoyle 20:15, 27 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. --Core desat 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APbyAS[edit]

not notable, Google search returns 1830 results Yonatanh 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had proded this & prod was rmed without comment or improvement. Ditto for PMbyAS and MFbyAS, which I think could be added to this deletion discussion --Karnesky 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything useful among the google results, nor among google news. I don't believe that it is contained in any linux distributions either. Non-notable. --Sopoforic 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable WP:N WP:WEB. I don't know what this is meant to be: "italian web based process reengineering support"--Dacium 03:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two paragraphs are actually a copyvio of this site[1]. So marked for copyvio. SkierRMH 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Clear copyright infringement, and also no assertion of notablity per WP:CORP. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the author (sorry for my poor english)

"non notable" why ? what is the measure ?
"not contained in a linux distribution" ? every open source software must be contained in a distro ?
"italian web based process reenginering support" means that this software is specially indicated to help in the process analisys and the natural language is italian. Can a foss (free open source software) be only in italian ?
"the two paragraphs ar actually a copyvio ...." why, if i am the owner / admistrator of all in http://sourceforge.net/projects/apbyas/ ?
you can view on my site [2] (in italian, sorry).
May be I must include something other than the Creative Common Some Right Reserved ? Or I must write esplicit declaration to Wikipedia ? Tell me how.
I am also the owner of PMbyAS and MFbyAS that and are in the same condition
User:Avesan 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Alberto Santoro[reply]

Declined speedy as there's an assertion to permission here. That said, permission would still need to be sent to the foundation if this is kept. I think that's unlikely because I agree it's not notable (it's barely asserted). Notability is a nebulous concept that relates to a product, company, or web contents importance or newsworthiness. I'm not sure how to assess notability of this article, but I think our guidelines for software, web content, or notability generally would apply (WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, WP:N). The general guideline is news or other non-trivial coverage, and it doesn't appear that this has gotten any coverage from a newspaper or another reliable information source. Avesan, please reply here or contact me on my talk page if you're still confused. Your English is better than my Italian, but I'm a TEFL teacher, so I'm used to explaining things in simpler terms to my students. Se hai una domanda, dimmi.--Kchase T 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability problems. JCO312 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions (and answers) from the author about notability The subject is free software. Well. I think that a voice about a free software product is always notable, due the nature of the subject! I can't find difference, for example, between WebErp and APbyAS or PMbyAS, or MFbyAS, unless the ranking in SourceForce or Freshmeat. The publication on Wikipedia is unavoidablement publicity and promotion. And then all product of this type have rights. This is my conviction (and the rest of the world of the free software). Try to ask to Free Software Foundation. (italian) Stiamo parlando di software libero. Ebbene, Secondo me una voce su un prodotto di software libero è sempre degna di nota, data la natura stessa dell'oggetto. Io non vedo differenze, ad esempio tra WebErp e APbyAS, o PMbyAS o MFbyAS, a parte il ranking di SourceForge o Freshmeat. La pubblicazione di una voce su Wikipedia è inevitabilmente pubblicità e promozione. E allora tutti i prodotti del tipo software libero ne hanno diritto. Questa è la mia convinzione (e del resto del mondo del software libero). Provate a chiedere alla Free Software Foundation. Avesan 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Alberto Santoro[reply]

I think that a couple of your questions above were directed at me, so I'll try to answer. We determine notability by out notability guideline for software. One of the things that can make something notable is being included in a major operating system distribution, because then presumably many people will be aware of it. And one piece of software having an article doesn't guarantee that a similar piece of software will have an article: we judge each article independently, on its own merits. If certain other software packages aren't notable under our guidelines, it's likely that they'll be nominated for deletion as well, in time. --Sopoforic 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Soporific, but I disagree, not for you :-), but for the terms espressed in the guidelines. First: the distros contains personal, desktop, technical solutions and similar. Distros never include business, ERP, groupware, and similar for a number of "notable" reasons. Second: Debian Popular Context is not neutral, but sectarian. It is strong dipendent at the type of language and OS used (Linux obviously) and forget (or reject), for example, solution in MySql, Php, Apache. Tird: I come back to my first reason: Software is a thing, free software is another thing, very different, that have the right to a specific treatement. ..... Escuse me, but I am a 65 years old man with over 40 years of experience in information thecnology and i am in the abit to tell what I think (unfortunately in italian, because for the english I need alwais my dictionary near to me). Conclusion For me the solution is an alternative: a) to include all of the free software of wich we have notice, whith the respect of other guidelines; b) to esclude all. And if you decide to esclude APbyAS, don't worry, it is wrong, but I survive :-)) Avesan 14:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Alberto Santoro[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barnette[edit]

This person is not notable, and the article appears to be self-promotion. It is filled with links to the subject's various webpages (MySpace, a blog, etc.), and the provided IMDb link only lists two works to his credits. -Branddobbe 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went to middle school with this guy, and it is nice that he's doing something interesting, but Wikipedia is not personal web-space. Thunderbunny 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- MarcoTolo 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notibility WP:Nshown, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC for his music.--Dacium 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. - Iotha 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC supplied. No independent sources. --Shirahadasha 08:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. JCO312 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete npn ans self-promotional. DaveApter 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Needs to be updated to reflect more factual information, however the intent of this article is relevant to middle Tennessee history. Luke P 9:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—P ilotguy (ptt) 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hectagon[edit]

Not a notable polygon. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decemyriagon for the debate on whether to delete Decemyriagon, which was the same situation. The article provides no information not contained in the Polygon article. While having a picture is nice, generally, that picture alone is not sufficient reason to keep the article, and it doesn't really add any especial value anyway. Sopoforic 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are indistinguishable except for the number of sides of the polygons:

Merge. Just merge it into the article polygon. --myselfalso 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you'll look at the deletion debate for decemyriagon, or any of these pages, you'll find that there is nothing to merge. They just need to be deleted. --Sopoforic 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful for if I ever have to define a hectagon for my math homework... --Candy-Panda 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with polygon. Due to the round number 100, it is mathematically notable, but it isn't deserving of its own article. -Branddobbe 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To emphasize: the angle and area formulae are given in polygon, so anyone interested in these values can calculate them (or they can be added as a column in the table of polygon types). The pictures for these all look like circles anyway. Pomte 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not appear to have number notability. Could mean many more XXX-gon articles to merge.--Dacium 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please notice that there is nothing to merge from these articles. There is no information in them that isn't already in Polygon. Therefore do not vote to merge. Either vote to keep, because there is some reason to keep, or to delete, because there is no reason to keep. Thank you. --Sopoforic 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon. Better than a nonexistant page if someone goes searching for them, and redirects are cheap. BryanG^(talk) 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge. If there's nothing to merge, the merge will be easy — just make a redirect, and you're done! --Quuxplusone 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon per BryanG --Markdsgraham 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to polygon. The polygons (polyga?) themselves are not notable just because the number of their sides is some nice number. JIP | Talk 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article is small, I think that it could have potential. - Iotha 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. A search of MathSciNet for the names and numbers of those polygons reveals nothing but incidental mentions--no mentions for the names, and single mention for, I think, 40-gon, but it was not the focus of the article. --Sopoforic 06:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent.
Comment Suggest a list of named polygons that just mentions the name and the number of sides rather than going through this process for every possible odd combination. --Shirahadasha 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hectagon and Pentacontagon to polygon. Tricontagon is a little more interesting as the shape is used for a real world object so keep that one. --Salix alba (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. JCO312 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These seem like valid stubs to me. I'm not sure whether "notability" is the right criterion to judge mathematical abstractions by. If fame or importance are criteria, then there are probably dozens of articles on math subjects of interest only to specialists that might be at risk. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mathematicians do actually write about mathematical abstractions, even if only a dozen specialists care about those abstractions--those dozen people might well write a dozen papers each on their favorite abstractions, making them pass the notability test. If nobody writes about it, chances are that nobody, not even specialists, care. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Curiosity value. Maths terms should not need to be notable. Lumos3 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity isn't sufficient reason to keep it. And certainly math terms should need to be notable--otherwise, I could make up my own math terms that only I use and add them. It's certainly a pretty common practice in math to make up a new term to describe whatever you're talking about, whenever there isn't one that describes it well. But we shouldn't have articles on those terms unless they're in common usage. Similarly, we shouldn't have articles on topics that nobody writes about. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. If not kept pls merge. TonyTheTiger 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. I like the proposed list of named polygons - it could be a chart with number of sides and other polygon information (degree measure of interior angles for regular varieties, small illustrations, that sort of thing)... but Delete Hectagon gets its own article? No. Very little to be said that wouldn't be beyond the scope of a general encyclopaedia. GassyGuy 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of named polygons. It's in Polygon. Essentially, all polygons have names--we just usually call the big ones 60-gon or 40-gon. But Polygon does list lots of specific names as well as a formula for making a name for any polygon you wish, plus the formulas for area/angles/etc. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of polygon naming conventions. I thought it might just be useful to have a chart, but I suppose the one already at polygon does a fair enough job combined with the naming conventions. Fair point, nothing to merge, amending accordingly. Also, as long as we're bundling in the less-than-useful polygons, perhaps consider tricontagon, unless Michelob trivia is sufficient notability. I don't think it is. GassyGuy 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the absurd decemyriagon article that was deleted, this is a useful polygon, and I'm quite sure someone might wrongly assume the name of this polygon is centagon if this article is absent. Georgia guy 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't know the right name, they'd have a lot of trouble finding this article anyway. GassyGuy 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both points can be solved with redirects. Neither is an argument for keeping the article. ~ trialsanderrors 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polygon 137.222.10.67 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a mathematician, but this... needs to go. Delete all three nominated; you can only include them to a certain point. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not more notable than my home street number. If anything, we could enrich the Polygon (and work on the overlapping with Regular polygon). --Goochelaar 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The lowly hectagon may not deserve its own article, but surely it deserves mention in the polygon article and just as surely it would be better if there were a redirect for those who actually did want to look "hectagon" up in wikipedia. --Lee Vonce 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless references provided to demonstrate notability There are an infinite number of polygons, so obviously we can't write individual articles about every single one. More importantly, the articles provide no references showing that these specific polygons are notably mentioned in outside publications. All articles, including mathematical ones that are otherwise accurate, need to provide references to establish the information is not only correct but notable enough to be talked about. Now if these articles can find outside, verifiable mentions and uses or mathematical discussions about one of these specific polygons, then go ahead an do an article about it and include that information. Dugwiki 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of the articles on abstract polygons like this have already been deleted. While notability may be a difficult thing to prove in and of itself, this article is useful intellectually because of its place as one in a series (and I mean that as seperately from the polygon article). I came to the Hexagon page wanting to know if a three dimensional construct was possible only containing hexagons (a soccer ball has pentagons in it). Instead I got side-tracked by the polygons series box at the bottom of its page. After reading about Pentadecagon and the like I wondered how quickly polygons visually descend into simply appearing as circles. It only took two clicks on the Pentacontagon and Tricontagon articles to read the stubs and satisfy my curiosity. Given the articles already exist and noone is proposing to add hundreds of other intermediate shapes, I feel keeping short stubs on polygons at 30, 50 and 100 sides has value in and of itself. 193.129.65.37 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The comment (way, way) above stating that there's nothing worth merging in this article is incorrect. The illustrations are helpful, for instance in showing when polygons become visually indistinct from circles (see comment by 193.129.65.37). That may mean these articles need merging into polygon but their pictures shouldn't be lost from Wikipedia. Perhaps someone versed in human psychology could come up with an "XXX-agon" article saying "for the majority of human beings this is the last shape visably distinguishable from a circle, in which case I'd vote to delete or merge these pieces into that. Until an XXX-agon article appears I think the current arrangement works just fine. Coricus 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and the IP user above you are arguing essentially that they are useful because they show you how quickly the polygons begin to look like circles? It doesn't seem like a thing that merits an article, to me. It might possibly be worth mentioning on Polygon that many-sided polygons were used to approximate pi, due to their being nearly circular, with a link to pi. I think that would solve this issue. And any issue that can be solved with a passing mention of an unrelated article isn't worth having several articles about. --Sopoforic 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the IP user's arguing but he influenced me in my opinion vis-a-vis the illustrations have merit. To quote myself: "these articles need merging into polygon but their pictures shouldn't be lost from Wikipedia". If the consensus is that the articles should be delted, I'm happy with that but I don't think the illustrations should be lost. And the Polygon article (which is a bit "listy" at present) could do with more pictures. I still say merge the pictures, or failing that keep the article. I agree with you, certainly, that "many-sided polygons were used to approximate pi" should definitely be in the polygon article. Perhaps the illustrations from these articles to be deleted could be used to show the point? It might work well... Coricus 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. --> I'm happy with tetracontagon being deleted - there's nothing worth saving there. My comments refer only to hectagon and pentacontagon.[reply]

Comment This also has historical significance because of the nineteenth century proposal , backed by Henri Poincare to decimalise circular measure. Lumos3 12:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all The pictures can still be inserted in regular polygon; they're not going anywhere. In particular, hectagon is the wrong word; of the 21 hits for it, all but one are mistakes for pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, or octagon. For example: "The term "ring" as used herein includes structures or rings of circular shape or equivalent rings of square, rectangle, pentagon, hectagon, octagon shape" (from a patent application). Poincare's decimal angles would involve a 400-sided polygon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The pictures are Image:hectagon.png and Image:Pentacontagon.png; the forty-sider has none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think the right word for a 100-sided polygon is?? Centagon?? Georgia guy 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hecto- is bad Greek; the Revolutionists had other things on their minds. Hecato- or hekato- would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In principle I'd agree, but as "hectogram" and "hectometre" (or "-meter") appear to be used, so by analogy one could admit hecto-mostly anything... --Goochelaar 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the point; this is not a metric polygon; and hectagon is unattested. Straight google results are almost entirely WP mirrors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Septentrionalis, I agree with your points when it comes to calling a million-sided figure a "megagon". Mega- normally means "great"; it use meaning a million is an SI prefix ONLY. In this case, however, hecta- does mean 100. Georgia guy 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I form this opinion somewhat reluctantly, because I can imagine a "slippery slope" to the 102-gon and the 7489-gon, but given the significance of "100" in our culture I can imagine people looking this one up, and this article will give them the bare bones of what they need. I'm not entirely happy to be following this route, but the article itself costs little. I can't imagine it's ever going to be a featured article, but there's no harm in that ! WMMartin 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that if a 100-gon really were significant, someone would have written something about it at some point, but no one ever has. An article is pretty cheap, yes, but a redirect is cheaper and easier to maintain. It's not that I particularly mind having an article on any subject you like--I just think that if we can't write more than a sentence about it, we shouldn't have a separate article for it. Actually, I think that WP:BAI mentions something like that. --Sopoforic 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to polygon per what a bunch of other people said. Plymouths 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to polygon. If sources doing more than listing name/edges/area/angle about them are ever found then an article might be made. If a picture has to show where the corners are to separate it from a circle, then there is no reason for a picture. And the circle-like pictures are only for regular polygons. Regular polygon has a table which might add angle, although the formula is trivial. Don't create an article to repeat one line in a table. PrimeHunter 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect the WP standards are useless in this case. Any geometric figure is notable, if there is something to say about it. But in his case there isn't much. (& hectagon is probably the wrong word ', as several people pointed out) Undoubtedly a few textbooks of some vintage could be unearthed that happened to mention it but it would take a look at the table of contents of every geometry textbook of even actually looking through the books) to find them. This will even be possible once Google finishes scanning all the books, but the sort of book that might have this will be nobody's priority. Apparently we have none in hand today, and next year we have two. So, it isn't notable now, but it would be then. Multiple nontrivial published works. There are many gradations in that, but the standards don't recognize them. Rules of thumb are approximations, and have to be treated as such. A statement that "someone would have written about it" is meaningless without an operational definition, and the available technology to see that is not available. We deal with that by saying the default is "not notable"--which makes the notability of something dependent on the amount of work devoted to the article.

total nonsense. it's dependent upon t subject, and the length of the article reflect the amount of material.DGG 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "hectagon" is the wrong word, but what do you think is the right word?? "Centagon"?? Georgia guy 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that these need to go (I nominated them, after all), your reasoning isn't sound. If there really are books of which this is the subject (even just a single section specifically devoted to it in a few books would probably be enough) then we need to keep the article. Its notability isn't dependent on the books being easy to access. When I nominated them I did so in part due to lack of any online, easily-accessible sources that would prove notability, but mostly because my experience tells me that it's likely that no sources exist--electronically or in print--that could prove it to be notable. If I thought that there were print sources, I would have gone to the library and found them, rather than nominating the articles for deletion. --Sopoforic 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(name judged from previous comments, perhaps It is the std name, but not obviously so.)

One does not expect books about topics like this. I do not think any of the sources for hexagon for is a book about hexagons. (and similarly for everything beyond there), in the sense that a book on trigonometry is a book about the properties of triangles. I could not agree more that the material will be difficult to find. Almost all detailed scientific & mathematical subjects will be of this nature. What is usually looked for on WP seems to be a significant mention in a book--not just a list of terms, but a discussion giving information from which an article could be written. As I said at first, I dont think this is readily findable, and thus I joined wha ti think is the general feeling, to merge, as the practical solution. DGG 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me somewhat: I do not know of any book called "Hexagons: Their Story" or such, but I do know that hexagons are mentioned quite frequently in literature--in particular, crystalline structures take the form of regular polygons (in some way; I am no expert on crystallography), hexagons included. See Hexagonal crystal system. That probably ought to be mentioned in Hexagon, actually. The point I was trying to make was that one does expect books about--at least in part--pretty much any topic of note. Mathematicians (and scientists in general) turn out a stunning amount of text in the course of a year. It's rarely difficult to find at least some mention of any topic, however noteworthy it may or may not be. Well, that's enough. We agree anyway, so I shouldn't be trying to push you to change your mind. --Sopoforic 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible notability? [3] This site refers to Iranian Muslim philosopher Abul Wafa Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Ismail al-Buzjani (940 to 997). It says "Abul Wafa's main contribution lies in several branches of mathematics, especially geometry and trigonometry. In geometry his contribution comprises solution of geometrical problems with opening of the compass; construction of a square equivalent to other squares; regular polyhedra; construction of regular hectagon taking for its side half the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the same circle". I'm afraid my understanding of geometry is weak, so it is possible – in fact probable -- this web site is erroneously referring to a hectagon when it actually means a heptagon/ hexagon/ XXX-agon. However, if this is accurate it may provide some notability -- Abul Wafa has his own Wikipedia entry [4] Coricus 11:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite interesting, but a regular polygon having for its side "half the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the same circle" hardly can have 100 sides. I am too lazy to calculate what it should be, but it seems it can have 7 or 8 sides (both of which are likely candidates to be misspelt as "hectagon"). (Actually, by some trigonometry jotted down on the back of an envelope, I am not sure that any regular polygon can have side one half etc.) --Goochelaar 11:34, 28 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 nomination with all "delete" votes rescinded. John Reaves (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AACP[edit]

~~A disambig with nothing but redlinks. Feel free to recreate it if any of those actually have articles. Until then, it feels WP:HOAXish. Just H 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)~~I rescind my nomination, it was cleanuped up a little and it wasn't a Hoax. Sorry, my mistake here. Just H 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notibility as nothing is noteable to have its own article yet!--Dacium 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking only "Approved Acronym Creation Permit". Pomte 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak keep. While Eastmain has done a great job, the question remains whether those associations are notable and can extend beyond stubs. Pomte 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a disambig page consisting only of red links is useless. JIP | Talk 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to very weak delete because some of the red links are now gone. JIP | Talk 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's the point in a disambig page if there are no articles to disambiguate? - Iotha 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to keep, now that a user has started articles on the matter. My worry was that the articles the page linked to wouldn't be created, therefore making the page useless. - Iotha 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree that it feels like WP:HOAX, but either way there is no notability for a disamb page with no articles to disambiguate. JCO312 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Vote changed to Keep The removal of the redlinks changed my mind, with multiple articles linked, I think it's valid. JCO312 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the AACP associations are national associations of the U.S., and probably notable. Would anyone care to create an article about one or more of the groups with names beginning "American Academy" or "American Association"? --Eastmain 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Although a disambiguation page consisting wholly or primarily of redlinks is obviously not optimal, it's certainly not useless: It can certainly answer the question "what might this (in this instance) set of initials mean in this context" when someone comes across an unfamiliar reference. Deleting this would delete valid, useful information without in any way benefitting the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that case, every single acronym could be copy and pasted from Acronym Finder and related sites. Perhaps merge and redirect to List of acronyms and initialisms: A? Red links should be verified somehow so we know these things actually exist. Pomte 15:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created some articles that were formerly red links, and verified everything on the list. Advanced Airborne Command Post turned out to have an existing article at Boeing E-4, for example. --Eastmain 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: If there are existing articles that may be called "AACP", there is a need for this disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neelix (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I apologize for not signing. I wasn't attempting to write anonymously. I just forgot to sign. Neelix 20:05, 25 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. The previous AFD was closed 22 hours before this was opened with the closing admin suggesting "give it some time". If an editor feels the original no consensus close (or this one, for that matter) was improperly decided, deletion review exists to consider that issue, but relisting this quickly is unlikely to result in constructive discussion. Non admin closure, not really per policy, but needing to happen. Serpent's Choice 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr[edit]

This article represents the Shia point of view which sharply contradicts with the foundation of the faith of the mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Worldwide Sunni Muslims (comprising 90% of world Muslims) believe that this list is nothing but a fabrication by the Shia sect. This is not new; this has been going on for centuries. This online encyclopedia is NOT the proper place for those kinds of extremely controversial issues, especially when they represent points of views of a minor sect (Shia) of the global religion of Islam. Of course the Shia scholars will continue to claim that their views and deviant beliefs are supported by Sunni references and sources. However, all they have been doing over centuries is misinterpreting those references, taking them out of context and twisting them to support their views. They've had a historical enmity towards the 3 rightly-guided Caliphs of Islam which are revered by over 1.2 Billions Sunni Muslims and have been revered for the past 14 centuries, while Sunnis never carry any sort of enmity towards the sacred figures revered by the Shia such as Ali ibn Abi Talib or Fatimah. There is not one single Sunni Muslim or Sunni scholar that will accept the Shia interpretations of the references otherwise, if they do, then over a Billion Sunni Muslim will convert happily into Shia. Therefore, further attempts to quote the so called Sunni sources to support those Shia views should be discredited and not to be accepted a valid argument in any way. According to Sunni Islam, this list does not even exist. Ali, Fatimah and all those Sahaba enlisted in this list have given their full allegiance to Abu Bakr and to believe that they were at odds with him is totally absurd. Again WIKIPEDIA is NOT the proper place for those minority views. Thank you TrueWisdom1 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)TrueWisdom1[reply]

Creating deletion discussion page for List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr because this controversial article represents a point of view of the Shia sect which contradicts with the foundation of faith of global (Sunni) Islam (over 90% of world Muslims).

Speedy keep and close last afd closed 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC), this one was created on 03:00, 22 January 2007, 22 hours later. As for the merits of nom, first known that Sahih Bukhari is the "most Sahih Book after the Qur'an" according to sunnis ummah.net, islamonline.com, sunnah.org, yarehman.com, inter-islam.org, fatwa-online.com and then please read this from said collection:

''She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:546

--Striver - talk 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but 10% of muslims is a significant number of people (which is millions of people) and is very notable.--Dacium 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article should not be deleted based on the fact that it represents a differing viewpoint. Such a nomination is very unjust. Nlsanand 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to nomination being that it is a minority view. We have article about minority views with far fewer adherents. Edison 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the problem is that these views are disputed by Sunnis, then that should be reflected in the article, having proper regard for the rules about point of view. Simply having an article about minority views is hardly a problem; there are all sorts of articles about much smaller religious groups (and their views). --Markdsgraham 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I have no idea if it is notable or not, but re-nominating it less than a day after a previous AfD points very strongly to a WP:POINT violation. Not to mention that nominator does not present any reasion for deletion other than he doesn't like it. Serious WP:POV concerns with this nomination. Resolute 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because there appears to be a POV problem with the article doesn't mean that it should be deleted. - Iotha 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am inclined to agree with the view expressed in the first nomination that this article is nothing more than a POV fork of Shia view of Abu Bakr and the approprate way to handle it is to merge into Shia view of Abu Bakr. Agree that the current nomination doesn't cite a valid reason to delete. --Shirahadasha 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that Wikipedia is not a place for minority views is without any support. JCO312 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that it will have differing viewpoints than your own. --Dennisthe2 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep and close Listing this was not appropriate, as we all have said. I note that the nominator has made no other contributions to WP other than the nomination of this article for deletion. DGG 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There's dozens of arguments I could bring up regarding the merits of this article, but they're all rendered moot by the clear evidence that this is a bad faith nomination. I also have serious questions as to whether or not the nominator is able to suspend their point of view in order to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The title could use some work, but otherwise it's ok with me. Just H 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this list is an attempt by early Shia writers to distort history, it is NOT a historical fact! is this encyclopedia supposed to be grounds for any group to express their own point view of history? I don't see one single valid reason to keep the Shia's own interpretation of the Bay'ah process. Why is the Sunni view getting deleted from this article? The Sunni view is that this list is bogus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.8.73 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment And the Roman Catholic view is that the Protestant Reformation is bogus, but we are not going to delete all articles about Martin Luther, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and other protestant religions and religious personages. The Jewish view is that the Christian scriptures and religious beliefs are bogus, yet we will probably be keeping them. Wikipedia is not the source for Truth, just for things notable enough that people write about them. Articles about a religion must be written in a non-point of view way, so they never say "The truth is.." but instead say "Followers of the religion believe that....". It would be completely appropriate to add to the article reliable and verifiable sources which claim that each and every one of the "Sahaba" gave "bay'ah" to "Abu Bakr" so as to make the article NPOV. This could be integrated throuout the article, or incorporated in a "Criticism" or "Alternative views" section if that works better stylistically. A big problem is that ancient religious doctrines and disputes are unlikely to have very many sources for such issues which are independent of the followers of the religion, and there are unlikely to be any surviving manuscripts of first hand accounts. Edison 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason why "the Sunni view [is] getting deleted from this article" is because the Sunni view consists of deleting the bulk of the content from this article. Regardless of right or wrong, this specific believe does exist, is notable, and can be verified as such. Whether or not it is right or true is something that Wikipedia does not handle. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith Nomination, so Reject this AfD per closing admin of last AfD - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:18, 23 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, nomination withdrawn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of Legend[edit]

Nomination withdrawn - article now cleaned up and referenced.

A single cult book from on-demand publishers BookSurge with Amazon ranking of 263,566. Not at all notable. Contested Prod. Pleclech 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the cleanup. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD but am not sure exactly how to! Pleclech 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just add a "nomination withdrawn" note in bold and let an admin close the discussion. --Masamage 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - done. Pleclech 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being published does not mean notibility. No assertion of notibility. The game of the same name seems alot more common.--Dacium 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book which has been reviewed by Neo (magazine) and mentioned on ICv2, one of the most respected Pop Culture news sites there is. It is more notable than a lot of other self published press if you ask me. I've not put keep, because I am not sure if I can keep a neutral head about this, being an online acquaintance with the authors (much more so Jay Navok than Sushil K. Rudranath, though I do run across him online too from time to time) and therefore I could well be biased. However I have to ask doesn't it being reviewed by print magazine which one can come by easily (in the UK, perhaps a little harder in the US but quiet achievable) say something for it's notability? --GracieLizzie 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent reviews would make it notable. I don't know icv2 but it seems like it counts as one. I don't think the Neo review exists online and I havn't access to a print copy but I don't doubt it exists. My feeling is that only exceptional print-on-demand books should be kept - its far too easy to sell a few copies to yourself and buy some reviews (not saying thats what happened here!). Re Neigel's comment below, it's fine by me if he wants to do that. Pleclech 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but also cleanup. It is notable, but mostly POV. My solution: blank it and write it again more accordingly to an encyclopaedia entry. --Neigel von Teighen 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, it wouldn't pass the proposed notability standards for published works Wikipedia:Notability (books). JCO312 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references provided The article currently has no independent references and also contains biased language in the introduction. References need to be provided to demonstrate the book has been discussed in more than one publication for verification and to demonstrate notability. Dugwiki 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question & Comment when you say publication, do you mean only in print stuff? Would website mentions like ICv2 count? What about the tour connected to the book? While it was a very small one-off tour it got mentioned on Anime News Network and the Japanese site AnimeAnime. To be honest I do respect this AfD and see where it is coming from but I don't think WoL is not notable. --GracieLizzie 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if it passes the notability criteria, most of the text is quoted from the website of the book. We could be having a copyright problem. User:Dimadick

Even though I don't think the creators will mind I agree and I'm going to over haul the article with some suitable references and such. --GracieLizzie 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the article with references and removed the quote from the website. --GracieLizzie 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if brought up to standard. That seems to be the direction it's going. --Masamage 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references in article establish notability. Eluchil404 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now significantly expanded and referenced. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an article, and it would not be useful in project space. --Core desat 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Gamia[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB VacuumEverything 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB not notibility shown.--Dacium 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Encyclopedia Gamia as it's a good target for stuff transwiki'd from here. --- RockMFR 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Care to explain? I'm unfamiliar with what the difference is.--AlphaTwo 07:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Checking "What links here" reveals that the page is referenced as a place to transfer content over when Game Articles fails to stay in Wikipedia. --AlphaTwo 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I guess the site is too small to be on wikipedia. But what happened to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games where wikipedia articles that were for gaming be nominated to one of three sites (the Encyclopedia Gamia being one of them)? --Cs california 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to both previous comments) Templates also include StrategyWiki and GamerWiki yet they've also had their articles deleted (GamerWiki ages ago, StrategyWiki more recently). Keeping EG would be inconsistent in that case. I'd prefer to have StrategyWiki and GamerWiki relisted, but that's been tried and failed. Therefore begrudgingly delete, for consistency. Tim 11:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still that does not answer my question why were these pages deleted if they are used to remove some of the gaming material not allowed on Wikipedia? What happened to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games project? I would my opinion to move since Wikipedia can dump their unwanted gaming material here --Cs california 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have an article in order to be a valid place for porting of overspill content. Neither GamerWiki nor StrategyWiki have WP entries; I've changed the Gamecleanup template to link to the individual wikis instead of the List of Wikis. Tim 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for the answer, Now I think we can properly nominate this for deletion! I was just worried that some edits of other articles would be lost. --Cs california 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikis are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:WEB. Being a repository for crap that gets deleted from Wikipedia does not make it notable. GassyGuy 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Encyclopedia Gamia seconded. I would prefer that the wiki be a target for transwiki for things that are too specific for Wikipedia's taste than disappear altogether. I also don't have a problem being consistent with what's happened to the other wikis. I say this as the administrator of the EG. --Achernar Dni 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Wikipedia:Encyclopedia Gamia Mathmo ^Talk 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query Out of sheer curiosity, why would it be helpful to have this in the Wikipedia namespace? GassyGuy 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is so that information not fit for WP can be kept for some other wiki? By the way, I support the move to WP space motion. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good. I'm all for that. But what does that have to do with retaining this article? It can be transwiki-ed regardless of the status of this article on Wikipedia, be it in article space, Wikipedia namespace, or none at all.

GassyGuy 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said move, I implied that it's not fit at article space, so move it out of article space. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as per WP:WEB and in line with recent related article deletions. Alexa rank of 2,089,350 -- Tyagi 07:25, 23 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. Nothing to merge as the entire article is unsourced. --Core desat 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion shot[edit]

This term does not seem to be in actual use anywhere outside of Wikipedia — not even on anime fansites. A Google search that weeds out mirrors of this article and phrases like "Evangelion shot glass" turns up nothing but irrelevancies ("The Evangelion shot up the tube to the surface") and lists of content that seems to be taken from Wikipedia (for example, an Answers.com content listing that links to their article that is taken from this one). There aren't even anime fansites that make any reference to this supposed type of shot. The term does not appear to exist outside of Wikipedia. -Branddobbe 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neolegism with no shown notibility/popularity of term. Poorly scribes what exactally the shot is meant to be making it unverifable also.--Dacium 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Neon Genesis Evangelion, leaving out the unsourced statement that it pioneered the technique. IIRC the technique is distinctive and prominent in the series. Pomte 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is not WP:OR. ShadowHalo 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Sourced per Shadow Halo. Gan fon 13:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and is probably original research. Recury 15:06, 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 redirect seems called for. W.marsh 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbomb[edit]

This article has very little content. I believe it also is a Neologism. Thirdly, the article is only supported by one link, which is unverifiable, as the word does not even appear in the linked article. This appears to be nonsensical in nature and should be deleted. Commodorepants 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author appears to have updated with some more information, but the article still lacks any source documentation. Thereby, the word still appears to be a Neologism. Commodorepants 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as pure nonsense. Nardman1 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you guys don't give much of a chance, do you? I'm in the middle of building the article, and already it's being shot to pieces! I fully intend build the article into something bigger, but there's not much point if you can delete it before I get a chance! --Blather 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Mindbomb or 'mindbomb' is a term created by Robert Hunter (journalist)" the very definition of Neologism, especially since mindbomb as one word rapes the english language.--Dacium 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please point me to where the rules ban Neologisms - this isn't being a smartass, I can't find the rule!--Blather 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My link above was wrong but is now fixed, it is here under "Articles on neologisms" unforutently this sort of thing happens, it is nothing against you but the term doesnt deserve an article--Dacium 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Bomb got one, and it gets its name from the original reference by Hunter... --Blather 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The obituary link calls it 'mind bomb', not 'mindbomb'. The Mind Bomb album doesn't mention Hunter at all, perhaps you could include the inspiration and the concept there. Pomte 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "mindbomb" and "mind bomb" are interchangeable. I've found both versions in the literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blather (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Robert Hunter (journalist). Although an interesting neologism, and there are halfway decent references, it really isn't a term that has much currency (whether it had any real currency in the 1970s I don't know). It's primarily associated with Hunter, so the information can easily be treated in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 02:26, 23 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. --Core desat 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Williams (actor)[edit]

Non-notable actor. Article does not assert any further claims to notability other than being an extra in the television series, Home and Away. -- Longhair\^talk 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haha, Wikipedia is not a place to brag about being an extra on Home and Away. --Candy-Panda 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO by miles and miles, no notibility.--Dacium 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N and WP:BIO - IMDB contains over 10 Daniel Williams's, but this isn't one of them. Must admit I like Candy-Panda's construction above :) Orderinchaos78 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he was a regular actor on Home and Away, he would warrant an article but not as an extra. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. If he's not in IMDB, there's no reason for him to have a wikipedia article. --Lee Vonce 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. QazPlm 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next, an article on people appearing in crowd scenes of various television series? User:Dimadick
Delete, I was once in the background, behind the reporter, during an "on the scene" news broadcast. That makes me about as notable as this chap. Lankiveil 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can safely say that I am far more famous than this chap and I won't be getting an article any time soon. --Roisterer 01:23, 27 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. --Core desat 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter talboys[edit]

Unsourced bio of a man whose notability is that he was a 10th great grandfather of George Washington. If I'm counting "greats" correctly, George Washington (and everyone else) had 8,192 "10th great grandparents." ➥the Epopt 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.--Dacium 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much not notable. I agree with User:The Epopt, should we also list all of his other 8191 ancestors in this generation? JIP | Talk 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, there may be slightly fewer than 8192 ancestors. When relations get distant enough, even blood relatives can marry each other, so it's possible a married couple share common ancestors. For example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh have the same great-great-grandmother. JIP | Talk 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, let's go crazy and say there are only 5,000. We still don't need articles for them. Kafziel ^Talk 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I never claimed it made Walter Talboys any more notable. JIP | Talk 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Anyway, with that distance (of relationship) and no references it's probably not true. James086Talk 08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James086, or we need references (Lord and Sheriff can make he notable). --Cate |_Talk 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kafziel ^Talk 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of WP:NOT a genealogy. I doubt whether it can be proved that he was actually related to George Washington, but he would not be notable in any case. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 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. --Core desat 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr John H McNeely[edit]

Conflict of interest, as this article is written by an account named "Johnmcneely," and the subject does not seem notable. Salad Days 03:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no assertion of particular notability. JCO312 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Notibility not asserted. WP:COI as per nomination.--Dacium 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keepNotability has been asserted. he has won two awards for teaching, one from a third party, and published 4 or 5 books. That is more than the average number for a professor, and thus may make him notable--especially with the combination. Why say "doesn't assert" when you mean "asserts, but I still dont think its enough".DGG 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of awards or books in the article, or assertions of notability, are they in his wife's El Paso Times obituary? (the link is dead). Pete.Hurd 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I was thinking of someone from elsewhere in Texas. There have been too many deletions coming up today for me to keep them straight. DGG 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'neutral I have not tried to look for sources, and they are not really in the article. I will look again tomorrow.DGG 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete NN person, and obvious COI. Article was created by user "Johnmcneely." Rockstar915 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Re:COI. Note that the subject of this article, who died in 2003, cannot be the author, but COI issues obviously remain. Pete.Hurd 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article says they had two children including John McNeely, Jr. It's an easy presumption that it was written by his son, the more because he also wrote an article for his mother, Dora Lopez McNeely (listed immediately below). Delete as failing WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN and COI per nom. John Vandenberg 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mentioned achievements or lasting works. Nothing to establish notability or influence on a certain field. Plus the article contains rather awkward phrases such as "Roman Religious Art, mostly of Mexican origen". User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Lopez McNeely[edit]

Conflict of interest, as this article is written by an account named "Johnmcneely," and the subject does not seem notable. Salad Days 03:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. JCO312 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Notibility not asserted. WP:COI as per nomination. Pioneering family of 1945!? right!--Dacium 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Looks like an obituary more than anything else. Rockstar915 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and COI noted in husband's article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO, WP:COI. Terence Ong 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Ohconfucius 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN and COI per nom. John Vandenberg 12:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on a school teacher. If kept we might be expecting to see others of this type. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sarra[edit]

School principal and winner of the 2004 Queenslander of the Year award. Still fails WP:BIO in my opinion.

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Im a queenslander whos never heard of him :-)

--Dacium 03:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment With a population of c. 4,000,000 in Queensland can you be expected to remember every person who made it to the local news? User:Dimadick
Move to Cherbourg State School, where presumably an article will be created eventually. ...maelgwn talk 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would article be created eventually? No evidence that school is notable. Never heard of it myself and it isn't far from me.--Dacium 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO. Terence Ong 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without references we cannot establish notability Alf photoman 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the school isn't notable either, then there is no where to move this and I don't think it stands up on it's own WP:BIO wise. SGGH 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won Queenslander of the Year [5] and article shows link to a nationally broadcast program about him. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, head of the Indigenous Leadership Institute and regarded as one of Australia's leading indigenous educators. Google News Archives comes up with 51 hits [6] so plenty of sources. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Australian Story program alone establishes notability, QUT award as well. Paul foord 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please improve the article whilst this AFD is ongoing to show notability there. Paul foord 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the man was Queenslander of the year. If that's not notable, then what is? Lankiveil 09:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, dude wins a national award, and gets press coverage. Makes him notable does it not? Otherwise, why would he win the award? Tomstdenis 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of notable award ( though the immediately preceding comment is wrong to say that it's a national one, and is sloppily reasoned ! ). WMMartin 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that comments about the quality of references seem to date from a couple of days ago. I find the references adequate. We may also wish to cite: http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/awardsevents/events/queenslandweek/qldweekawards/Queenslander_of_the_Year_Awards/ WMMartin 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 05:54, 28 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. W.marsh 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Finn[edit]

Constested speedy. D-list pop tart with little past, no future, and no notability. Her 15 minutes are over and she is now selling real estate. Membership in a marginally slightly notable group does not confer notability. Does not meet WP:MUSIC or, really, even come close. (N.B.: A previous nomination was stopped due to lack of standing of nominator.) Herostratus 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "D-list pop tart with little past, no future" is not appropriate and makes your POV questionable.--Dacium 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the non-nasty parts of the nom, and I might argue that this is speedy-able given that it contains virtually no content.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Innosense, the music group she was a member of. The group's main claim to fame is that one of its original members was Britney Spears. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, perhaps merging whatever relevant material merits it.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danay Ferrer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Latona. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable by association with notable band and notable significant other of sorts. TonyTheTiger 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is notable due to being associated with Britney Spears and also being involved with Justin Timberlake. Also, Herostratus's comment "D-List pop tart with little past, no future" is inappropriate and lacks any reason and logic into why we should delete this article. After all, that comment seems to be biased. Omghgomg 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all of Spears' and Timberlake's backup dancers notable? I dunno if I necessarily agree with that line of reasoning. It is obviously unfortunate that the nom uses abusive language but the article is still delete-able...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with innosense and redirect--Lee Vonce 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with no outside independent references about the person. Only external link isn't even about her. Delete unless independent sources can be provided for verification and to establish she has been notably discussed in publications. Dugwiki 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable. And as per Tony the T. Dwain 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dugwiki Netuser500 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blunt, but accurate. Fame by association doesn't cut it. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of a notable band. I am not sure what is the meaning of "Her 15 minutes are over". We do not only cover currently popular performers. User:Dimadick
Delete. Article is pure and unmitigated crap. It seems to have been written as either a joke or in bad faith. Bookishreader45 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect if no other reason than to negate the bad faith vote directly above. -WarthogDemon 02:23, 29 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. --Core desat 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixrat.com[edit]

Relisting to get a consensus, per nae'blis' "too early to tell. If it is not cleaned up, it may stand for deletion again in the future." Well, now it's the future. Same reasons as given by U911 above: it's a non-notable Web site. See also WP:WEB. Interestingly, Google gives 61,900 hits for "pixrat.com", and 18 hits for "pixrat.com -wikipedia". Wikipedia is not an advertising service!

Delete, non-notable. (relister's vote) --Quuxplusone 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, having been mentioned on two semi-notable blogs does not make it notable.--Dacium 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved this new deletion discussion to a separate page, per the recommendations at WP:AFD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough proof of notability. If further references can be provided, I may change my mind, but the references as listed on the page are insufficient. --El on ka 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:WEB. Terence Ong 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Computerjoe 's talk 21:40, 25 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 and move to Johannes du Plessis Scholtz. Seraphimblade 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. du P. Scholtz[edit]

Page was created in one edit by a user with no other contributions. Google returns no results for this page, but it seems pretty likely to me that this article is a copyright violation, and thus requires a complete rewrite, not a quixotic wikification. Salad Days 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. Assumes copyright with no proof. Assumes new user has bad intentions instead of good. Article does not clearly show notibility but author has a lot of published works and some are used in teaching of philsology so that makes him notible enough.--Dacium 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiforensics! should be added to Wikilawyering as a profession. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem like a vote or an argument. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless evidence supporting nominator's concerns can be provided. A two-minute search confirms the salient points of the article, and I can find no English-language source with any of the distinctive phrases used here. It is conceivable, I suppose, that this is translated from a pre-existing Dutch source, but in the absense of evidence, I think it best to assume good faith that even a new user might have taken the time to prepare an article in an off-wiki text editor rather than be content with a stub. It might be worth considering whether this should be moved to Johannes du Plessis Scholtz, however. And some references would be nice, but are by no means difficult to locate (although many are in Dutch). Serpent's Choice 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the author prepared his or her text offline and started the article by cutting and pasting it, this is not grounds for deletion. Wiki markup is not all that complicated. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I didn't start the article, but I did made some copyedits to this page in response to the AfD, to partially improve the formatting and provide a more encyclopedic tone. I thought the article was worth the trouble. It is presumably these edits to which the nominator is referring. I don't think improving potentially worthy articles is quixotic. This was originally a prod., deprodded by someone else. DGG 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as "first to use these techniques" and "influenced the world of South African linguistics" seems like a notability claim (one that should be in the intro), but we should find something to back that up. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Move per Serpent's Choice. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename No evidence of copyright infringement yet. Notable subject but the article title needs a rename. Too many initials. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl O. Nordling[edit]

Non-notable Scandinavian architect. Asserts notability, only references are to the 90 year old man's homepage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any sources on him being anything other than an architect? Seems that some reguard him as a puesdoscientist.--Dacium 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really know; all I know is that on his page at Revisionists.com shows him to be speculative of the Holocaust, with two articles he wrote.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (naturally, I wrote this :-)

References: No, you are wrong: reference no. 2 is to British Journal of Cancer (1953, Vol. VII, p. 68-72). A copy of the article just happens to be on-line his home page. (I do not think you are suggesting this is a forgery.) - Addendum - The article has/had 4 external links, two of them listed as references. Ref #1 contains full excerpts from Who’s Who in the World and Dictionary of International Biography. (These two references are of course a strong indication of notability.)
Other than architect?: He seems to be best known as a statistician. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal on medicine makes him also a contributor to medical science.
Notability: There were 4 red link references to Carl O. Nordling before I created this article. (One of them was created by me in last August in Knudson hypothesis) I believe he is notable based on his 1953 paper alone. Alfred G. Knudson published essentially the same theory 18 years after him (also based on statistical information) and received the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research (and the theory named after him).

-- Petri Krohn 10:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have copy-edited the Knudson hypothesis article to give due credit to Nordling, based mainly in this reference: Milestone 9: (1953) Two-hit hypothesis - It takes (at least) two to tango at the Nature (journal) (Note the year 1953 for this discovery, often attributed to Knudson in 1971.) If you feel the credit is not due, take it to Talk:Knudson hypothesis. -- Petri Krohn 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but the article should be more specific about the fact that Nordling is not noted as architect but because of his holocaust statistics (sic.) Alf photoman 15:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable but only two books listed? User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Magickal Arts[edit]

non-notable spam for organization of very little interest outside its community Nardman1 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable--SUIT⁴² 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to be notable only within community. Not notabile media attention that I could find and article doesn't assert any nobitibility as per WP:ORG requirements.--Dacium 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (I am the article's author) I can (and will) argue that CMA has, within the worldwide Neopagan community, considerable notability. However, seeing as how I just this afternoon started this page, as a stub, it is kind of absurd to instantly slap an AfD tag on it. Nardiman originally tagged this page as db-spam, apparently without actually reading it, then changed his mind after I spoke up, and now he proposes it for deletion. Wouldn't it have been easier to just admit his error, remove the db-spam tag, and give me some time to develop the article? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been preferrable if he has done that. However, it would have been a good idea for you to obtain reliable sources before you created the article in the first place. That way we could have seen that it met the notability criteria and would not have to have this discussion. JChap2007 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Conditional Keep Without any further information, WP:FAITH. Nkras 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AfD show have waited until a reasonable amount of time passed. The article has been substantially edited and appears to contain legitimate information with sources. Nkras 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for a while ➥the Epopt 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. Revisit in 3-6 months. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, review article in a few months time. Terence Ong 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta say weak keep here. I'll ask some of the neopagans around work as to the notability of this organization - though that would point to whether it's notable in Seattle. --Dennisthe2 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Precedent has already been set by inclusion of similar festivals. Needs some major work, especially third-party references. - WeniWidiWiki 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say that the idea that this article is considered a joke and un-notable is a real shame. CMA is a registered 501 (c) 3 organization with almost 1000 members. ----User:rain0826 Web Mistress for Council of the Magickal Arts, Inc. http://www.magickal-arts.org
- I do feel it prudent at this time to refer you to WP:ILIKEIT. It's not so much the number of members of the organization that make it notable, it's the purpose of the organization. I still need to ask around, but my vote above otherwise stands at weak keep. --Dennisthe2 18:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could use some more references if such exist, per WeniWidiWiki. Rain0826, while your enthusiasm is understandable, even commendable, you pretty much disqualify yourself for Conflict Of Interest.
--*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep - per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LOCAL. Please produce sources involving newspaper coverage, or some sort of coverage from independant, reliable sources. There's nothing there that can be verified. Saying it's a registered 501 c means absolutely nothing, that has not been verified and quite frankly doesn't mean a hill of beans since it's not something WP uses for inclusion. This is not even a matter of notability, but of verifiability. Thank you for sourcing. Goodbye.--Elar agirl^Talk|Count 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly make a statement like "Saying it's a registered 501 c means absolutely nothing, that has not been verified..."? Do you happen to know what 501(c)(3) means? It means they are a tax-exempt religious organization and recognized as such by the IRS. It means donations to the org are tax-deductible, for one thing. Do you think that is something you can just claim on your website without it being a fact? What would convince you? I am PRETTY sure the IRS does NOT post a list of all 501(c)(3)'s anywhere. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, deletionists are primarily out to destroy other's work rather than contribute to wikipedia, so it's best to just ignore them. They usually go after small grass-roots groups and particularly like to prey on new editors. If they are going to start removing all religious and nonprofit groups on the basis of 501(c)(3) non-profit status for notability, there are several thousand articles in front of this one. - WeniWidiWiki 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the term deletionist doesn't necessarily refer to somebody who follows the link you refer to. --Dennisthe2 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had bothered to actually READ what I wrote, I did not say it wasn't notable, and I said notability wasn't even the issues. I said that no one had any verifiable sources. The fact that it's a 501 does not make it automatically immune to needing to follow WP:RS or WP:V. Does this organization have any coverage that can VERIFY it's existance? If this organization is supposedly so important as the article claims, shouldn't there be some independent coverage? As for WeniWidiWiki's attack, I find it funny I have more mainspace contributions than he does even though he's been here longer. Please read WP:CIVIL for how to edit, and WP:DGAF for what I think of your slanted opinion. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough everyone. FWIW, the IRS does indeed maintain a list of qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. See [7]. JChap2007 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the TXT file that the IRS provides at that link, I find that this organization is listed there. However, as I explain below, this is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. JChap2007 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaragirl, take a good look at this quote from your own project, then look at the nom above and my response (the first listed keep) and ask yourself wtf is really going on around here...

from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion

Execution of Stubs

Wikipedia is not a gallows. Some people like building stubs, then slowly expanding the article as they go along , sourcing and refining. Yet increasingly, speedy deletion is killing off stubs, in some cases in under 50 minutes from time of creation.

I am only asking you to honor the words on your project page and reverse your vote... at least for now. Bear in mind that it was 32 minutes from stub creation to nom for speedy delete, and an hour after that Nardiman created this AfD. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, yes. I agree, the speedy that the article had was out of line, and you did right with the hangon. The Deletion process *is* working correctly.

I'll break it down for you. IF your article is both notable (which it may or may not be) and verifiable (which means you would have added sources) then deletion nominations are a joke. Take Starwood Festival. Horribly written spam sounding article. But it has plenty of sources, from places that have nothing to do with the festival directly. Books, newspapers, mainstream blogs, etc. You say that the Council of Magical arts is important , and the article claims that it's one of the larger pagan thingies (festivals, what have you) in the world. WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE A SINGLE INDEPENDANT SOURCE? You haven't got anything that even demonstrates a shred of notability. If someone has found something in a Google search, please add it to the article, because my search string google search string found 102 ghits. NOT notable. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. Adler, Margot, Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, Beacon Press, ISBN 0-8070-3253-0, revised edition, 1986, p. 536. lists the CMA Beltaine and Samhain festivals. The contact info is long out of date, though.

It was published 20 years ago, so of course the contact info is out of date. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More refs pouring in:

Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft by Raven Grimassi [8]
If You Want to Be a Witch: A Practical Introduction to the Craft by Edain McCoy [9]
The Sabbats: A Witch's Approach to Living the Old Ways by Edain McCoy [10]
Advanced Witchcraft: Go Deeper, Reach Further, Fly Higher by Edain McCoy [11]

--Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one more... Dancing the Fire: A Guide to Neo-Pagan Festivals and Gatherings by Marian Singer --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing... JChap says that published books that mention CMA in lists of festivals is not significant, but you have to realize that CMA has been holding these festivals twice a year for 27 years! Yes, CMA does not sponsor a chair at a university, or fund research into why hamsters have no hair on their tongues but what they do is what they do... 2 festivals a year and 4 journals. Longevity, particularly in ANYTHING alternative, is notable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The listings you provided are all merely directory listings, not substantive discussions, and WP:N requires that the organization have been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, not merely mentioned in them. And no, longevity does not make something notable under that guideline; rather, having sources does. JChap2007 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Elaragirl's comment way below. The Grimassi book has more than just a listing for CMA. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete • No real verifiable sources, but I'm not satisfied there aren't any, after some prodding in Google. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources (see WP:N and WP:ORG). No hits in Google News, the hits in Google News Archive do not have as their subject this organization, but merely quote officials of the organization on other topics. The hits in Google Books are merely directory listings (trivial mentions). I find the keep rationales above unconvincing for various reasons:
1. We don't keep articles just because they might (in 3-6 months time) contain sufficient sourcing to meet the notability criteria.
2. Merely being verifiable or having 501(c)(3) status are insufficient to meet the notability criteria.
3. That similar organizations/festivals have articles here is a non starter per WP:INN and the principle that notability is not a blanket. This article needs to assert that the organization itself is notable, not that similar organizations are notable. JChap2007 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Googled it, and it seems notable enough...--SUIT⁴² 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it again using the actual phrase "Council of Magickal Arts". 102 ghits. On another note, looking up this stuff has led me to the Fellowship of Isis, which is not sourced but is plainly notable, I'll source that to show what needs to be done to this article. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on this, since you and others have said before the ghits are not a measure of notability (yet everyone keeps mentioning ghits anyway), if I use "council of magickal arts" I get 266 ghits. For "council of the magickal arts" I get 259 ghits (we have had this problem for years as many add "the" although it is not correct). For council +magickal +arts Google stops counting at 32,000 ghits. I found legit references as far as the 45th page of hits where I stopped. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain which of these "legit references" constitute reliable sources? And you're right, the Google test is pretty worthless. JChap2007 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not say they were WP:RS, just said they were legit refs. By legit I meant that they were actually referring to CMA and not a false hit.

So are there any independent, nontrivial reliable sources for this subject? The sources in the article are a mention in a style guide and a directory listing in the CNM report (trivial), its own website and journal (not independent), and a personal website (not reliable). JChap2007 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so ya know, The Witches Voice is not a personal website. It has been THE number one online Pagan networking and educational site for many years. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's a place where witches go and write posts about organizations they are involved with or events they attend. That's not a reliable source, like a newspaper or magazine. A number of the keep !voters seem to be willing to give you more time to develop the article, but if there really are no sources out there that would enable this to meet the notability guidelines you are probably just wasting your time and ours... JChap2007 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, notable witches such as Kerr Cuhulain, author of 181 articles and essays on witchvox, 4 books and head of The Officers of Avalon. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the posts are reliable (and Cuhulain did not write any of the posts cited in the article). The posts contain the personal experiences of attendees of the festivals and are not an attempt at doing any sort of reporting (and I don't think they were intended as such). There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But such postings are not considered reliable sources. JChap2007 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset indenting A newspaper or magazine publishes information of interest to their readers, and which they believe will sell papers. A website of the longevity and quality of The Witches Voice publishes articles, essays and news items of interest to their readership, which they believe will generate traffic and fulfill their stated mission. Sure, there are portions of the site that are user-generated and of less than stellar notability, but the editorial portions of the site are considered of high notability among the community in question, namely Neopagans. What I responed to, regarding Kerr Cuhulain, was your disparaging tone when you referred to witchvox as a place where witches go and write posts about organizations they are involved with or events they attend. I find it really amazing that a project that seeks to use the Internet as a tool to create this vast encyclopedic reference is so inherently dogmatic in its distrust of the medium it lives in. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's being dogmatic or disparaging. slate.com is frequently cited here (to take one of many examples of online publications that are considered reliable sources). The reason that the three posts cited in the Council of Magickal Arts article we are discussing do not qualify as reliable sources is that they were obviously written to convey a personal experience, rather than as part of a concious attempt to collect and report objectively on information, such as would be undertaken by a journalist, academic or professional author. There's nothing wrong with writing about one's personal experience, of course. Such writing does not fall within the definition of reliable source, however. JChap2007 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - and revisit in a month if notability has not been established in that time. I might go for delete if the deletion request were not filed so quickly. I generally think an article should be given at least the five days permitted for inclusion in the Did you know section before considering deletion. Badbilltucker 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BITE. Mango juice^talk 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disgustingly, although you can't tell it from the given google excerpt, the Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft has a small section. There are enough possible sources that I'm not willing to see it deleted at this time, but it still reads very .. ahem .. spammy. Please clean it up further. I have changed my vote accordingly. (See? Add source, change vote.Works.) --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable enough, and give the author time to improve the article. --Bill.matthews 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading some of the commentary here, we do have an interesting point - we really shouldn't be so pedantic about prompt deletion of brand new articles for "stub" purposes. Should this be brought up in BITE or AGF? --Dennisthe2 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would only apply to BITE when it is a new editor, but would ALWAYS apply to AGF. That is what really got me so annoyed at first, was the assumption of the nom that the article would NOT be expanded and completed. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many new articles that , on first glance, "look okay" are spam? How many are created and never touched again? Thousands. Literally thousands. If I come back to the average article in a month's time, it's still going to be crap. Example that you can relate to: Free Spirit Gathering. Not a source in sight, and it's been here since April. It is NOT biting or violating AGF to ask that you follow the policies. Was it speedy tagged too quick, maybe. But your article reads like vanity spam. I'm sorry, but it does, and that's what I suspect got such a rapid response. I'm not going to nom Free Spirit Gathering for deletion, but there are plenty of articles like that "under the radar", and saying "Well, you can't kill spammy looking unsourced articles" isn't right. When I make a new article, even a stub, I always include at least two sources. And if I can't THEN I DON'T MAKE THE ARTICLE. Try it. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 05:32, 27 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. --Core desat 05:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googlazyness[edit]

Beyond being only a dictionary definition, this term is a protologism, without even the web hits needed to be verifiable as a neologism. Wikipedia is not for terms made up one day. Article was prodded and prod2ed by other editors, both tags removed by author without comment. Serpent's Choice 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviousl Neologism that isnt even popular.--Dacium 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to BJAODN. This is obviously a joke. --Candy-Panda 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and RTFM. Pomte 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism or joke. JIP | Talk 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Resolute 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical Neologism that doesn't even have a single Google result. Metrackle 06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO, nonsense, WP:NFT. Terence Ong 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense/vandalism. Gan fon 13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism; and the article sounds more like a wannabe-dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article. - Iotha 22:21, 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. --Core desat 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VGBabes.com[edit]

Doesn't follow WP:WEB --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of article is not verifiable and no assertion of notibility is made. Best thing to published mentions is passing comments in blogs.--Dacium 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Under A7, so tagged.--RWR8189 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete typical forum crud, complete with a list of mods and a big section on "forum wars", not to mention, as always, not a single reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, not verified, and seems like just a promotion for the site. - Iotha 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Alexa rank in the 309 thousandsths, nor its reach of 4 per million, doesn't say much out about notability. We don't need to know the fine details of what goes on between consenting adults on the site either. Ohconfucius 01:22, 24 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. Possibly merge but consensus for that should be established on the talk page. W.marsh 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Holland[edit]

Contested ((prod)) ("nn biography; no indication of any historical importance other than possibly having notable relatives. Wikipedia is not a genealogical index."). Prod template removed and with note on talk page, "All of these are famous historical people, and articles for those in the line of descent are widespread throughout the historical articles. Look at some, like the ones cited. If you doubt the criteria, try Afd and the historians will join the discussion.". I'd consider that to be an appeal to WP:INN and appeal to authority (assumes all "historians" would oppose AfD - can't say that I'd agree). I'm also not nominating "all these" people, only this person who seems to have done nothing of little importance other than marrying well. Also of concern is that the article is unverified and unsourced. Agent 86 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Constance Holland as distinct lack of notibility that totally fails WP:BIO.--Dacium 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my confusion, but do you mean that this should be merged into some other article? Your comment seems to say merge the article into itself. Agent 86 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant move to Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk, she is only notable having married him.--Dacium 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless more information asserting notability is provided. Being a middle-age noble doesn't autamatically make you notable. MaxSem 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep in line with other similar articles, which is not an expression of INN just of some minimal degree of consistency. INN is not policy. it is not a guideline. It is an essay, and therefore merely a personal opinion. Further, the talk page at INN shows no signs of consensus. & even the author of the essay says it was only put forth tentatively. DGG 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect per ~~nom~~ Dacium. According to: Sir Leslie Stephen, ed.. The Dictionary of National Biography Founded in 1882 by George Smith, Vol. I-XX, XXII, London, England: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922, she was the wife of Sir John Grey and had two sons, Edmund (Earl of Kent) and Thomas (Baron of Rougemont). (Not just one as noted in the unsourced article in question.) She is not otherwise mentioned in this source and does not appear to be notable in her own right. There are other places to look for information about individuals such as this, primarily genealogical works. -Butseriouslyfolks 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I thank Butseriouslyfolks for the correction. I located the source for the article and inserted it; it is an online version of two standard reliable sources considered as reliable as the DND. The portion online indicated additional children but did not include the name, so I added the second son on the authority of the reference here. I have also added context--go check the article again. She was closely related to the English Royal family. There is an interlocking series of these articles for the Royal family and its close relatives, of which this article is a link. There is no reason for the chain to be disrupted. It can be said that the chain needs to be looked at again and many articles done more carefully, but that is true of many of the articles in WP. if not all of them. I I have just notified the previous 3 editors on the page of the AfD, using the standard templates, which do not indicate any suggestion of how to vote. ~~(The nominator really should have done this, but failed to. Its not a policy, but a/c AFD, "it is considered civil")~~ DGG 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Correction, the main editor was notified, I also notified the other two. Sorry, Agent86.DGG 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. Agent 86 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk, per Dacium. There is no notability by association nor marriage, and the article fails to state any notability, other than having been documented in geneological works. Ohconfucius 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- these works are the standard sources--all historians use them, except for really specialized work. further can be added, but this gets into specialized literature and unpublished material very fast. By your criterion, you will end up with articles on all the men and very few of the women. Please take a look at the series of interlocking articles-~~-use the series box.~~ DGG 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's ok. For better or worse, history has essentially ignored the deeds of the women of that era, rendering most of them non-notable. Users will still find information about the women as they are mentioned in the articles about the men. There's no need for interlocking articles of this nature. There are more appropriate places for that sort of thing. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is OK, even in tertiary sources like WP, since the basic information can be found and verified, but to actually find citable specific secondary source information on the women, while not impossible, is so difficult that I am not going to pursue it here, on the principle of WP:SNOWBALL. I'll stick to actual children of Kings, as she was only a niece. Anyway the title of her husband was entered wrong--I discovered that he is known in contemporary reference sources (the 2007 DNB) as Thomas Mowbray, 2nd Earl of Nottingham. The relevant page has been moved, and you might as well merge her to the right guy. I haven't changed the links above, because the redirects will work--If they should be changed --as links in articles are being changed, then change them. DGG 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Great-granddaughter of Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainaut, granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Blanche of Lancaster, daughter of John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter and the article you decide to merge it with is her obscure husband Thomas Mowbray, 2nd Earl of Nottingham? I think if anything he was only notable for marrying her and thus gaining a connection to the Royal family. User:Dimadick

I cannot agree with the implied suggestion that any great-grandchild of any king should be included solely because of her relation to the royal family, without any requirement that the subject be notable in the subject's own right. Wikipedia is not a directory of members of the extended royal family. Giving her husband a royal connection may be the most significant act history has preserved from her life. Her husband's article would also be the logical place to refer to the couple's children. IMHO. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very relevant when the King happens to be Edward III of England as pointed by the Wars of the Roses. But she had no children from Mowbray. Her only known children were by her more notable second husband, Sir John Grey. Why should Nottingham be considered as more important? User:Dimadick

Right in this case the dynastic relationships are critical in English history of the period--and they are furthermore the basis of Shakespeare's history plays. It is not easy to clarify the relationships without discussing the women as well; especially in connection with their dowries of landed property and their second or third marriages, the heiresses all throughout the middle ages & early modern period were central to the formation of major family fortunes.

In 21st century society such relationships may not be very important, but they were in that earlier period. It isn't mere genealogy in the modern sense. The ODNB articles discuss this in detail. DGG 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Policy also addresses this issue. "Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement." -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I'm being remembered 500 years after my death I'd take that for notability. Also, per DGG. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't imagine what might be the benefit of deleting an article about this person. AllanBColson 07:48, 30 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 to Joshua Clover. Luna Santin 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Dark[edit]

~~Non notable journalist Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Should be merged to, you know, the person's real name, but this merge was undone by Badlydrawnjeff, who is clearly not stalking my contributions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep voters unable to verify existance of this non-existant person. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- False. The external links clearly show existence of someone writing as "Jane Dark." --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A pen name is not a person. Is the article about a person or a pen name. Unverifiable information is worse than irrelevant information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So let's decide that and move forward, shall we? Neither one is unverifiable, from the looks of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's kill the article on Jandek then. ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how a journalist for the Village Voice can be non-"notable." Perfect example of why WP:BIO has/needs "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that argument sounds pretty much like WP:ILIKEIT ;-). Ohconfucius 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sounds like "There's no way a journalist for a major magazine isn't 'notable'." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You withdraw an AfD as a merge and I'm stalking you? Please. Meanwhile, we have one person claiming Jane Dark is Joshua Clover without evidence or a reason as to why the two should be merged together, and two people thinking it should be kept. Sorry, not thinking a merge is the right move here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and Redirect (per below) Journalist works for notable pub, is quoted and linked to. IronDuke 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect--Jane Dark is a pen name of Joshua Clover.-Cindery
Merge Cindery is correct--Dacium 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The citation in the Jane Dark article--the book Passing explains that Dark is Clover's pen name. At the JC article, under external links--the Academy of American Poets profile-- it states that Jane Dark's Sugarhigh! is Clover's blog.-Cindery 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well...it could be kept as an article, but not as a bio. Are there any other stand-alone articles for a pen name or pseudonym? I haven't seen any. I will recuse myself from further discussion because I don't really understand AfD.-Cindery 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We're not consistent. A.N. Roquelaure is a redirect, Richard Bachman is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any verifiable content but Merge & Redirect it to Joshua Clover. Typically we merge this kind of thing until the parent article (in this case Joshua Clover) gets too big and needs to be split. In the meantime I don't think we can show that this pen-name is notable on it's own (ie, no books/articles written about the pen-name) to justify an article on it. (If we want to debate the notability of Joshua Clover then that article would need to be nominated separately). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you read the St. Louis Dispatch review of Passing,--linked at Jane Dark--there is not only a book with a chapter about Dark/Clover pen name phenomenon, but the review calls it the most interesting chapter. But I think I'm still in favor of the merge (frankly, I don't understand the difference--does merge mean Jane Dark article will be there with a redirect to Clover, or will all the Jane Dark content be in the Joshua clover article?--like I said, I don't "get" AfD, sorry if that is stupid question, and for coming back to add my comments if they don't make sense.) Clover noted in Passing that when he was "outed" as Jane Dark, he lost the sense of her as a separate/independent voice...but still used the pen name. So, there is a way in which "Jane" was a separate voice/different writer from Joshua-the-poet, and that has been noted in a book. But I wouldn't say that is really the case now--the voices are merged at the current Sugarhigh! at least, so it makes sense that the articles could be merged. Unless the idea of Jane-as-separate- voice is deemed to have historical value. Because there are so many Village Voice articles by Joshua (more than 200) and only a slim minority of those are noted at his article--on "serious" subjects--and there are also a sizable chunk of VV articles by Jane--on "pop" subjects-- that could make the Clover article messy if merge means all the articles are in one place. Or at least overflowing with links to the VV. :-)-Cindery 07:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe to add clarity: Jane's published articles are only about popular culture (whereas Clover's are both pop and serious). And for a few years, no one knew that Clover was Dark. That would be the argument for Jane as separate? Now, it is not a secret that Dark is a pen name of Clover--there has been a book about it, and the Academy of American Poets notes that Dark is a pen name of Clover. Sugarhigh! was a column written by Jane Dark for the Village Voice, but is now the name of Clover's blog (which he writes un-secretly as Jane Dark, and about subjects both pop and serious.) That would be the argument against separation?-Cindery 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could be... I'm just not sure if there is enough content published to build an article longer then a stub about "Jane Dark." I think at this point it's fairly clear that the article won't be deleted, so we are just deciding where to put the content... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There are evidently only a few paragraphs' worth of information to be written about Jane Dark in the forseeable future. There is no reason not to merge them. Any details of the relationship between the two personas can be explained in the Clover article, and are more easily explained together in the same article than by asking readers to fllip back and forth. We don't have separate articles on Walter Carlos and Wendy Carlos, on Currer Bell and Charlotte Bronte, on Paul French and Isaac Asimov, etc. Under the naming convention articles go under the most common name; if "Jane Dark" were far more famous than "Joshua Clover" then the merge would go the other way. The case of Richard Bachman is the exception, not the rule; I'm not sure it's justified, but if it is it would be on the basis of Bachman being so well known and the Stephen King article being so long, neither of which apply here. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Joshua Clover per reasons above. Terence Ong 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I don't see any reason why this would be a separate, if it has its own article that's two articles about the same person. Is Samuel Clements a separate article from Mark Twain? No. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Then do the same thing to Richard Bachman/Stephen King. When a pseudonymous author's real identity is known, I cannot see a compelling reason for an encyclopedia to keep separate articles. Both are about the same topic, after all. Serpent's Choice 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the case of Stephen King it's a matter of article size. Splitting articles due to size is quite a common thing to do. I don't know why it was decided to split it like that, but there you go. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also provides a compelling example of why this kind of split is a bad idea in the long run. The two articles differ on as fundamental a detail as why the pseudonym was used at all. According to the King article, it was to produce more books without appearing to flood the market under a single name. According the the Bachman article, it was primarily an effort to duplicate his success and ensure that his readership was not simply a fluke. In my mind, the King article (at 38k) is not so bloated that a merge of the salient points from Bachman would hurt; some of the accessory details that are book-specific should probably be merged to those articles instead. Regardless, while that'll need to be discussed on the respective talk pages, I think it makes the point clearly for the discussion at hand. Serpent's Choice 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is a discussion for those articles' Talk pages, perhaps in conjunction with the ((contradicts)) template. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. Regardless of other examples, the question of a subarticle seems to depend on whether there is sufficient material, and in this case the obvious answer is that there is not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. In the case of Richard Bachman, the creation of the pen name was notable, and there's enough material about the use of the pen name, to warrant an article. Unless there was some big scandal over the Jane Dark pen name, there's not enough information to warrant a separate article. Argyriou (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect because once the silly list of links to a dozen individual columns is tripped out we have one short paragraph, clearly well short of the amount of data which would justify a fork even if the main article were as large as Stephen King's (which it ain't). Notable pen names are ones which have their own history, like Kilgore Trout. George Sand and George Eliot have the main article at the pen name, by the way, we make up our minds according to the situation. I am bemused as to why Jeff is so keen on having a separate, very short article for this one, a merge will lose no useful information and will be more informative. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I wouldn't say he is "keen" on it--he thought there should be discussion about it is all:[12]-Cindery 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly because I don't consider merging two things that exist as separate entities as useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd consider writing under two different names "existing as separate entities". You do realize they are the same person, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Pen names serve many purposes, and I don't think we're doing our readers a service in combining articles like this or Anne Rice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am going to try an informal test. Before looking them up, I am going to a number of pen names and other pseudonyms, and see how many of them have combined articles for the real name and pseudonym and how many have separate articles. (I'm not interested in whether the article is under the real name or the pseudonym, just "combined" versus "separate.") OK, here's my list: E. Nesbit, Stalin, Pauline Réage, Lemony Snicket, Lewis Carroll, John Wayne, George Eliot, Boz, Saki, TRB. And the results:

E. Nesbit--no article on Edith Bland
Joseph Stalin redirects from Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
Pauline Réage redirects to Anne Desclos
Lemony Snicket/Daniel Handler are separate
Lewis Carroll redirects from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
John Wayne redirects from Marion Robert Morrison
George Eliot redirects from Mary Ann Evans
Boz is a dab page with Charles Dickens as first shoice
Saki redirects from Hector Hugh Munro
TRB is separate, and briefly explains and links to four writers who wrote the TRB column.

So, one doesn't count, as there was not an entry for E. Nesbit's real name; six were combined articles; TRB was a separate article for the specific reasons that multiple writers shared that pen name; Boz was a dab page for the same reason; and there is a single case, Lemony Snicket/Daniel Handler where there are truly separate articles for a person's real name and pseudonym. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough with Snicket, unfortunately, as the "pen name" is really a character. This probably doesn't help my argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for pointing out the interesting subtlety. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of nothing, just occurred to me that there is what is best described as "a character named Stephen King" in Stephen King's novel Song of Susannah... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worse-case delete, as a reviewer in a notable magazine on whom nobody knows a great deal for certain fails WP:RS and WP:N; as a best-case mergeto Joshua Clover for being the [proven] pen name of some notable person per User:Cindery. Ohconfucius 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as not notable enough. Is every poet with a couple books and a few bush-league culture articles currently in wikipedia? Should they be? I mean, where's the Nicole Cooley entry, or hatever? I know there's a purported will to encyclopedize everything — but if that were really the case, there would be no WP code about notability in the first place. And it would sure be the easiest solution to this kerfuffle. How about this: delete both, and if there's a big hue and cry, and someone wants to take on the responsibility of remaking them, perhaps that will be suggestive. But if they're deleted and that turns out to be okay, won't we all have one less thing to worry about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janedark (talk • contribs)
- Based on the current content in the Joshua Clover article, he seems to meet WP:BIO. I think if it were a new article and it were nominated for deletion, there would be some discussion but ultimately the consensus would be to keep. In its present state, I think a nomination would probably garner some "speedy keeps" and some expressions of pique at the nominator. But at any rate, I'm about to perform a test. This is just one of my personal criteria for notability. I don't know yet how it will turn out. I personally regard someone as a "real" author if they have a book with an Amazon sales rank of 200,000 or better. I picked 200,000 for fairly arbitrary reasons, but basically it correlates very well with my own opinions on authors whose notability I can judge myself. I'm about to see how Clover's books do. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His book on The Matrix for the British Film Institute, ISBN 1844570452, has Amazon sales rank #487,980; his book of poetry, The Totality for Kids, ISBN 0520246004 #339,900. Well, I don't know quite how to apply my criterion when there are two books with similar low rank... the nerd in me is tempted to add 1/487980 and 1/339,000 and get 1/200348... I was hoping I could instantly say he's notable on the basis of authorship, but, by my criterion, not quite. These are "real" books, though; I own one of the books in the BFI series (not his). And a claim for notability would be supported by more book-authorship alone. I still think a nomination for deletion would fail, but there might be some serious discussion... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect A regular Village Voice film and music critic is notable enough for inclusion. I'm almost neutral on the redirect issue. --Oakshade 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's not listed on the masthead. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with "regular" as well, looking at the VV website I only found one Joshua Clover article last year, and the latest from Jane Dark there was 2003. He/she has written for them, but obviously not a staff columnist or regular contributor. If anyone favors deleting both articles, the way to go about it is probably to start an AfD on Joshua Clover once this one is done (merged). --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic question--Since nobody's answered it at Talk:Jane Dark, and since there are a lot of people discussing her here now... is "Jane Dark" supposed to be taken as a riff on Jeanne d'Arc? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, let's leave Jandek out of this! You people! ;-) -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jandek's actually a good case of when a pseudonym perhaps should be the article title. Although there's somewhat reasonable agreement that Jandek is Smith, there have obviously been other contributors to some Jandek pieces, and the entire career has been a marked attempt to avoid identification or recognition under the artist's real name, with no official confirmation of his identity ever provided. Those attributes distinguish Jandek from this case, where there is no question as to the author's identity (and confirmation by the author himself), and where notability and public recognition have been established under the real name as well. Serpent's Choice 08:11, 30 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. --Core desat 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Regatta Residential & Hotel Suites[edit]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:N Caniago 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N, possibly spam, fortelling the future etc. --Dacium 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a commercial. Nkras 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V, WP:N. Terence Ong 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like spam, possible crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 17:06, 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 keep, bad faith nomination by banned user: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra. Part Deux 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rombola[edit]

fails WP:BIO...some people may say that because he is employed by OVW he is notable, but there are hundreds of wrestlers who have been employed by OVW over the years who don't qualify for their own Wikipedia article DragonKidfan432 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree in failing of WP:BIO. No indepetant sources of notibility say anything.--Dacium 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He isn't only just working for OVW, he's under contract with WWE.MikeH411 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WWE has under contract over 460 people, according to this source [13], so that's not a valid reason for inclusion, and I think every Wikipedian would agree that not every WWE employee deserves a Wikipedia article.DragonKidfan432 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, but the majority of those employees are behind the scenes people. Of course they shouldn't be notable. But he's a regular on-air performer on the OVW show. There's a difference there.MikeH411 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has accomplished enough to be worthy of a wiki article for a wrestlerShelbysc 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shelbysc has made no edits outside of this topic.DragonKidfan432 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because he is in OVW, doesn't make him that notable. As said before: many people have been employed by OVW over the years... all aren't notable. I think people just need to wait more (to see if the person becomes notable or not) before creating articles on all these OVW wrestlers. Yes, many do make it to WWE... but many don't, and end up fired. RobJ1981 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. The article could be improved but my vote does not count on improving te article. Dwain 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Just being in OVW is not notable. People can pay to enter and get trained. And even if he has a WWE contract then he needs to accompish something before being notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 09:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's such a huge difference between paying "to enter and get trained" and receiving a a developmental contract from the largest wrestling promotion in the world that I'm surprised you'd even use that as a claim against notablity. They don't give those out to every Tom, Dick, And Harry on the indy wrestling scene. Also, paying "to enter and get trained" doesn't get you put on the OVW roster, nor does working a one off show for the promotion, for that matter. Vladamire Steelwolf 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable athleteDogJesterExtra 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am saying Keep, because it looks like he is going to be on SmackDown. Govvy 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that creator is under investigation for being a WP:SOCK account of User:JB196 and if proven, the AFD will be Speedily deleted as a Keep (with no prejudice against renomination) See section on WP:AN/I for more details. SirFozzie 19:47, 27 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. --Core desat 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Reche[edit]

Non-notability. The page was originally nominated for speedy deletion by Random Passer-by and then deleted by Jimfbleak, only to be recreated by SmokeyTheCat about 24 hours later. It would seem that there is some disagreement over the deletion, thus, so I put it here. Shorelander 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE non-notable porn actress Nardman1 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this one is a no-brainer --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-speedy delete Although I do not prefer to use WP:N, the subject can't be described wihtout breaking policy (by not citing facts) (sorry for the shameless plug) -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Terence Ong 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Her video on Metacafe has been watched 600,000 time that's not bad going. She's a stripper not a porn star. She's been in a couple of films too and is mentioned at www.IMDB.com But I seem to be in a minority of one here, alas. SmokeyTheCat 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to keep it, I'd encourage you to get to work and change our minds. --Dennisthe2 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article as it currently exists consists entirely of one line describing what this person does - and that's it. I'm not sure a video on Metacafe is entirely notable - I get the feeling that's like saying that your video is on YouTube. Per SmokeyTheCat's argument, does WP:PORNBIO apply to strippers as well? --Dennisthe2 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO.--Dacium 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She has not invented revolutionary ways of stripping, nor defined new standards. Her IMDB entry consists of 2 lines, one role is "Stripper chica". Delete fails WP:BIO, and I shan't even mention WP:PORNBIO. Ohconfucius 01:51, 24 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 subject's correct spelling at Jerry Azumah; redirect is a plausible misspelling. Non-admin closure, although I'd like to think this one is pretty uncontroversial. Serpent's Choice 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Azuma[edit]

Speed Deletion Contest; Article is suppused to be for Jerry Azumah. User who created the page did not have the sense to look up the proper spelling for the surname. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No brainer. IronDuke 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dleete and slap the contester--Dacium 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible misspelling. JIP | Talk 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should be replaced with a redirect. - Iotha 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Agreed.-- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerry Azumah then delete the redirect. Lets not be too hard on the creator seems like a easy mistake. --Solent 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible misspelling. At least one person has made the slip-up. -- saberwyn 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, misspelling. Terence Ong 12:27, 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. W.marsh 04:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimetic desire[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it seems largely unverified and mostly seems to consist of the personal opinion of the author, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It has been tagged for wikification since April 2006 and tagged for cleanup for copyediting for over a month and yet despite the efforts of myself, and others, is still a huge block of text that is barely understandable and seems to have been a straight copy-paste of an essay. I don't think this article is fixable, judging by the ratio of personal opinions to verifiable facts within it. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too much theorizing, not much hope of cleanup IMO. Milto LOL pia 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, love your edit summary --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the idea from K37 Milto LOL pia 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Terence Ong 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Large chunks are copyvios from here, an essay by Girard. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has references but is copyied with no chance of fixing.--Dacium 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of philosophy-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep with major cleanup or re-direct to René Girard until someone can make a real article out of it. im(ns)ho girad is a fool, but his foolishness has legs, esp. this bit of it. example, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe's major work on mimesis is in large part a quite robust response to this very 'theory' ⇒ bsnowball 10:52, 23 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. --Core desat 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menachem Genack[edit]

non-notable and what's a "Foward" anyway? Nardman1 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Um Forward is a venerable and famous Jewish newspaper, probably the most famous Jewish publication in the USA. I'm not sure if it's descended from or related to the old Vorwarts, which was a famous Jewish paper published in Yiddish (and which published the works of Isaac Bashevis Singer and great deal of assorted rabble-rousing back in the day. Anyway, if the Forward really does think he's one of the 50 most influential Jews in the USA, that's plenty notable enough for me. Herostratus 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article spells it as "Foward", even going so far as to distinguish the misspelling from the true spelling in a link [[The Forward|Foward]]. I don't get it. Nardman1 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The spelling error was easy to fix; you could just as easily have done that as expend (read: waste) time and energy nominating the article for deletion. Let's move forward with the quality of our encyclopedia, not try (in your case, seemingly your primary activity) to purge valid and useful content, thanks. Badagnani 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And (to second Badagnani) lets put our energies to constructive work.--Miamite 07:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established, let it expand further and use our stamina to improve the encyclopedia even further. Terence Ong 12:40, 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 keep. W.marsh 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Concepcion[edit]

Minor Filippino actress of the 50's (although that would be hard to figure out from the current sub-stub). Her career, as far as IMdB knows [14], consists of six films and only one where she has the lead role. No references are provided in the article and unless some reliable sources comes up, I believe she is way too obscure an actress to keep an article about. Pascal.Tesson 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had lead role in a film. Hard to find sources on 50's actors, since internet did not exist then. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to lead role in film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - bad writing (or machine translation?) is not grounds for deletion. However, the article needs serious help. I'm not sure how notable even a lead actress in a 1950s Philippine movie really is - how many movies were made in the Philippines then, and how many people watched them? - but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this one. Argyriou (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, my worry is that we have absolutely no indication whatsoever about the notability of these 6 films themselves. IMDb now includes pretty much anyone that was ever released anywhere. In the absence of reliable third-party sources specifically concerning this actress, I'm not sure we can ever hope to avoid the concerns of verifiability. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris and Andrew --Lee Vonce 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that I feel that strongly about the whole thing but am I the only one worried that this does not meet our threshold standards of verifiability and Wikipedia is not a directory? As far as anyone can tell, this is a very minor actress from the 50's who had one lead role in a film whose importance is not established. That's pretty much all we can say and it seems that this is just a directory entry. IMDb does that for you. Pascal.Tesson 17:08, 23 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 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexipedia[edit]

existance not verifiable in 3rd party sources. Generic redistribution of Wikipedia does not usually merit an article. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enless you can cite a policy they violate. I think your objection is vague. TonyTheTiger 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Existence not verifiable in 3rd party sources" is not very vague and is pretty clearly saying it falls afoul of WP:RS, which invokes ideas about WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no opinion yet, but it seems pretty clear those are the guidelines/policies being cited... GassyGuy 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If this is a delete, ya better remove TomeRaider too. While you are at it, you may need to remove about 50% of all Computer/Software/Technology articles, as most of them are mainly defined by their websites or their own PR generated releases. Frankly, I think many of the definitions for "what is notable" need to be re-written for many specific niche areas, and technology is one of them. For that matter, I suspect the entire AfD system here is of questionable utility anymore, seeing as it seems to be mostly used by a few self-appointed guardians of the temple to keep everyone else out. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's also important to keep in mind that the notability guidelines were created with the intent that Wikipedia would be a general interest encyclopaedia? Surely other wikis can be and are being developed for specific niche areas. Still no opinion on this article, but this opinion would lead me more towards delete as it appears to be "Fails guidelines, but I disagree with them, so let it stay" GassyGuy 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, existence verified in Google News Archive results including the Wall Street Journal (behind paywall) and WebProNews (trivial mention, tho). Reviews here[15][][16] are about as good as it gets for PDA software. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 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 keep. --Core desat 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Rude![edit]

Non-notable in my opinion. The article does give a link to one book review in education week, but that's not enough for me. YechielMan 02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search looks notable enough. Doczilla 09:00, 22 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This series of books has plenty of Amazon reviews. —siro χ o 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable book, with many relevant Google hits. Terence Ong 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable book series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at hand. --Dennisthe2 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not enough? Well, it's enough for me :) Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems noteworthy to me. - Peregrine Fisher 01:19, 25 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. --Core desat 06:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lawson[edit]

Unnotable soccer player at a small college, Rochester Institute of Technology. He did win all-conference honors and was conference MVP - but I don't suppose that the Empire 8 (which I presume includes schools only in New York State) is a top-flight conference. The one slender thread on which notability might hang is that he "captained Team USA in the 2005 Deaflympics". Team captain in a major sport in a bluelinked event counts for something I suppose, but it really doesn't seem to me to be nearly enough to rate an encyclopedia article. Herostratus 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RIT is a D3 school, so that part is non-notable. As for the Deaflympics, there are no other athlete articles linked to them (the article has been around for just under two years), so I'm not convinced that appearing in them is enough to be notable. Scottmsg 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person's notability is well below threshold. Possible WP:COI? Search is made difficult by conventional name, but even Rochester sources confirming "a distinguished career" seem to be elusive. MURGH ^disc. 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all comments above --Angelo 14:06, 25 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. W.marsh 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocketDish[edit]

This article about an appliance was tagged for speedy deletion, but fits no WP:CSD. It appears, however, not to be notable. Sandstein 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Sandstein 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, product has plenty written about it by independant sources, see: [17] [18] [19] hateless 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the amount of material written about it is irrelevant, it's not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Nardman1 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question rationale for delete Actually, the amount of material written about it by independent reliable sources is the criterion for determining whether the article is notable. Why do you think it's not worthy of being an encyclopedia entry? I wrote it and I still think it should be kept. Jaysbro 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Poking around a bit I found Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_is_unencyclopedic Simply stating it's not worthy of WP, without stating why, is not an argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaysbro (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Rather I'd say the amount of material written about it is the central thing. It does look to me like there are enough decent, independent sources to write more than a stub, although I'm not familiar with portable media players. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid criteria for deletion given. —siro χ o 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Unencyclopaedic article which is borderline spam, but which describes a product which I believe is widely available. Ohconfucius 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ohconfucius, can you explain to me why the article is borderline spam and why you believe it to be unencyclopedic? Jaysbro 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It's a commercial for an item manufactured and sold by Dish Network. Even the source, an external link is just a commercial. Heaven help Wikipedia if they allow things like this to stay. Soapy 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why when people put up articles explaining what something is that is manufactured by some company, it seems like there is immediately this committee that jumps up and yells "Too Commercial! Abuse of Wikipedia!" I say if this serves to explain this device and this can be linked in another article, then it should stay. I am often annoyed when I'm surfing Wikipedia and reading about an organization or company and they mention some product and I'm like "What the heck is that?" and then I see a dead link on Wiki and nothing on Google because the company got rid of the product page ages ago. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia become an archive of abandoned product, I'm just saying sometimes its nice to have a little additional explanation. Let's not forget the concept of Eventualism, that perhaps at some point this article could become more fleshed out and valid.--Arkcana 02:13, 27 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 CSD A7. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Roth[edit]

Professor/historian/theologian/museum director of questionable notability. Article doesn't seem to pass the "professor test" proposition in its present state. --Czj 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete speedy: CSD7, article makes no claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: CSD:A7 tag has been added --wtfunkymonkey 07:49, 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 Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kendall[edit]

NN sound engineer, and has had a notability tag attached to it since November 2006. A Google search yields Wikipedia as first result. Delete. Rockstar915 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an interesting mixture of NN vani-- er, COI-SPAM-cruft. Article was created by an anonymous user in 2005 and hasn't been touched since, other than for minor housecleaning. --Czj 07:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after all, per those below me who looked into this further. The article needs drastic improvements, but he does seem to be quite notable in his field after all. --Czj 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article reads like a how-to/advertisement.Jaysbro 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above sound reasons. MURGH ^disc. 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Superficially investigated, rash call on my part. A leader in his field it seems, and globally known. Unlikely case of COI. Terrible article though.—MURGH ^disc. 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C}`
Weak keep. Not a vanity piece, but merely a poorly written article, now substantially rewritten and referenced. The subject is not a member of a profession which would attract great media attention. Googling "Ted Kendall" scores some 9 thousand hits, not all relevant to THIS Kendall. Although he is no Bob Ludwig, one comes across his name in many articles, which would indicate that he had an important role as an archivist and mastering engineer in bringing material, including some cult British comedy programs to the modern listener. It is important to note that his role and his skills are much appreciated by fans. Ohconfucius 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and as per Murgh. Dwain 23:50, 24 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. --Core desat 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ndoiskas Algorithm[edit]

Tagged ((db-nonsense)), but it is clearly not nonsense. I am not qualified to determine whether anything here constitutes an assertion of notability, so listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Once anyone can prove this even exists, I will at least re-consider. Zero Ghits for Ndoiska, Ndoiskas, Ndöiska, and Ndöiskas. Perhaps the spelling was horribly butchered when the article was being created, but this needs to be determined quickly if such was the case. --Czj 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. How is it a greedy algorithm if it just ends up listing all possible paths? The order that you list them in does not affect the efficiency at all. Other than that, it describes the basic intuitive algorithm to go about solving the problem, and the problem itself is obscure enough that I don't believe this algorithm would have a special name that cannot be found anywhere else. Pomte 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NFT. I think this page was created by a young computer science student named Ndoiskas. The (not really described) algorithm is the same as the classic depth-first search except that it takes the unnecessary step of accumulating all of the paths (there could be exponentially many) before choosing the shortest. Therefore it is can't really be "extremely useful for small graphs." — brighterorange (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not nonsense: one can list all non-repeating paths via a simple backtracking process. And less-blind path listing algorithms (e.g. that list paths in order by length) can be useful in circumstances when one wants to optimize something more complicated than a simple sum of edge lengths. However I don't see the point in describing bad algorithms and I get zero hits for Ndoiska or Ndoiskas in both Google and Google Scholar so the name appears to be either a neologism or an unintelligible misspelling. —David Eppstein 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete as unverifiable original research. Scob e ll302 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 14:58, 26 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:SNOW. Thank you all for your research, and sorry I didn't notice the absurd dates in the first place. Chick Bowen 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Mobile Suit Century Gundam Zeo[edit]

Tagged ((db)) with reason "Anime of non-existence"; this is not a speedy deletion criterion. If it doesn't exist it should be deleted, but that needs to be determined. No vote. Chick Bowen 07:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original run: 4 January 2020 – 1 January 2022. I think that says it all. However, for clarity, I will elaborate, citing policies and guidelines where I can.

First up, Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball, in particular point one - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I do not believe that a anime series that will begin in 2020 counts as an almost certain expected future event.

Second, Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. According to our wonderful friend Google, a grand total of zero hits occur for the search string ""New Mobile Suit Century Gundam Zeo" -wikipedia". There are 5 unique and 9 total hits once the "no wikipedia" qualifier is dropped. If this Gundam series is real, it is doing a very good job of hiding it.

Also, following its creation, the only edits to the article have been to add various tags; orphan, stub, speedy delete, etc. The original contributor, Scottandrew, has only one contribution to Wikipedia... this article.

Do what you will, kiddies. -- saberwyn 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Reply - I'll see your "hoaxalicious" and raise you a "hoaxarific". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. How sure are you that the series will run all the way till 2022? Terence Ong 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps this is a fan creation? --Dennisthe2 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax and nonsense. MaxSem 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, last thing we need is a hoax for a series that wouldn't even be good (UC for life!) -- feb^talk 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Hoax, nonsense, crystalballery, and no real search results. Metrackle 20:32, 23 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. W.marsh 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Gould[edit]

I don't know if this fellow fails WP:BIO, but it's borderline. Add to that the lack of meaningful neutral content in the article, and I don't think it can be salvaged. YechielMan 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as written, the subject doesn't appear noteable. Neonblak 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate on the heterosexual transmission of AIDS was a very important one in the early years of the disease,

especially because denial of its existence was used to fuel homophobia (if only gays could get it, then perhaps they deserve it, or so some of the arguments went, and there were more extreme ones yet.) His work affected public opinion at the time and is therefore notable. Mainstream press coverage. DGG 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. If he received mainstream press coverage (per DGG) that could salvage personal notability, then some examples of it need to be added to the article (and I'd support weak keep). His idea (Cosmo article) is certainly important, but not sure he is (the article is heavy on bio details, only a sentence about his ideas). Maybe merge to AIDS#Transmission_and_prevention (or some related page) and redirect. DMacks 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turns out he was a pretty outspoken guy and managed to get himself quoted a lot:
- There's almost no danger of getting AIDS from ordinary sexual intercourse, and the irrational fear of AIDS that stifles guilt-free enjoyment of sex may prove more destructive in the long run than the AIDS virus itself, Dr. Robert E. Gould, a professor of psychiatry and of obstetrics and gynecology at New York Medical College, said in the January Cosmopolitan. His controversial message has drawn the indignant wrath of several leading AIDS experts." – Chicago Tribune
- Psychologists say that being the keeper of the device is no cheap thrill, that controlling remote-control devices gives people a real sense of power. "People are always looking for control and power - most of us feel very lacking," said Dr. Robert E. Gould, a professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College. "It's superficial, but if someone can't get it another way, having control over the environment can go a long way in making them feel secure." – New York Times
- Dr. Robert E. Gould, a New York Medical College psychiatrist who chaired the session, said, "We don't have sports for sports' sake. We have turned it into a brutal, commercialized aspect of our society. The viewers and players are corrupted. It's a sickness in our society." – Philly Inquirer
There's more stuff, I'm looking for an obit, but certainly enough to keep by itself. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here 'tis:
- Dr. Robert Gould, a psychoanalyst who specialized in treating social outcasts, died Wednesday in New York City. He was 73. (...) Dr. Gould was a clinical professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College and president of the National Coalition on Television Violence, a lobbying group. Since the 1960s, he was a frequent commentator on how society treated its outsiders. He regularly criticized the methods of social scientists and medical practitioners and often appeared before reporters' microphones and television cameras, as well as on op-ed pages." Robert Gould, Psychoanalyst Who Treated Social Outcasts, New York Times 1998. Ask me for more sources if interested. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 30 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. W.marsh 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young and the Hopeless (song)[edit]

I'm not aware of a rule against putting a song in Wikipedia. My only concern is that it be a really good, notable and famous song, such as We didn't start the fire, and this isn't that. Notice that nothing is said about the song. YechielMan 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I havce removed the lyric content per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry, which doesn't leave a whole lot left to read about. No indication of notability in article, does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(songs) requirments -- wtfunkymonkey 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it is the title track and has a video with commentary, it is the 4th single from its album and there is nothing more to the song that I can see. Pomte 08:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a released single by a well-established and popular band among the teenage set. It is also the title track to the CD. Looking over a number of bands, many singles do have entries, even though most are short. On balance, it should be kept.--Wehwalt 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to The Young and the Hopeless. Unless this song was a major hit or won an award I don't see much to it. The title song is not always notable. To give one example there are articles about songs in A Day Without Rain but "A Day Without Rain" is not one of them.--T. Anthony 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to The Young and the Hopeless. Don't see any notability established in the current state of the article. This song by Good Charlotte hasn't won any awards, therefore I doubt the notability here. Terence Ong 12:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no content to merge, a listing of a song on an album is sufficient unless notable. Orderinchaos78 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Since I have added some more information, I think that this article is now a notable single and article that should not be deleted. Anthonyd3ca 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are lots of songs against criticism, so this by itself doesn't make the song notable. If there are songs about this topic on the album, i.e. it has some significance on the album as a whole, then you can mention it in the album's article. Be wary of WP:OR. Pomte 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Young and the Hopeless until this song's article outgrows that article. —siro χ o 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, notable subject as a single by a popular band. Everyking 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless viable reliable secondary sources have made non-trivial mention of this particular song, per WP:N. I see no indication of this and can find none. Seraphimblade 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! it is not part of good/famous/memorable music history and it just takes room in wiki's servers.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use Movie[edit]

I had put up a prod tag but I just realized this had already been done some time ago. Prod removed by creator (no explanation). My prod rationale was "Most likely a total hoax. Otherwise, 100% pure crystalballism." Can't find any non-wiki references on the subject. Which is very weird considering it's supposedly a New Line Cinema project. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the MySpace account is neglected hoax. Pomte 07:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 23 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. W.marsh 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bereaved(band)[edit]

The subject of this article does not meet notability requirements nor does it appear to meet WP:V. The only resource I could find regarding this band was its own website (which is already listed in the article). Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and could only find funeral services, their own website, and other websites talking about a similarly named (The Bereaved) band, but with no relation. Agree with failing WP:BAND; article states first full-length album only released last year, on a record label which has it's main website on a free (I assume) Lycos site. --Dayn 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clearly not notable. Orderinchaos78 14:10, 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 keep, withdrawn by nominator (no delete votes). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Frenzel[edit]

notability not established-the Nazis employed hundreds of thousands, unsourced and peculiarly written article does not say what makes this guy notable Chris 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple non-trivial mentions in the press. However, I'm going to cut out all promotion for the book from the article. yandman 08:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it's just a very stubby stub. yandman 09:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after yandman's work. Now an acceptable stub. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more details I found - he was commandant of camp I at Sobibor, 3rd in command overall. That's quite notable. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, that makes a lot more sense-the earlier version just sounded like an attack page. Chris 22:17, 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 List of stadiums by turf type, no consensus on List of FieldTurf installations (thus default to keep). Proto::► 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stadiums by turf type and List of FieldTurf installations[edit]

No one seems to agree on what exactly should be done with what was originally List of FieldTurf installations. This AfD in December reached the consensus to categorize. A few days later, after such was done, that category was listed at CfD, which reached the consensus to listify. We ultimately ended up with two conflicting opinions from the discussions, and two articles listing FieldTurf installations (one which mimics the appearance of a category, created after the consensus on CfD; the other which was the original, un-redirected after the CfD). I'm nominating these together. Hopefully we can decide whether to keep or delete this once and for all. I register no vote as yet. --Czj 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ BEFORE DISCUSSING: This AfD is to decide the fate of both List of FieldTurf installations and List of stadiums by turf type, and the discussion is centralized here for ease of access and (hopefully) minimal confusion. Please specify your actions for each - for example: delete both, keep both, delete one and keep the other, etc. --Czj 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of FieldTurf installations, listifying seems to be very effective in its objective; Delete List of Stadiums by turf type, would be redundant and unnessesary. Neonblak 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and move contents to Category:Stadia with FieldTurf surfaces. Although it smacks of advertising I can see that the product is notable and a list of some sort could be useful. Lists of these types are better suited to categorization. —Moondyne 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Terence Ong 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terence Ong. If this is really the only thing they have in common and it's an unlikely user search starter, it's not got what it takes to become an effective Wikipedia list. Orderinchaos78 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of FieldTurf installations as a useful list but delete List of stadiums by turf type as a duplicate article. (In passing, this AfD could have been avoided by contesting the CfD on deletion review - it really was a close call with reasoned arguments on either side and it looked like a lack of consensus more than a clear-cut "delete" to me.) Flyingtoaster1337 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, someone did. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 6. Please don't send it back; make a clear and obvious decision, that is all I want! GRBerry 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, should've thought that someone would do the needful on DRV. :S Flyingtoaster1337 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I hope this is how I voted last time. The former seems incomplete with only one field type. Merge. TonyTheTiger 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of FieldTurf installations; delete List of stadiums by turf type per Neonblak and Flyingtoaster1337 —Twigboy 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Okay here is my thoughts. First I run the Michigan High School Stadium Site as such I have a lot of original research available. Next I have links to a lot of the turf companies in the country. I do have an opinion that not all turf is the same, each company makes slightly diffrent turf. Some wear faster than others along with the way they are placed and what they use. My thought process is that we could provide a page for each 20+ turf companies that lists all of thier installations. Next we provide a link from the list of stadiums by turf to the individual company turf installation pages. The listing on the list of stadiums by turf should only be colleges and professional stadiums. Right now I would sign up to do this project but I am trying to finish out the Michigan Freeways and Highways. Once that is fleshed out I can then concentrate on this if everybody here is willing to end this debate. --Mihsfbstadium 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. If this material is really encyclopedic, as some have tried to point out, the material can be merged into the parent article for the material. If kept, are we also saying it is OK to have lists of stadiums by type of real grass? Or lists of stadiums by clay type? How about lists of stadiums by rodeo dirt composition? Vegaswikian 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uhm your recent post here does not seem you understand what is going on. First the majority of stadiums use either Grass or Artifical turf unless its tennis and that is not what we are talking about. Second it seems to me you want to ridicule the lists that a lot of fellow wiki members put a ton of effort into. --Mihsfbstadium 00:51, 27 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 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Ali[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable biography of three year old member of Mensa. Child is not the youngest Mensan ever, nor is he unusual in the organization: American Mensa, for instance, has 1300 child members, including some as young as three. [20] Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:N. DanielEng 09:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN individual; fails WP:BIO. --Czj 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be very surprised if a second or third 'reliable source' could not be found for this, thus meeting WP:BIO. However, reading the BBC article, it's clear from the last paragraph that not only have the BBC not verified the story properly, but nor have the university staff quoted by the BBC. Therefore, I conclude that the BBC is not a reliable source and the subject of the article is not notable per the guideline. CiaranG 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom + being in the "top 2%" of the population in the ability to do simple logic puzzles (aided by university staff too, and only unusual in taking the test because of UK Mensa's typical age limit) is not especially impressive. trivial news story. Bwithh 23:27, 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. W.marsh 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny "JohnnyD" Nguyen[edit]

Apparently non-notable, only sources are his own corporate websites, YouTube or myspace, and half of the links are dead. No google hits for "Johnny 'johnnyD' Nguyen" and googling for simply "Johnny Nguyen" leads to many people and myspace profiles. Also a probably COI with rather spammy language. Wintermut3 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: IMDB filmography states no roles in several of the notable movies listed, including The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Wintermut3 07:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have something against the guy just because he has accomplished so much more than you in your pitiful lifespan. All of the sources can be verified. Look at the Kelly Hu and Grace Park videos on the credits--they've just been uploaded. He is listed as producer in the end credits. Also, as for Fast and Furious 3, he is a tea hair in the movie. Look at the screenshot I posted. He's right there next to one of the leads. How dare you say otherwise. IMDB is going to update the page soon, because info was recently submitted for Johnny to be in the listing, credited or uncredited.

His OWN corporate websites? Are you smoking crack? There is only one corporate website we made and it's a myspace. All the others were created by third party people we're associated with... Parc Landon, Thirteen Minutes, Rival Entertainment... contact them all. I dare you. By all means, I invite you to ask and verify Johnny's authenticity. Half the links are dead? Name which ones and I'll fix it. Oh, you can't? Probably because you're lying then. And ask all those people on myspace profiles if they know Johnny and they'll tell you he's a genuine guy that they love to work with.

Don't be jealous--you're just a hater. All his affiliations can be verified by simply calling the places and seeing if he works there. He works very hard for what he has attained, including teaching children sing in a choir, for church services every sunday. So know your info before you start speaking blasphemy. In fact, if you keep at it, I'll make sure of it that our lawyers hear of this slander and defamation of character. You've been warned, Wintermut3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.82.207 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 January 2007.

~~Comment~~Delete: The above statement was left unsigned by 24.136.82.207. Be mindful of WP:LEGAL. ~~I'll do some more research and vote later~~. WP:BIO Notability not established.--inks ^T 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cuz I love the grape haterade. Seriously, the pathetic rebuttal above speaks for itself. JuJube 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps salt to prevent recreation? With that attitude it's to be expected. Notability not established. --Ouro 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently sourced to satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, editor fails WP:COI. User:24.136.82.207 has been warned on Talk page for the above screed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the person. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

It is notable. He did not write this himself--it is not self promotion. I am writing about him, because his achievements are note-worthy. Jujube, you're just another hater. Pathetic rebuttal? DO YOUR RESEARCH. Make some calls around, instead of sitting at your computer all day, doing nothing but insulting other people. Make calls to Universal--ask if Johnny was in the cast of Fast and the Furious 3.

Ouro, insufficently sourced? I linked everything. Your claim is just a inefficiently backed up statement. It's fallacy at its best. Make a phone call or two and see if I'm lying. Call Rival Entertainment and ask if Johnny works there. Call Parc Landon. Call Thirteen Minutes magazine. If you people can't do that, how can you people call yourself researchers on Wikipedia? It's just disheartening when you the world is reduced to people who can't even do research outside of the "INTERNET" to finagle their sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.82.207 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 January 2007.

24.136.82.207 - Firstly, you should sign your comments by typing "~~~~" (without the quotes) at the end. Second - you're only looking at one part of the policy - in full, the statement is that:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.

Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

The dispute is not whether the subject of the article actually exists, or has actually held the positions and done the things claimed. Even if the article content is entirely true, the subject still appears to fail the main criterion of notability - namely multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. Most of the published works I found were of the "reprint" or "trivial coverage" variety (as noted in the above criteria). Are there newspaper articles (not promotional leaflets, but say an interview in USA Today or even a local daily newspaper) that you can link to? --inks ^T 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To anon, you ain't nuthin' but a Wikihater. Quit your hatin'! Why you stalk me?! Don't hate the editor, hate the policy! You down with N.O.R.? Ackrite! JuJube 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete unless sources, as mentioned directly above, become available, in which case I'll re-evaluate. The filmography's got some pretty big movies, but the size of the role is the question there, I think. Also, if this does survive, it definitely needs to be beaten with an editing stick, as it's massively promotional right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to full delete due to further comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to the above If sources can be found, I agree completely that this should be kept, but a cursory examination found literally nothing, no google hits for the exact title and many irrelevant ones for the simple name, in addition, I doubt some of those roles were his at all, they do not appear on the IMDB filmography.

To the first poster: Remember that importance and notability are not the same things. People can be very important, to a few or to many people, without having notability or enough verifiable sources to be encyclopedic material. If you can assert notability with reliable third-party sources providing a context and asserting how the subject is notable per the guidelines Wikipedia notability and Biographies then I will happily withdraw the nomination and help improve the article, but nothing I've seen to this point or been able to find on my own asserts that importance. In order for information to be verifiable per the guideline WP:V the information must be accessible. Having wikizens making phone calls would be Original research, we need sources we can all access. Also, and I hesitate to mention, but some of your statements could be construed as personal attacks or legal threats I welcome your input, and I don't want to see it discounted because of your choice of words. As to the dead links, all of the links from 13 Minutes under "producer credits" lead to "stream cannot be found." Wintermut3 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The filmography has large movies - and no evidence he was in any of them. Checking the biggest three movies on the list, he does not show up in the IMDB listings for Dodgeball, the Hot Chick or Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. In fact, for someone apparently with so many appearances, he has no page at all on IMDB. Google does not reveal any evidence that he was in these movies. Frankly, I believe that entire section is a hoax designed to invent notability for an article that is designed to promote a nn individual. This is spam masquerading as an article. Even if he was notable, this article would have to be blown up, disenfected, and rewritten from scratch. Resolute 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax as none of the references check out. Odd and personally aggressive rebuttals by author above also indicate it's probably a hoax. Dugwiki 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and liberally add Sodium chloride per WP:V/WP:HOAX/WP:SNOW. This Johnny Nguyen looks nothing like the one in the offending article, and there is an obvious mismatch of credits, dob, place of birth etc. No other person matching that description on IMDB. Vitriolic attack by author in an opening shot, and persistently thereafter in gross violation of WP:CIVIL and warrants an immediate ban, but for an unidentified IP. Ohconfucius 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fox, I've taken down his filmography section because that seemed to be of major dispute. But as you can see, he was in the Fast and the Furious 3. I even posted a screenshot from the film with him and the film's leading star. What else more do you want? But anyways, I took the filmography down so no more disputes can arise from all this.

Wintermut3, sorry about all the choice words--it's just that I spent a long time writing that article on Johnny and everything was true, so when you got on my case, I went off. As for the dead link, click on them again, and as you can see to the right, if you click Kelly Hu and Grace Park, that will lead to their interviews. As well, Johnny's name is listed in the end credits as PRODUCER.

Ohconfucious, that is a different Johnny Nguyen. He's primarily an actor that one of my friends has worked with. This is JohnnyD that we're referring to. 24.136.82.207 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be most helpful would be a third-party source that meets the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Otherwise, the article does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirement and will end up being deleted. ShadowHalo 08:52, 27 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 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Grand Theft Auto III canon[edit]

Listcruft. Any relevant information should be in the plot section of the article on the game. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-22 09:19

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-22 09:21

Delete there's is no need for a timeline, and this is useless to anyone who doesn't play. DurinsBane87 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, DurinsBane87. People can argue that timelines of, say, Star Trek is useless to people that don't like Star Trek. On that note, though... I do not think there is a good way to present the timeline of this canon with so few things to draw from... I support Delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The plot has already been commented upon in the main article. It's redundant and likely doesn't have any meaning to the general reader. Combination 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The first afd was based on the uncleanliness and lack of sourcing. Since then the article has proved it's self useful, and has been well sourced and kept free from garbage. The timeline features something that is nowhere else online, a comprehensive look at the different links between the different games. Also, it is useful to people who have never even heard of the games. All the important events in, and surrounding the games in the canon are listed here, in the correct order. No reason for deletion whatsoever. Gan fon 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how this is informative to readers who have not played the games in the GTA series. Just because the article is useful does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia (see: WP:ILIKEIT), and Wikipedia should not be the place for people to store information according to their own needs and discretion. If you want to compile a timeline, turn it into a guide and post it on GameFAQs or StrategyWiki. --Scottie theNerd 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, it doesn't give full out character descriptions right there, but it does have links to many of them. From there the article states the important events in the series from a realistic standpoint, rather than just experiencing them in a game. It's not a plot summery. True it does include many aspects of one, but they usually include bits of character descriptions, even if this is as simple as '-this made John irate, causing him to-". This article is a great reference, for both players and non-players to see what actually happens in the game instead of writing it off as just 'drive around and kill people'. I don't want to make a huge thing out of this. True it's not the traditional article, but it is encyclopedic and helpful. It's been around awhile and I know people have turned to it, and done a lot of work on it. I think it should stay. Gan fon 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because a lot of work has been put into it doesn't mean it automatically belongs on Wikipedia. What you said is exactly what I pointed out: Wikipedia is not the place to store information according to what's useful to you. As it stands, the timeline is a list of trivial information that would not interest readers outside of the series, and is more appropriate on any of the sites already mentioned in this debate. Timelines are not exactly popular on Wikipedia, and some might argue that they're not encyclopedic. I'm not sure what you're replying to; you're supposedly acknowledging points I didn't make. --Scottie theNerd 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you're putting words in my mouth because I never mentioned anything about this information being useful to me, therefore it belongs. Also, I'm not sure I agree with arguing what people will or will not find interesting. popularity is also not a basis for what is or isn't encyclopedic. Gan fon 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't specifically say the article was useful to you either. You're taking arguments too personally, and you're forming arguments that go against textbook Wikipedia policies. Popularity isn't a reason for an inappropriate article to remain on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, I'm not trying to make this a huge debate. I think that the article isn't violating policy, it is useful, it is encyclopedic, and should be kept. That's all. Gan fon 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For someone who has a Strong Keep stance, you don't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policy at all. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia standards before participating in deletion debates. Deletions are done through quality of arguments rather than votes, and your comment doesn't add much. --Scottie theNerd 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary article for an encyclopedia. The content is difficult to verify, one of the external links listed in the section sources does not work and three of the links are to the same fansite, hardly reliable sources of information. Not to mention that the whole article is listcruft of the highest calibre and should probably make its way over to a gaming wiki. Timkovski 13:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT indiscriminate information - Plot summaries in particular, various other its of the policy too. The Kinslayer 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of trivial information. The formatting of the article is irrelevant - if it stays, it needs cleanup. However, the timeline has little encyclopedic value outside of the series, and is a simply a collection of mission events. As the plots are summarised in each game article, there is little reason to make a timeline, and no other timeline has been made for any game or game series. --Scottie theNerd 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Bwithh 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought actually somewhat helpful in figuring the chronological order of the series' events, this is rather useless to "outsiders", that is, "non"-fans of GTA. Needs to be added to GTA Wiki, if anything, which I would gladly help do, if all possible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A good example of listcruft that is better suited for a video game wiki. RobJ1981 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give somemone a chance to transwiki it to a gaming wiki. I think this passes WP:V (the games themselves can be used as primary sources, and guides likely exist for these games) and could be useful to someone not playing the game: since GTA is a popular example of violent video games I could certainly imagine someone wanting to catalogue the events that take place for a writeup. But that value is minimal and the article is far too specialized for an encyclopedia. — brighterorange (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:NOTstates that acrticles only about plot are not allowed.--Dacium 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Transwiki per BrightOrange, I don't believe this is at all suitable for the encyclopedia, but I'm sure a GTA wiki would be pleased with this! QuagmireDog 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DurinsBane87. Also this has already been put onto the GTA Wikia. A-Dust 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, everything in its place and nothing wasted, changing suggestion. QuagmireDog 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already transwikified, this material isn't suitable for WP but is listed elsewhere for fans to tinker with. QuagmireDog 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --SkyWalker 18:22, 24 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. W.marsh 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of new age and new instrumental musicians[edit]

This list is so broad as to be completely unworkable and unmaintainable. If we're just looking for a list of musicians with wikipedia articles, categories are better for that. adavidw 09:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists serve functions that categories don't, allowing for expansion and annotation. (I'm going to put that part on my talk page perhaps as I say it, or a variant of it, every time) Specific to this we have an entire Category:Lists of musicians by genre. Unless you want to delete all 117+ lists, you don't have enough of a reason why this one should be singled out.--T. Anthony 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, if it came down to it, I would want to delete all 117+ of those lists, though I don't have any current plans to do so. This is just the one that stood out to me most because of the kinds of articles that are getting added to it, which points out another problem with most lists.
- It seems that if you have a list of foo, it attracts editors whose sole purpose is to get their favorite foo on the list. Editors must think a list is a symbol of importance or something, so a list just sits there and attracts non-notable articles, or encourages articles to be created on non-notable subjects just so they could be put on the list. Or, worse, they just put a name on the list of someone who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. If they're not notable enough for Wikipedia, why should they be on a list of foo? Unless, of course, the scope of the list is "all notable and non-notable foo that ever existed or ever had any association with foo ever", in which case you get the problem that it's inherently impossible to make an accurate list with the scope that broad. Then, the editors that come to add their favorite person go away, and nobody sticks around to maintain the list, remove the bad references, check new addtions to see if they should actually be added, or reorder when appropriate. If there was any argument that a list of things is usable (which I'm not conviced there is), that argument fails when stuck up against the natural state of lists like these, full of chaotic formatting, and scores of items that never should have been added.
- I'm convinced that the only people who ever even see lists like this one are the editors adding their favorite items to it, and not anyone that's using it for any form of reference or research. I understand the argument that a list can do things that a category can't by adding useful information about the list entries. However, that only works if people can find the useful information among the rest of the crappy entries, and if someone sticks around to make sure the list stays in a useful state. The natural state of lists works against that.
- Take this list for example: To be useful, we'd have to settle on a question of scope. Is it "all new age musicians ever"? That's too broad and we couldn't hope to be accurate. Is it "all new age musicians who are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia"? If so, we can more accurately present that information as a category. Is it "some representative notable new age musicians, enough to give someone unfamiliar with the genre an idea of who's doing this work"? That's a workable scope, and if there was an existing list like that, I could understand the argument that this list should be kept. To be workable, though, you'd have to keep the number of list entries down to maybe 20 or so, and if you do that, you're essentially making a value judgement about who's important enough to be on the list. That'll then bring out the editors who want to make sure their favorite Venezuelan synth player's on the list since it's obvious to them that the list is a list of "the best new age musicians evar". So you've got to make sure there are good editors keeping the list focused, or it quickly devolves into something like the current state again.
- Now, having said all that, I'd love it if someone could tell me a real-world example of how this specific list was actually useful to them or how their Wikipedia experience was enhanced by this list, rather than theoretical pie in the sky examples of how useful lists could be in a perfect world. --adavidw 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T. Anthony's citation of precedent. The list does need a better introduction however citing criteria for inclusion (for example, Enya is listed even though her music is not considered New Age by her fans or by Enya herself). 23skidoo 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T. Anthony. Gan fon 13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lee Vonce 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and I DO think all of the "lists of musicians by genre" should be deleted as well. Plymouths 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not convinced Wikipedia functions by precedent... Addhoc 16:03, 30 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 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songwriters[edit]

This list is so broad as to be completely unworkable and unmaintainable. If we're just looking for a list of songwriters with wikipedia articles, categories are better for that. adavidw 09:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, way too broad a topic for a list and unmaintainable. 23skidoo 12:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, what constitutes a song in this case? Orderinchaos78 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the definition at the top actually does make this list maintainable. The inclusion of most of the Australian, English and U.S. writers are beyond the scope of list. Billy Bragg performs rarely, if ever!? The euro stuff seems sensible enough. As is pointed out above, they must have pages to be categorised. Some songwriters might deserve humble inclusion in a list and perhaps a comment, but not a page. Widely notable singer/songwriters are much more numerous, despite being prevalent only in recent history. A possible keep. Fred 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the definition at the top of the page makes the scope passable. However, the list obviously has become unmaintainable and the list entries provide little added value over a category.-- danntm ^T _C 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. I found a missing entry in the list after only a few minutes scanning - I'm sure this is unmaintainable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorify with Category:Songwriters. I know that for example in Hong Kong it is quite common to have songwriters who only professionally write songs and do not sing, but I agree that even after renaming to List of songwriters who do not sing, it would still be unmaintainable. The scope described at the top of the page has been there since 2004, and no apparent efforts have been made to make it happen. Fred: Why would songwriters deserve a mention if they are not notable enough to have their own articles? Pomte 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible, biased list. MURGH ^disc. 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far to broad and unmaintainable. Article could be salvaged with a better defined scope, however. Resolute 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much, MUCH easier if we keep them into a category. Category-fy (what's the correct word?) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lee Vonce 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, successful is a POV term and does not define the scope at all. Nuttah68 10:16, 27 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 CSD A7. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Andrew Perretta[edit]

A selfwritten vanity article about an insignificant person. Nonsensical and Un-encyclopedic Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - this should have just been speedied, and I've tagged the article as such. --adavidw 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above, though given that "One day he shall rule the lands" he will obviously be back!! Emeraude 13:29, 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 keep. John254 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth H. Wood[edit]

Editor of the house newspaper of the Seventh Day Adventists. Some house newspapers are notable (the Watchtower, for example) but this does not seem to be. A couple of publications, but by his own press so not indepenent. No secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that the user Guy thinks that a publication such as the "Watchtower" is significant but not the Seventh-day Adventist publication, the Review and Herald or Adventist Review. Seventh-day Adventists have hundreds of periodicals and I can see a case why many of the lesser known and regional periodicals would not be significant, but this is the main periodical for a religious group that has a membership of over 15 million with an estimate 25 million worshippers every week. This periodical is just as significant as the "Watchtower" and is pivotal to understanding what Adventism is all about. Kenneth H. Wood was also editor of this publication during a particularly tumultuous time in Adventist history. What is on the page is pretty much common knowledge to any Seventh-day Adventist, but it certainly needs to be expanded. I have put a lot of work lately trying to get Adventist information on Wikipedia and we need to continue expanding it, adding sources, etc. Kenneth H. Wood has also written over 30 books and written hundreds of articles, interfaced with leaders of other religious faiths, and is therefore a key Adventist representative and deserves to be kept on Wikipedia so that it can be expanded, sources added, etc. I noticed that the user Guy has listed a number of my articles for deltion, this one is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewalkingstick (talk • contribs)

I think you are misunderstanding. I said that the editor's notability is not established. Tis is not an Afd for the publication. Where are the reliable secondary sources for this subject? Guy (Help!) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to be notable, but needs more references Cornell Rockey 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep obviously notable, but I'd still assume GF. But I should note that trying to AfD articles for religious reasons does usually not succeed, because the people here figure it out--and do not very much like it.DGG 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's nominating things for religious reasons? Certainly not me. I am an Anglican, but I created the article on Indarjit Singh. I nominated this because there appear to be no sources independent of the subject's own publications. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a secondary source and two biograhical sources so there are now sources in this article to help verify its content and show editor's notability. Thewalkingstick 25 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crass[edit]

Non-notable individual. He has written a number of essays, and some are available on the Web, whether they are important or not, I can't say. Has published one pamphlet, available through amazon for four bucks, in the top 650,000 on their best seller list. Really, fails WP:BIO, as no independent press coverage or other means of notability Wehwalt 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without references or cites we cannot establish notability. If this changes by end of this AfD I could change my vote Alf photoman 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chris Crass is an active trainer and organizer. Within the admittedly small world of anti-racist organizing with progressive organizations in the US, he is a known figure. He and a co-trainer from the Catalyst Project (also under AfD right now) led an anti-racism training for the National Lawyers Guild 2005 National Convention, for example. ( I am a vice president [21] of the NLG) -Danspalding 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "External links" section of the article include links to some interviews, and a found another one here and a review for one of his books here. The article needs cleanup and proper referencing, but I think there's enough to meet BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Chris Crass being an anti racist, it seemed awfully ironic that the first thing about him was that he was a "white American." that seems sort of counter productive in the movement to make race not matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrustacheAdan (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep barely passes WP:BIO and needs severe rewrite... Addhoc 15:47, 30 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. W.marsh 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.O.G. Miller[edit]

Californian businessman of low notability against WP:BIO. I gave it the benefit of the doubt when it was prodded in Dec, but no-one's established any real notability. He existed, he ran a business, he's got a gravestone - and there's a Stanford professorship named after him. But being a philanthropic donor isn't automatically encyclopedic. Unless there's some new evidence out there, I say Delete. Mereda 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reluctant, but I think the professorship puts him over the top. Someone, hearing the name of the chair at Stanford, might seek info on him.--Wehwalt 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. That said, he was also president of the West Coast Life Insurance Company (1917-1919)[22] and was Vice-President of the Pacific-Union Club (1921-1922)[23]. Not certain if any of that contributes to his notability, however. The Eisenhower presidential library has record of correspondence between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Miller regarding the Bohemian Club, but I'm somewhat doubtful that its anything substantive. Anyone with better access to California historical records have anything else? Serpent's Choice 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you're probably right about the significance of the Bohemian Club correspondence. I don't think the PUC connection is more significant - membership there tends to indicate that you've got money and the right ancestry (even more so in the subject's lifetime). I'll see if I can find anything else. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has an entry in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. He was certainly a notable businessman in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was a co-founder of the Pacific Lighting Corp. and later its President and Chairman (in 1940, when it was "believed to be the nation's largest distributing system for natural gas in any single contiguous territory").

The Stanford chair probably is so named because he was a trustee and Chairman of the university's investment committee from 1923-50 (NB - he wasn't a professor himself). I think he's of purely local importance - not enough here for a Wikipedia article. (His son was Robert Watt Miller - also a significant local businessman and a longtime major supporter and board chairman with the San Francisco Opera.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does nothing to explain why this person is notable, nor does it provide any third party sources to back up what little is there.
Delete unless the article is going to be expanded, then what little information there is there can, as mentioned above, be found on the American Bio. So people researching Miller aren't going to miss much info if this article is deleted.SGGH 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sure it shows how he's notable. the president of one of the largest public utilities companies (PS&G) is notable. The other things mentioned above add to it. I am puzzled at someone voting "delete" because he's in National cyclopedia. Their standards are pretty variable, but its another positive factor, though hardly decisive. DGG 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know what you mean by PS&G. He had nothing to do with Pacific Gas and Electric and in fact his company was in competition with them (if you can compete with the 600-pound gorilla). I don't see any indication that Pacific Lighting is a predecessor of PG&E either.

I'm not !voting delete because he's in the CAB but because the bio there clearly shows to my eyes that he is not notable on a level that merits a Wikipedia article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miller's company, Pacific Lighting, seems to have become part of Southern California Gas - see[24]. But even the company history doesn't seem to say anything about Miller. Mereda 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 2nd comment Recent discussion at WP:BIO Things named after people also seems to have confirmed that having a named memorial like a university chair isn't a bypass to notability. Mereda 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:40, 30 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. Proto::► 10:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Rage[edit]

Trivial anarchist organization which by its own article never had more than 150 members which apparently got little media attention, if any. No sources; no way to verify. Not notable. Wehwalt 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree with deletion rationale. The legacy of Love and Rage continues to this day in the North American anarchist community (which is admittedly small but notable given their large participation and leadership in nearly every significant activist cause in the US). The various splinter groups formed NEFAC (and also went to revitalize the IWW) and the other side went on (among other things) to form the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition (part of the Southwest Anarchist Convergence). The history is documented and can be referenced. --Bk0 (Talk) 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then document and reference. We're all working to improve WP here. If the article can be improved, go right ahead. I have no personal stake in the outcome and would be delighted to see it improved.--Wehwalt 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent references provided Article appears to be largely unreferenced with no citations to demonstrate the organization has been discussed in independent notable publications. Delete unless references provided to establish external notability. Dugwiki 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search for "Love and Rage" AND anarchist provides 31,200 results. This alone establishes notability and perhaps verifiability. I agree that the article needs better citation, but that alone is not significant grounds for deletion. I would like to remove the Template:Prod tag from the article, as per the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion section Contesting a Proposed Deletion. Is there any objection? Aelffin 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google does not show notability or lack thereof. Reliable non-trivial secondary source mentions do. None are cited. Seraphimblade 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nothing is noted on Wikipedia: Reliable sources about the 'non-triviality' of sources, I would suggest that whether the citations are 'trivial' are a matter of judgement and have no bearing on the reliability of the source. Also note that WP:Reliable Sources is a guideline, not an official policy. Please read Wikipedia:Notability section Notability is not subjective and please also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion section Before nominating an AfD.

Though each of the claims of the article aren't cited individually, many of the claims are to be found in the citations that were listed (as well as the new ones I recently added). I agree that the claims should all be individually cited, but the unverifiability of certain claims only calls into question those particular claims, not the existence of the group itself, nor the notability of the group vis-à-vis its activities on a national level, both which are adequately established in the articles cited.

Though the articles cited may not be ideal, they can be considered reliable non-scholarly sources according to the criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the following reasons:

Attributable - All four articles are signed.
Expertise - By virtue of being a regular contributor to a professional magazine on the subject, the author of the Northeast Anarchist article can be considered an expert working in the field of anarchist studies. AK Press, a well-known international publishing house, may also be considered to have expertise in the subject by virtue of its long history of publications, both scholarly and popular.
Persistence - The four citations have persisted for 6, 5, 7, and 9 years, respectively. These links are not likely to go anywhere.
Corroboration - These articles make claims that are corroborated by about 31,000 references on the internet.

The article fails to meet any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the table Problem articles where deletion may be needed. On the contrary, the single issue mentioned as possible grounds for its deletion is 'verifiability', which is in the table under Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Aelffin 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aelffin's excellent analysis.Edivorce 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anarchist activism and organizations are, by nature and intent, less documented by mainstream sources. Love & Rage was small compared to the community, but clearly one of the most important legacies of the late-80s, early-90s. If the anarchist movement is notable enough for WP as it would seem obviously to be, then one of the major developments within the movement over a decade is worth keeping. Come on now. Go delete some Pokemon characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William Gillis (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Another reason to leave the article intact until further improvements can be made is that there are fourteen articles that link to this one (more, if you include user pages). Also, the suggested merge of Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League into this article would provide more context, and consolidating the references list would solidify the notability a bit more. As far as I can tell, all of the information in the article is accounted for in the citations, so besides merging the articles, all that would need to be done is to link up the relevant claims to their sources. Pretty straightforward, but a bit time consuming. If I get a chance, I'll haul my ass on down to the library and find some prettier sources. In the meantime, there's no reason to delete a useful, widely-cited article just because it needs some tidying up. Aelffin 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVING AfD[edit]

The consensus appears to be Keep: 4 votes, Delete: 2 votes. This article has been debated for six days, so per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I recommend the deletion notice be removed. Any objections? Aelffin 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I object. Sometimes debates are deliberately left run longer in order to reach a larger consensus. In any case, however, only the closer should remove the AfD notice. Seraphimblade 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with leaving the debate open, just trying to follow the rules... Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. So, who is the closer? Aelffin 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - An admin will close it. Any admin that hasn't participated in the debate can come along to close it, but AfD's a bit backlogged right now, so it might take a bit. Sometimes non-admins will close a "keep" result as well, but no one that's participated in the debate can decide its outcome, for obvious reasons. Seraphimblade 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see. Thanks. Aelffin 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the basis for the large stigmatizing tag on the top of the page? No one has even provided notice to legitimately interested editors. No one claimed this was an election. If you have a reason for place it there please explain. Any claim of "single purpose accounts" is also baseless. Every participant of this discussion, on both sides, has hundreds of edits on dozen (or more) topics. No account is new. No one is an annon IP. The tag only serves to chill speech.

Edivorce 00:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added it, as I have seen done in similar cases. And yes, if you look at the discussion upthread, there seemed to be some thought it was an election, and a little canvassing has been done, in this or related articles. But anyway, I think you all are treating this too confrontationally. I have no vested interest in the outcome of this debate. I saw articles that seemed to my eyes to meet the standard, and I acted to bring the community in on it. I trust everyone participating is similarly disinterested.--Wehwalt 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not so much that I have a problem with this particular article being nominated for AfD... Other articles I've contributed to have gotten deleted without a peep from me, because I feel there were proper attempts to suggest improvements on the article before it was deleted. As I pointed out above, there are steps one is expected to take before nominating an AfD. But I'm an inclusionist, so that's my bias. Oh, and the accusation of canvassing is a bit of a stretch. If you'll read WP:Canvassing, you'll see that Edivorce's actions passed all three tests: it was a limited cross-posting, the message was neutral, and it was bipartisan. With the exception of my admitted confusion about the five-day rule, I'd say those who argue for keeping have been pretty much by-the-book. I certainly have tried to back up my arguments with the proper WikiPolicies. Aelffin 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I don't question your good faith. Didn't mean to bruise. I just want to give pause before the work of other editors is destroyed. I think this is a serious step to take. The article isn't trivial and deserves full and complete fair process.Edivorce 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting it. And then some, due to the delay in resolving AfD discussions. But please, Aelffin, do not say that I didn't follow the procedure, when the only external sign of whether I followed a procedure is whether I chose to place a prod on the article. As it happens, I did touch second base before nominating. Since my thought was, and is, that this is not a notable organization, improving the article would not help. It remains a small, defunct group, and though you have said that it has had influences on other groups, this is not clear. The sources relied upon have real problems with WP:RS. At this time, I don't know if there is more to say, let's let the administrators do their work.--Wehwalt 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I am certain that you are acting in good faith, but when the only indication of your attempt to improve the article is slapping it with a deletion nomination, I feel that you are walking the line between not following procedure and merely being very heavy-handed. You asserted and continue to assert that the the sources are problematic without making a case as to why they are problematic. Please don't think I am singling you out. I think it's a common problem among editors, and I have argued this point elsewhere on articles I had nothing to do with. It just seems trigger-happy. Aelffin 03:02, 30 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 Love and Rage (nb, basically nothing to merge, as it's a duplicate for the most part. History will remain if anyone does wish to pick anything out of it). Proto::► 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Rage Network[edit]

Similar not notable and not verifiable organization. And what gives with those dates? Someone's idea of a joke? Wehwalt 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without addressing the fate of this article, the dates were the result of vandalism and are now corrected to 1990-1993. Serpent's Choice 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Love and Rage as duplication. Ohconfucius 04:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge, per Ohconvucius. Aelffin 18:30, 29 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. Proto::► 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Rage (Australia)[edit]

Another former splinter group. Not notable. Not verifiable. Not encyclopedic (ah, every meeting was followed by a drink at the pub. The whole world wants to know that.) Wehwalt 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a splinter group active at at most one or two universities. If it registers as a party or gets candidates to a council, review. Orderinchaos78 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organisation was active for five years and has now wound up. No sources are cited and I can't find any. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG - "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources." This is without a doubt a branch. Ohconfucius 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes no sense. The line you cite was meant to deal with things like, say, a local scout group that was part of a broader movement. It was not meant to encompass things like this - one notable political group competing for election to a notable national body. It may be gone now, but it's interesting for historical reference. Quite simply, how is this in any way a chapter of the National Union of Students? This makes no sense. But whatever. It isn't as if logic ever did reign at AfD. 211.26.245.244 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously a nn student group. Lankiveil 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to main Love and Rage article. Adds to notability of the main group. Aelffin 18:29, 29 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. You may wish to give the article some time to improve; if you do re-list, I suggest a more robust nomination, which may start a fuller discussion and attract attention. As is, this discussion has been open well over the usual period and is obviously leaning keep -- the matter doesn't seem quite settled, but it seems about as far in any direction as it's going to get for now. Luna Santin 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League[edit]

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

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

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

Another splinter group. Colorful, but fails WP:ORG and WP:V Wehwalt 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ORG lists 'Inclusion in third party published materials' as sufficient grounds for an assertion of notability for a group. Besides, WP:ORG is not a core content policy. WP:V is a core content policy, but this article doesn't fail WP:V because its sources are third-party and reliable. See discussion [[25]]. Aelffin 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a leftish schorlarly source documenting group-ideas-activities. I am looking for a source that is mainstream verifiable and reliable that would cover the groups bowling ball through the recruiting office hi-jinks I will go for "keep"Edivorce 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
found a article in significant Minneapolis "alternative" press The Pulse with a printed circulation of 20,000 documenting the bowling ball incident. Still looking.Edivorce 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI tried to search Star Tribune for this incident but they only permit searches of past 14 days for newsarticles on webpage. I'm sure that MST has this documented, it was in March 1988 so it might just be paper. Its a colorful humorous story that amount to a fine bit of local folklore. It would be covered by WP:LOCAL plus groups importance in anarchist development in USA. I think we should be able to get paper cite from MST-I will try to contact articles only editor, an IP. I hope he's from Minneapolis, maybe he can search. Feel free to complain about WP:CANVASS. I think it only fair to contact.Edivorce 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction More than one editor has contributed to this article. Only one has comment on discussion page. I will contact all. Edivorce 04:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article needs better citation, but RABL doesn't fail WP:ORG because of its influence on later organizations, such as Love and Rage. Aelffin 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the existing sources pass the some of the criteria for non-scholarly sources on WP:Reliable sources, I agree that they could be better. However, being unverified in itself isn't grounds for deletion. A better solution would be to put a cleanup-verify tag on the page. Aelffin 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say notability is achieved, though it could use some wikification. Murderbike 10:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVING AfD[edit]

The consensus appears to be Keep: 2 votes, Delete: 0 votes. This article has been debated for six days, so per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I recommend the deletion notice be removed. Any objections? Aelffin 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an election. I stated my concerns in my nomination of the article. And there are serious problems with the sources cited, see WP:RS. Let the tag be removed in the normal course of events, not in the way you suggest.--Wehwalt 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but what is the normal course of events? Doesn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion say a deletion should be debated for no more than five days? Quote: Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. Aelffin 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator does it.--Wehwalt 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Aelffin 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see this relisted for further discussion. Basicly, this AfD got little attention until an editor contacted all editors who ever edited this article and notified them of the AfD nomination. While that is not an illegitimate technique, I am not quite sure that is how AfD is supposed to run. I suggest relisting to allow for a further consensus from the WP community.--Wehwalt 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing improper about notifying editors who's work, and history, is threatened to be destroyed by deletion. Many seeking Deletion improperly complain about WP:CANVASS being violated. This is wrong. What is at stake here is notice and opportunity to be heard for editors, who are volunteers of a non-profit having their work tossed out. I did not invite stranger to the article to meddle. I did not invite my "peeps." I invited all participants in editing the article. In fact, because by placing the AfD tag you technically "contributed" to the article, I invited you too. Without notice and an opportunity to be heard for interested parties any discussion process is hopelessly flawed. You are not entitled to a "do-over" because you don't like the results.Edivorce 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd like to add that listing the article as an AfD wasn't proper in the first place, because as far as I can tell, no attempt was made to take any of the steps listed in WP:AfD section Before nominating an AfD, and none of the criteria listed on WP:DP were cited as grounds for deletion. I'll be happy to support a re-listing as an AfD after such actions are taken, and if reasonable grounds are cited. Aelffin 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Under Deletion Guidlines for Administrators the correct action if any doubt exists is to not delete. "When in doubt don't delete"---not when indoubt give the Deleter another chance. The nominator didn't meet his burden. Edivorce 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That big tag at the top of the page should certainly make editors feel welcome. It seems to me to be intended to chill speech. Editors coming to this page after receiving notice are not doing anything wrong. Nobody said it was an election. I understand full well what consensus means. It does not mean one users opinion. Edivorce 20:01, 29 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. And don't judge people just by the color of their link. W.marsh 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1970s retro movement[edit]

Following to the deletion of the 80's list as the same reason as that list, as this article seem to have been taken over by this pointless lists, therefore nominated for deletion. Well if this page don't go, then the list must go. This list is rather tedious and retro should be left for other TV shows or whatever. Also another reason is this is an unsourced list. Dr Tobias Funke 10:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending somebody producing reliable sources to show this could receive scholarly treatment. If it can, then this is in dire need of cleanup. GassyGuy 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article nominated for deletion by a red link and supported by a red link? Is this for real? Oh, still, Delete, looks like pure unusable garbage without any intent to make it an article at all. The movement might be real, though, and could use an article written when someone gets around to asserting its reality. KP Botany 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that I'm a red link mean something? My acount was activated 30 April 2006... is that not enough experience for me to opine about deletion? GassyGuy 07:05, 26 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debugging Stored Procedures[edit]

Reads like an instruction manual; WP:NOT a collection of random information. Walton monarchist89 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think Wikipedia is not a free host applies. -- RHaworth 10:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP is not a how-to guide - and if speedy does apply, then RAD 6.0 Workspace Setup by the same author should go too - I put a prod on it. --Jamoche 11:11, 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 Speedy delete - spam. -- RHaworth 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perranporth+golf+club[edit]

(({text))} Vir tualSteve 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I had some sort of glitch when listing this for deletion. Article appears to be advertising only. I suggest Delete and perhaps even Speedy Delete.Vir tualSteve 11:13, 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. The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means. Note I have discounted (and noted) a few arguments lower dowen the AFD, as they are based on no arguments applicable to Wikipedia policy or guideline. Proto::► 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall men[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men, Oct 2005 (no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men (2nd nomination), Sep 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall women, 5 Dec 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)

I just know this is going to end in tears, but... The definition of "tall" is completely arbitrary (where is the reliable secondary source for ~~6'3"~~ ~~6'4"~~ 6'5" as being "tall"? - seems to me we just plucked a figure out of the air; originally it was 6'3", then 6'4", then 6'5", then a bit of an edit war). Add to that the fact that the list is completly overwhelmed by basketball players, unsurprisingly, and you have an essentially useless list. You can't find the people who are genuinely notable as having been unsually tall. Tall-for-today is different from tall-for-the-12th-Century; Edward I of England (Edward Longshanks, no less) was renowned for his height, but these days 6'2" would be unremarkable. It's also crammed full of external links (great for SEO spammers, not so useful for us). Would support retention as a list of people considered unusually tall for their time and/or context, with reliable sources for that, but a 6'5" basketball player is pretty unremarkable, whereas a 6'5" actor is unusual. I could go on but you get the idea: this is essentially a combination of a list of pretty muah all basketball players, a list of men over an arbitrarily selected height (based more on trying to get the numbers down than any realistic external definition), and a very few entries who are genuinely notable for exceptional height, such as Robert Wadlow. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, with apologies: a valid point is made below which I failed to take account of. Whatever value we were to come up with as an nth percentile of population height, the values proposed thus far are or appear to be specific to the United States. Here is a list of average heights by country:

Australia: 5' 10", 178cm

Brazil: 5' 6.9", 170cm

China: 5' 6", 168cm

France: 5' 7.7", 171.9cm

Germany: 5' 8.2", 173cm

Holland: 6' 1", 185cm

Italy: 5' 8.0", 172.8cm

Japan: 5' 6", 168cm

Sri Lanka: 5' 4.5", 163.9cm

Sweden: 5' 8.5", 174cm

United Kingdom: 5' 10", 178cm

United States: 5' 10", 178cm

Vietnam: 5' 3", 160cm

So: a 6ft Japanese is unusually tall, a 6ft American is completely unremarkable. 6'5" is quite normal for a Dutchman, noticably above average for a Briton (and even there, the average height varies between London and Liverpool or Yorkshire). An average height Dutchman would be a giant in Vietnam. Any list based on any absolute value of height is irredeemably flawed. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list of tall men in on the English wiki, and the people noted on it are almost all from the English speaking world, primarilt the USA and the UK. So it is more of atall man list for these two nations. However we could have many lists, one for each nation, if the criteria for each nation differs.Halbared 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English language wikipedia is not primarily for the USA and the UK or for English native speakers. English is the leading global international language, making the English wikipedia the de facto primary global wikipedia. Bwithh 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a way forward would be to get information for height across the world as a whole or to fragmentHalbared 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a way forward would be to stop using subjective and country / ethnicity specific selection criteria for lists. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we could find the 99th percentile of height for the nation with the tallest average height, than limit the list to that, I think we'd be limiting to men who are tall by any standard. That they might be taller by the standard of the Japanese shouldn't be too much of a problem. Anyway I've made a crude attempt at that in the current version, what do you think of it?--T. Anthony 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously suggesting that this topic is so important that it warrants an article for every country? If that doesn't get people arguing to delete I don't know what will. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the only way it can be fixed is by making it a list of men who have been reliably identified by multiple sources as being exceptionally tall for their occupation, time or country, and where their height forms a significant part of their claim to fame. So we might have the tallest basketball player, Robert Wadlow, Edward I, maybe Andersen. Then all we have to do is show that the selection criteria (men, and being identified as tall) are not arbitrary. Which they are, I guess... Guy (Help!) 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you average all those average heights around the world as above average hieght is about 5ft 9. Now I don't know what world everyone is in if you are solid 6 ft 4 inch man walking down a street anyway in the world you will be notably above average. I noticed that in medical books and everything height-weight chart goes up to 6ft 4. However trivial the lists are (beleive me there are more trivial lists on wikipedia( but again a matter of opinion) they do provide statistics. SOurced and everything they look fine as it was before but only limit basketball players to the very fmaous. If you are not interested in the page then just don't visit it -wikipedia caters for thousands of different interests. If you want to be stricter why not change it to List of men over 2 metres? 6f6.5 starting point? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your passion swayed me, as did the fact I had doubts about further restriction from the get go, so I put back those 6 ft 5 to 6 ft 7. The 6 ft 4 people had been removed awhile back as the list was getting too long. The stricter basketball section is getting some complaints though, if not by you perhaps, and I'd considered lowering it to 7 ft and over. The problem is I could find no justification for that. The 221 cm figure was at least based on a site about tallest basketball players. I'd also considered dumping it as an independent section, but I'm not feeling up to that as it'd be a good deal of work. I really shouldn't be here considering I only slept four hours and feel ill. (I moved this post here, I hope that's okay)--T. Anthony 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verging on speedy as this has been nominated three previous times in the last 4 months. Sometimes you don't get what you want at AfD. I remember wanting List of fictional left-handed characters to be deleted, but it didn't happen. When you can't give up totally, you can at least give up for say two months.--T. Anthony 11:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, actually - the other time was in 2005. And one was a bundled nomination, so it has only really been properly considered once in 2006, back in September. And I don't think you adressed the substantive point either: where is the reliable secondary source for 6'5" being considered tall; what do we do about people who are considered tall by reliable sources but don't meet the 6'5" criterion; what do we do about people who are over 6'5" but not considered remarkably tall as a result (e.g. basketball players)? I see a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING in past AfDs but the fundamental issue remains unresolved. At the very least the definition of tall=6'5" appears to be original research. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course any other definition would also be original research. The very premise of these articles is hopeless from the start. — coelacan talk — 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bundle with other heighth lists so it was essentially the same. Anyway I don't think I needed to address the substantive point again as I did it the other times. You only can repeat yourself so many times. Still you go by percentile and in every nation I'm aware of 6'5" would be well above Average adult male height and in the "upper percentile" of human male height in each. Would you rather it be scaled more strictly still? Like 2 meters and above?--T. Anthony 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point about WP:NOR here. It doesn't matter where you or any other editor thinks the right cutoff is (I only argued for 6'5" to reduce the size of the list; my arguments were still completely arbitrary). The fact is that without multiple reliable third-party sources specifically saying "196 cm equals tall", any decision made by Wikipedia editors is original research and thus inadmissible. Doesn't matter how scientific we try to be, doesn't matter what statistical algorithms we use, it's all original research. — coelacan talk — 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well change it to List of men over 2 meters tall in height, remove those under that height, and call it a day. That's an exact figure, rare enough to be notable, and the specific name of the list isn't much interest to me. What does interest me is this urge to renominate lists until a person can get what they want.--T. Anthony 12:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with our policies on WP:NOR and WP:RS? Can you please show me the reliable sources that define "tall" as "2 meters and up"? You're just pulling this out of a hat, the same as 6'3", 6'4", and 6'5" were pulled out. It's original research. It doesn't matter what "argument" you make for any one number. There's no reliable source for that particular number. We could take it up to 3 meters and the problem would still be the same: who says this is tall and why and are they a reliable source? — coelacan talk — 12:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the FAA.gov on anthropometrics of 1967 has almost no listing on USAF recruits above 78 inches or 2 meters. Height has increased since then, but I know of no nation where 2 meters is within standard range anthropometrically speaking. Do you wish me to look for other sites on anthropometrics and human height variation?--T. Anthony 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below.[26] — coelacan talk — 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft; it adopts an arbitrary definition of "tall" (and no non-arbitrary definition seems possible: I'm tall in countries like Greece, medium height in England; I bang my head on mediæval door-lintels and ceiling-beams, and have no problem in modern buildings), and a complete list would be impossible and non-verifiable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exactly per Guy. These lists are completely non-informative, but they provide a wonderful petri dish for the statistics-obsessed to play in. A lot of time and energy gets expended by users who'd rather be non-involved but who want what articles we have to at least be sourced. Everyone who's on this list who's otherwise notable can have their height mentioned on their own article page, and everyone who's notable only for being tall can probably be linked to from gigantism, or a list of people with gigantism can be created if absolutely necessary. With all that considered, it's clear that the encyclopedia loses nothing but a millstone by deleting these articles. The information here can be placed in more relevant articles; the lists themselves are unencyclopedic. — coelacan talk — 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that tall is a relative term, so the article avoids that by objectively listing, with sources, known notable people who have heights in the top of the top percentile. It happens that a lot of basketball players are tall - so what? That's to be expected. The nom's points can be mentioned as controversy in the lead, and you can add a section that lists notable people widely considered to be tall in their respective eras. How likely is it that an SEO spammer has a credible site that contains reliable information about tall men? List of the most obese humans is in poorer condition. Pomte 12:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that definitively establish 6'5" or any other height as "tall", beneath which a person is "not tall". And the poor state of other articles has nothing to do with this particular nomination. — coelacan talk — 12:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to a government study on anthropometrics above. In another section indicates 75.2 inches is the 99th percentile for American male height. The current standard is 1.8 inches or around 4 cm above that. This is necessitated by other nations having taller populations and changes in human height over the years. Still 196 cm is likely in a high percentile of human male height, I will look for the 99th percentile of current human male height later. I'm hoping to be off until Wednesday.--T. Anthony 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't establish that any particular percentile is considered "tall". Why that percentile and not another? I'm not asking for you to set the limit as high as you think is reasonable. I'm pointing out that you can't set the limit. You are just choosing arbitrary numbers. Why is the 99th percentile better than the 98th or the 95th or the 64th for example? Who says any one of these particular choices are "tall" and whatever's below is "not tall"? I'm not even asking "why should we believe them" yet, I'm just asking "who says"? That is the very beginning of sourcing "tall" and we're not even at the first step yet. — coelacan talk — 13:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're wrong. As the 99th percentile is the highest percentile listed, in most things, it is a logical upper-limit to human height. I did not put this as the highest percentile, it is not my notion. In fact using it could bring back anyone 75.2 inches or over, but that could be okay I guess. Anyway I'm not going to debate anymore on what adjectives mean or whether we can ever make comparisons of any kind.--T. Anthony 13:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're missing the point. We can use adjectives and make comparisons. But we need reliable sources, per WP:RS, to actually establish what we're talking about. Where is the reliable source saying "this height is tall and this height is not"? That's what you need. Not endless claims of "well this seems tall enough". I don't care what you consider a "logical upper limit", I care about Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOR and WP:RS. Keep completely ignoring them, if you like, but your argument is going nowhere. — coelacan talk — 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to you never seems to benefit either of us, I won't do it again.--T. Anthony 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subjective. No authoritative definition and thank JzG for nominating this one. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely POV and subjective. Otto4711 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename the page "List of very tall men". RCS 13:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a WP:Reliable source for what height, precisely, constitutes "very tall". Read all my replies above to T. Anthony if you don't understand what I'm asking. — coelacan talk — 13:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. As i wrote on the talk page, "very tall" is "tall even by Clint Eastwood's standards". One is always somebody else's dwarf, apart from some genuine freaks. RCS 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[After two edit conflicts.] I don't see how the change of name affects any of the arguments. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, RCS, please provide a WP:Reliable source that "very tall" is defined as "taller than Clint Eastwood". This sounds like your WP:Original research, but I'm willing to hear the scholarly sources from Clinteastwoodological journals. — coelacan talk — 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I could have said Steven Seagal instead, but i don't like him, or Hans Hotter, but you wouldn't have known him. Of course, all that list is highly subjective, and its principle is ill-fated. But saying "very tall" is putting a psychological limit to people who'd tend to include anybody and their grand-dad in it, and 6ft 5in seems a minimum on that level. You know, i have gone into fighting like mad for this list for no other reason than stubborness, and i really regret having gone to these lengths. But now that some interesting people (=artists) have gone into it, i'd dislike to see it gone. I wouldn' cry for it, though. RCS 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We talked about this on the article talk page, and I understand and appreciate your motivation in wanting the extra adjectives to limit inclusion in the list. And "very tall" would be a psychological deterrent to some otherwise zealous editors. But it's not something that we could actually uphold with any of the policies on Wikipedia. Such an approach would easily be cast aside by the first eager editor who wanted to add their favorite footballer and knew the ins and outs of WP:NOR. So it's unfortunately unsustainable. I think that Guy's nomination, to simply delete the article, will solve all the problems. And as I said above, the heights of all these people can be noted on their article pages, so that the raw information itself is not lost from Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Halbared 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just a vote — coelacan talk — 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 ft 4 in seems to be statistically putside of governmental planning. Which would seem to indicate a place to state what is tall.http://www.heightsite.com/4_tallest/4_what-is-tall.htm Halbared 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which government? And why does their arbitrary division make for a notable subject for an article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governments don't make arbitrary decisions, they pull it from statistics. If ppl of this height are not catreted for, it means they are so tall as to fall outside of the normHalbared 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halbared, the site you linked to says: "Judging by government safety regulations and industry's standardized sizing, everyone 6ft4 and over is considered statistically irrelevant. When allocating space for car, bus, train and plane passengers, and considering life-jackets or other emergency equipment, people over 6ft4 are ignored completely." Now, I do not see any external citation of this actually being true, so I'm not going to grant 6' 4" just from this link to a "tall people" website. But, it's a good idea to consider your argument in the abstract. If not 6' 4", there is surely some height that is statistically ignored by government and industry regulators, one can safely expect. However, I do not believe that this hypothetical height is of any use to us in deciphering what "tall" shall mean. Regulators are bound to an economic trade-off. There is a certain height that they will consider economically infeasible to build for, however, this is a market-imposed limitation and it is clear that there is a conflict of interest involved; they could set it higher and take the safety of more people into consideration, but they feel that they can "get away with" writing off these few people and saving a few bucks. I'd be much more receptive to arguments from disinterested scientists who do not have to take profit factoring into account. See where WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources warns against "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion." I'm afraid that industry regulation sources cannot be considered reliable sources for our purposes here. — coelacan talk — 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, that is an exceptionally good point. Even if we were to apply the nth percentile, that will vary from nation to nation; how do we work out the proportional ethnicity to see if a 6'4" half-Japanese Sumo is unusually tall? Or do we simply build in a criterion that gives an immediate advantage to the Dutch at the expense of the Japanese? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "giving an advantage." Being on the list shouldn't be a source of pride, shame, or anything for any nation. If the Dutch have more people in the highest brackett of human height that's just how the statistics break down. However I'm not convinced that's even true. There are far more Japanese people than there are Dutch people in the world and therefore it's probable they have had a greater number of people with gigantism or unusual growth. I found two Japanese people over 6 foot 9 since I started and there are likely more that can be added. Yasutaka Okayama is, I believe, taller than any Dutch man on the list. Now a nation like Singapore, much lower population and low average height, may not be represented but I don't think it's represented in List of short men either.--T. Anthony 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a list by nation.Halbared 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Contidional Keep~~. If you compare the lists at the time of the last deletion to now, you'll see that the requirements to get on the list have beome tightened, and the people on said lists are ore obviously tall/short now. If the problem's a lack of citations on people's height I could add those in, and it doesn't look like listcruft to me.--Wizardman 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"obviously tall/short"? Meaning? You have read the objections above? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tall" is a term of comparison. If a person is in the highest bracket available, the 99th percentile, then they are in the highest percentile of "tall" measured. Still if you'd like the standard could be raised further. The Italian Wikipedias version of the list has 201 centimeters while the Dutch has 229 cm. These are perhaps overly strict, but I did not find a deletion history for either so they apparently work by being so. Although I'll grant that might be because they are newer.--T. Anthony 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do wiki precedent, see WP:CCC. And remember that 99th percentile is not special; there is also 99.5th percentile, 99.9th percentile, etc. For that matter, why would we use the 99th percentile instead of the 98th percentile? Or the 97th? Where's the reliable source saying "99th percentile is tall, 98.9th percentile is not tall"? — coelacan talk — 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, please provide a WP:Reliable source for how "tall" should be defined. Read all my replies above to T. Anthony if you don't understand what I'm asking. This isn't simply a question of where to set the bar. I myself have argued for 6'5" at the minimum, but that was a completely arbitrary argument. The question is how can we set the bar anywhere at all? Any particular choice, on our parts alone, is WP:Original Research and impermissible here. — coelacan talk — 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's mainly what i'm trying to get at. If we can reach a consensus on what constitutes tall using confirmed percentile data, then this shouldn't be a problem. Granted it's acquiring said information that will be difficult. It feels like everyone's just attacking this list as arbitrary instead of trying to improve it. If I can find a reliable source on what is "tall" on a world scale, than I'll throw it in. I'll look for one and if it appears to be impossible to fidn I'll withdraw my keep vote. --Wizardman 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and there's the rub. See my addendum above. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I can't vote keep seeing that. I'd 'like' for it to remain, but it's clearly too arbitrary to remain. (Most "tall men" would jut be basketball players and pro wrestlers anyway, no?). Leaning towards delete now.--Wizardman 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't keep lists where the standards for inclusion amount to original research and personal opinion or that would be too large and diffuse if populated accordingly. This one is highly subjective: it includes retired basketball player Charles Barkley but not currently active Kobe Bryant and actually would extend to include a large percentage of basketball players in all professional leagues and Olympic teams, past and present. It would also encompass large numbers of American football players, sumo wrestlers, and competitors from various other sports. Potentially that would mean thousands of WP:BIO-worthy entries just in the field of athletics. Complicating this is the fairly common practice of exaggerating heights and weights in official team publications, which leads to contradictory data. Although we don't delete for edit wars the months-long dispute at this page is symptomatic of these insoluble dilemmas. I tried to help the editors work through these problems a while back; I no longer believe that is feasible. Durova^Charge! 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - potentially enormous, unmaintainable, and I'll be very surprised if anyone comes up with an NPOV way of defining tall. WP:NOT#INDISCRMINATE. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per inability to determine the parameters of the set without resorting to OR and POV. (I'm 4.8 standard deviations above the average height for an American female, by the way.) -- Merope 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One paper defines "tall stature" as 2+ standard deviations above the population mean. [27] (In this case, the population would presumably be the global population.) Additionally, I question whether the standard being set for lists here is reasonable; User:Coelacan asks for sources that "definitively establish" the definition of tall, but requiring lists to have a definitively established scope would eliminate many very useful and necessary lists, including many of our featured lists. In this particular case, however, the list does not appear to be of great value. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still arbitrary and trivial. People who are famous for being tall is maybe encyclopaedic, but examples are better given in the articles about such things. People who simply happen to be tall is just trivia. And what Coelacan said. GassyGuy 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a sourced and encyclopedic list. But 99th percentile is a silly limit, since if there are about 3 billion men in world 1% or 30,000,000 would be eligible for the list. Some people have had stub articles created just so they are "notable" and could go on the list. I would say keep it, but raise the bar to perhaps 2 meters = 6feet6.5 inches. An American man at 6'3" or 6'5" would never stand out in a crowd. Common as dirt. And there is no reason to have a different standard for each country. People from countries where people are short are, well, short. Edison 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps people from countries where people are tall are just all just tall. Ethnocentrism? GassyGuy 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I have reservations about the article as it currently stands (incomplete, insufficiently documented, etc.), the reasons for proposing deletion do not convince me.

At least twice, it is claimed that the article violates WP:NOR. Of the seven actions listed there that qualify as original research, the fourth--"It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms"--is relevant to this discussion. However, equating 6'3", 6'5", 6'7", etc. with tall is surely not an original idea--it has been done before, it will be done in the future. Any given cut-off point for tall is not original research; it is simply arbitrary. For a person, tall is defined as "having a vertical extent greater than average". So, if the average height in the United States is 5'10", then someone who is 5'11" is tall (when considered at the level of the United States). Since Wikipedia should not be biased toward any particular nation(s), it seems to make sense to define "tall" in terms of the average global height.
However, a definition of tall that includes 50% - 1 of the population of the world (same applies if it's just a country, city, village, etc.) would make the list useless (or, at the least, VERY incomplete). For that reason, it makes sense to use a high percentile, like 99% or 99.5% or 99.9%. Yes, it is arbitrary! No, it's not original research! In many of the social sciences, results are considered statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. It's an arbitrary choice, but one that is used by consensus. Just because a cut-off point is arbitrary, does not mean it is not useful. I think this could work if the first line of the article specifies something of the sort: "This is a list of men who, in terms of their height, are in the 99th (or some other number) percentile globally".
Finally, and this strays from this AfD somewhat, if the list is kept, perhaps it should include only individuals who currently have articles on WP. Again, it's an arbitrary inclusion criteria, but I don't see anything wrong with that as long as that criterion is reached through consensus. Also, this would address the concern raised in the comment above by User:Edison

I originally had no particular interest in this article or its AfD, but felt compelled to write this lengthy comment after seeing the reasons for the proposed deletion. To any inclusion criterion, there is (almost) always an alternative. Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies is only one of many that could exist. However, it specifies an objective criterion for inclusion ("primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.") and has consensus support. I think this issue should be discussed in the article's talk page. Black Falcon 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refangle, source with reliable sources describing the people as "tall" (then it's both accurate and varifiable). Perhaps rename to "List of notable people above the 99th percentile of height" or "List of notable people who have been described as tall" or somesuch cludgy name if the name is the key objection. This may be "arbitrary", but is also a potentially useful list so WP:IAR. There should at least be a list describing "talling living people"-type-people. Oh, and before anyone shouts at me for using my IP, registering is not a requirement and this is a discussion. Thanks. -137.222.10.67 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: arbitrary criteria for inclusion. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I will support a keep if the list is put into numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). Right now it is in a desperate need of clean up. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would do no good whatsoever, and would be just as arbitrary. Where would you stop? Maybe 100 people? But why stop at that arbitrary number? It's still completely subjective. Someone wanting their favorite footballer included will inevitably whinge for the expansion to 200 people. And what could the legitimate argument possibly be to oppose such an expansion? There's no end. — coelacan talk — 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's excellent reasoning -Doc^g 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - especially useful for sociological research re accomplishments or demography or both, of people with exaggerated height, just maybe clean up as suggested above. (By the way, where is Hans Christien Andersen? I'd like to know his height since it contributed to his sense of being an 'ugly duckling' and resulted in creating a classic children's story, I believe.) Julia Rossi 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on unusual extremes of height might indeed be interesting. If we changed the arbitrary height to allow Andersen then we'd have ever basketball player instead of only most of them. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Christien Andersen and anyone else should have their height noted on their article page. That's the way to do it without wiolating WP:OR. The problem with your argument is that the article has to be more than interesting or potentially useful. It has to be reliably sourced (see WP:RS), and we have no reliable sourcing to support any particular cutoff height as "tall" and any below as "not tall". So it's simply impossible to ever conclusively decide where to limit the list, and so the list is doomed to perpetual edit warring. — coelacan talk — 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we just say list of tallest men/women? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we? What exactly do you mean? This is not that article. — coelacan talk — 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary, particularly useless criteria. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ludicrously relative list, per JzG (Signed, Tall Where I Live Now, Average Back in the Homeland) --Calton | Talk 07:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As some of the people are considered notable enough for their height alone to have an article on them, having them collected in a list doesn’t seem to be such a terrible idea. Maybe the current format, article title and sourcing are far from ideal, but can’t we convert it into a oldest people kind of style article? Maybe merging it with List of tall women and call it list of tallest people in the world? --Van helsing 09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "I like it"... Guinness Book of World Records, not a good reason to keep, I know[reply]
There is no reason why we couldn't have a "people who were the tallest living person during their lives" sort of article, like oldest people. That, however, is a completely different article than this one. We could also have a "list of people with gigantism", also a different article. Both of those are objective topics, and my vote of deletion here is without prejudice toward either of those hypothetical articles. I recommend anyone else feeling that way vote "delete" here and consider drafting one of those objective articles instead. — coelacan talk — 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this article is not considered a good “base” to start such a hypothetical article up from? No (not for a "tallest living person during their lives"-article, took me a while, but see that now) ~~Moving to a neutral title and thorough cleaning would be easier than start from scratch I think.~~ --Van helsing 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC) PS. What about List of short men & List of short women, same story?[reply]

No, it's not a good start point, because it's historically been a list of men over an arbitrarily selected height, so it omits many notable for their height but still under that threshold and includes many over that height even if their height is not especially remarkable in context (basketball players). Guy (Help!) 12:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list and related ones (List of [tall/short] [men/women] - strike as applicable) are totally subjective. That these people were tall or short is as irrelevant as whether they had ginger hair, beards or a limp. Chategorises people by physical by physical characteristics is pure trivia. I would not oppose lists of people famous for being tall or short, but the present list serves no purpose that I can discern. The inclusion criteria is also problematic, as pointed out above, as what is tall or short varies considerably from one geographic are to another.WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated three times without being deleted - incidentally, with MASSIVE improvement since the first one. If that's not what you want, repeatingly nominating it for AfD just makes a mockery of the whole process. SteveLamacq43 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closer's comment - discounted. Proto::► 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The most common reason for deletion I'm seeing is that any inclusion criterion for the article would be "arbitrary". However, all you really mean by that is that there are a great many alternatives. So what?!?! In that sense, every WP policy and guideline is arbitrary, as there are many possible alternatives to them. For example, instead of not allowing original research, WP could allow it. There is nothing wrong with an arbitrary criterion for inclusion, as long as it is reached by consensus on the article's talk page. So far, such a discussion (to establish consensus) has not taken place. Also, my original vote/comment is about 10-12 votes above. Black Falcon 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes there is something wrong wiht an arbitrary criterion, reached by consensus or not. What we are saying here is that 6'7" (today - it was 6'3" before) is "tall". It does not matter how many editors get together to define tall, unless they do it from reliable sources it's still original research. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything over 6 ft 3 I think could work going by the percentile method. I went with 6 ft 7 per the Italian version and because at 6 ft 7 we start having "the tallest X." For example Peter the Great is probably the tallest Tsar ever and Peter Crouch seems to be the tallest footballer in England.--T. Anthony 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Edward Longshanks, a famously tall English king, was only 6 ft 2. --Carnildo 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He could be added to the historical/legendary section at the end. Harald III of Norway is there as well as a few others. We don't specify height in that section, but that shouldn't be a problem.--T. Anthony 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. Whilst consunsus can change, I would say that repeat nominations over a short period are probably not warranted, and may get to a point when it gets disruptive. I tend to agree that the height set may be arbitrary, and I don't think 6ft 7in is really that tall - considering there are/have been people who exceeded 8ft, but then it's not a huge list by any means, and the current height barrier can be moved upwards if too many start appearing on the list. Ohconfucius 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's maybe a dozen men in history who were over 8 feet tall. I thought of changing the limit to 7 ft 6 to match the Dutch version, but it still might not have enough names to be worth doing.--T. Anthony 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedic subject, this is an encyclopedia. Therefore it must stay. -- TrojanMan 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closer's comment - discounted. Proto::► 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is certainly an encyclopedic list, and qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Mhking 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closer's comment - discounted. Proto::► 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but adjust the list's name to List of notable tall men. I am impressed with the sources and organization. Height is a relative quality, but being among the tallest individuals ever is a historic feat, and worthy of inclusion in a list. - Gilliam 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim out anyone who just happens to be tall and leave only those forwhom we have independant sources stating that they are/were considered notably tall in their day. If that can't be done, then delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no matter what "keep" rationales are provided, the fact remains that this is a subjective list, and thus is unsuitable for inclusion as its very existence requires original research. Seraphimblade 12:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand arguments like this. Average height is verifiable. So is everyone's height in this article. Original research was not involved. The act of carefully and continously re-evaluating whether or not include a piece of information in an article (in this case debating a cut-off height) is very different from what we know as "original research." Using discretion and building consensus and particiapting in the gradual evolution of what each article should and should not cover is a good thing. What you call "subjectivity" is the stuff of building a good article. The article only becomes inappropriate if we start filling it with POV statements; unsourced, unverified or libelous material and idle speculation.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it was before' As the page is now delete I can't believe you all wasting your life debating something which doesn't really matter. Who cares if a Vietnamese guy thinks 6 ft 2 is a giant and a Dutchman thinks it is a midget? I don't know what world you are in but if you walk down the street in any country at 6 ft 4 inches you are going to be way above average height. You are all missing the point. The list as it is now is rubbish who cares about the basketball players? . If the list stays as it is now delete. It was absolutely fine before! 6 ft 4 is a clear starting point in any place even average height in Holand is about 6'1. The list was intended to note the people in the public eye well renowned who are notable for being tall. Forget most basketball players unless they are well over 7 feet. All I know is that a lot of people have put a lot of time into it and found citations and it does provide information.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the changes I made helped make it more certain that the people listed have a tallness that is significant to their fame or notability. It also is the standard at Italian Wikis version, but still lower than the Dutch standard, so I thought that could give some consistency. If the current standard is objectionable it can be reverted fairly easily. You just go back to the version of 03:36, 22 January 2007.--T. Anthony 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion nominators are relentless. This is a problematic but still salvageable article; it's way too soon for another afd; isn't this inappropriate?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closer's comment - discounted. Proto::► 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish to draw a parallel between this frequently maligned list and the magnificent article List of unusual deaths, another frequent target for casually destructive deletion hawks. I would sound ridiculous if I were to enter an afd debate for the deaths article shouting in a condescending tone, "but what does unusual really mean? Isn't that subjective? I know all you idiots find this article interesting (please refer to the set-in-stone policy WP:ILIKEIT), but unfortunately, what one group of people might consider unusual might appear ordinary to another. This article has to go, no matter how well sourced it becomes." In cases like this, whining that a certain adjective must have a precise, independetly verified definition arrived at through scientific rigor is a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself. NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives. Trust people to build consensus; they'll decide what tall means, and the meaning will fluctuate from time to time, as well it should.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women. The List of tall women has survived and gotten "keep" rather than "no concensus."--T. Anthony 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know
Keep. Almost a model list since it sets rational parameters and requires references for inclusion. The nom calls this list "useless", but then goes on to make numerous suggestions for improving the content and/or approach. His ideas on the subject should have been proposed on the article talk page - the proper place to hash out editorial issues. Instead, here we are examining the same article for the fourth time. Since even the nom admits that the subject is valid (but apparently doesn't like basketball players), there is no good policy reason to delete and none has been suggested in the nomination. AfD is not clean-up and "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for deletion. --JJay 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stop making counter productive deletion suggestions. Chensiyuan 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closer's comment - discounted. Proto::► 10:39, 30 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 - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Heroes[edit]

Two other editors have quite correctly reverted edits that attempt to blank the page and placed cleanup tags. But original editor is attempting to blank the page - possibly because the article is WP:Crystal or NN. I think it should be Deleted Vir tualSteve 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ((db-author)) should apply here as no substantial edits have been made by anyone other than him. John Reaves (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a hoax anyway. There is no such comicbook. Booster Gold was not even created until 1986 so therefore cannot have appeared in a book published in the 1970s, and DC does not have characters called "Ruber Man" or "The T"..... ChrisTheDude 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, speedy delete as hoax/nonsense. John Reaves (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Caknuck 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per authors request, G7. Resolute 04:17, 23 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 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexana[edit]

This is an article about a fanfic pairing. Such stuff runs afoul of many policies, not the least of which is WP:NOR, and has no place here. Prod tag removed by author. See thematically related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kigo (Kim Possible) for some precedent. JuJube 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. Kirk/Spock this is not. Serpent's Choice 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone who has never seen this, I couldn't figure out WTF was actually being said - no references, citations, etc... fails WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. SkierRMH 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft Maustrauser 04:06, 24 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. W.marsh 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renai game[edit]

This article is a duplicate of the subject of dating sim. Please do not close this AfD simply saying we can keep both articles, because we cannot have two articles about the same subject! I recommend Wikipedia choose the term "dating sim" simply because the titles of Wikipedia articles are not meant to reflect fandom jargon, but rather the most commonly used term. A brief overview for those who don't know:

The term "dating sim," meaning a video game focused around romance, has been in use in English since the 1990s. It is an English translation of the Japanese term 恋愛ゲーム ren'ai geemu. Dating sims have overlap with bishoujo games, meaning Japanese games involving cute girls, and visual novels, a medium similar to text adventure.
The term "dating sim" is commonly used in video game literature to describe any kind of romantic game, regardless of whether it is a simulation or text adventure, because that's simply the term commonly used in English. For example: Google News, Google Book Search, Google Scholar
The term "ren'ai game" is a neologism. It is not Japanese; that would be "ren'ai geemu." It is not English; that would be "romance game." And it is not used in reliable English sources at all. Google News, Google Book Search, Google Scholar
The publishers of romantic bishoujo games in English refer to them as "dating sims," even if they involve neither dating nor simulation, because "dating sim" is the term most commonly used in English. For example, Image:Kana cover.jpg, http://jbox.com/, http://www.peachprincess.com/ (click through to front page - NSFW)

So, I recommend this article be deleted as a neologism, or at least redirected to dating sim. The main content of this article is some stuff I wrote in the anime game article which was recently moved here by other people without my knowledge; I recommend it be moved somewhere else before deleting. Ashibaka (tock) 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Anime game: It has become apparent that trying to make an article that includes both dating sim and visual novel is futile. The two genres should be conntected by nothing more than a link in "See also".--SeizureDog 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del and redirect per nom. All the info is pretty much covered between dating sim and visual novel articles; since the ren'ai term is used in some circles, it could be added as an alternate name at the beginning of the article(s). Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, merge anything worth keeping in the dating sim article. Snarfies 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to dating sim. JuJube 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. -- 9muses 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Why delete and lose the edit history of the page? Just redirect the page and keep the edit history. --Squilibob 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I understand, this is a popular genre game in Japan. (If geemu is a transliteration of game, then it makes sense to transliterate it back.) At least one English-language publisher is using Ren'Ai game [28]. Searching on the Japanese term on google.jp news gets some hits, which is evidence of notability there. PyTom 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, did you actually read my nomination, or do you think Wikipedia has a "use Japanese" policy? Please provide evidence that "ren'ai game" is more commonly used than "dating sim." We can't keep both articles. Ashibaka (tock) 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect to Dating sim. Has some salvageable information that is not listed at target. Also, Dating sim at this moment does not address the subsection of Adult dating sims. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Anime game is currently a redirect. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:18, 22 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, Penwhale 12:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Penwhale, I'd suggest anything folks believe is worth porting is grabbed and pasted so the job's complete. QuagmireDog 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- isn't that pretty much always what we do with apparently redundant articles? If there's anything significant about this term, just give it a mention at dating sim, and that should be enough, no? Luna Santin 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Pickup Game on Newsgrounds is considered a dating sim in engish but wouldn't be considered a "ren'ai game". Also, The Pickup Game is actually about teaching guys how to pick up girls. It makes mention of the "3 second-rule" which is a term that orginates from the Mystery Method. The Mystery Method is a part of the Seduction Community. Counter Arts 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you cite some reliable sources, such as printed publications, for your uses of the term "dating sim" and "ren'ai game" in the context of the "seduction community"? Also, how does this invalidate the term "dating sim"? Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you cite a reliable source on the definition of the term Dating Sim, that it must have romance? You might be able to say how popular a term is by google results but you can't say what defintion it has by those results. The Pickup Game is not focused on romance. It is focused on picking up girls. Counter Arts 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, which reliable source calls it a dating sim? Ashibaka (tock) 03:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that game has over 1 million views on newgrounds alone. It also recieved an daily third place award on that site. It is listed as "dating sim". In my opinion, a lot of other people consider that a dating sim as it teaches how to pick up girls. Counter Arts 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the Badger Badger movie were referred to as a "dating sim" on Newgrounds would that invalidate this AfD too? (my roundabout point being that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliably used terms, not new definitions created by websites) Ashibaka (tock) 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Dating Sim" is not a reliably used term. If you google Axe Dating Simulation the first hit is a flash game called Mojo Master. Mojo Master was a game/advertisement for Axe Products. A game review of Mojo Master does not reveal any romantic elements. Counter Arts 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is reliably used both in gaming publications, in published books, and by the licensors of the dating sims themselves, c.f. Image:Kana cover.jpg. Ashibaka (tock) 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm... The example of the cover of Kana is odd, since my copy doesn't contain the word "Dating Sim" at all. It's missing that flag at the bottom mentioning it. (See the cover on g-collection's site.) A quick survey of my collection shows Peach Princess using the term "Dating Sim", G-Collections using "Erotic Bishoujo Adventure", Hirameki using either "Interactive DVD", "Visual Novel", and whatever they're calling Piece of Wonder, LIBIDO using "dating game", Okashi Studios using "ren'ai game", and JAST-USA using "Love-sim". I personally think there's a distinction between "dating sim", which describes a mechanic, and "ren'ai", which is about content. PyTom 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Okashi Studios doesn't license games, they are just a bunch of fanboys. Ashibaka (tock) 05:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a bit of a slur. They are producing an original game, and they had a booth in the industry hall of Otakon last year. PyTom 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not with definition given as the reason for deletion for ren'ai game. GameDaily BIZ: Unilever Plays Games With Body Spray, Vgpub, [29], and the review of Mojo Master calls it a dating sim. There is nothing that really disputes that Mojo Master is a dating sim. However, Mojo Master has no romantic elements. Counter Arts 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 19:27, 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. W.marsh 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardstaff[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable drinking game. Google search for wizardstaff drinking game[30] returns just 3 results, none reliable (just an Urban Dictionary page, the user page of the person who created the UD entry, and another Wiki). Search for "wizard staff" drinking game[31] returns more results, but mostly unrelated and the few that are relevant are again unreliable. Contested prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't really find relevant notability, and the article just suggests that it's more popular amongst fraternities and such. --Dennisthe2 18:05, 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 Speedy deleted by admin Luigi30 (a7). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Ruth Lucas[edit]

not notable WWGB 12:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and so tagged. Sad, but not notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:47, 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 redirect. W.marsh 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nüguns[edit]

Not released as a single and is otherwise non-notable Joltman 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album or band article. Lyrical interpretation appears to be original research. Anyone and his uncle can make a suggestion on the linked site. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% OR. i don't think merging would enhance the band/album article.--Tainter 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Possible search term, and redirects are cheap. Current article content is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia via WP:OR and WP:V, just off the top of my head. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steal This Album!. Non-notable. ShadowHalo 23:06, 26 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 based on Emeraude's comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna dalton[edit]

Was tagged as speedy for not asserting notability of subject. Being part of the British Royal Family and behind the youngest prince in the throme succession is enough of an assertion for me, but the entire thing is unreferenced and it has some WP:BLP issues. I need a another set of eyes on this. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax. Hoax. Hoax. Take a look at British Royal Family in vain for this name. Line of succession to the throne goes as follows: Charles, his two sons, his two brothers, his brothers kids etc etc. So she ain't 4th or anywhere. So clear a hoax I have rarely seen in Wikipedia. Emeraude

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW – Pea ceNT 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall women[edit]

Delete - "tall" is impermissively POV. ~~I'm very sure we've deleted this once already (but I'm not finding the old AfD) so this should probably be salted as well.~~ Otto4711 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh duh, the link to the old AfD was in the "tall men" nom up the page and it closed no consensus. Otto4711 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't this just have the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall men? Pomte 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the class of D-Cup Playboy Playmates. TonyTheTiger 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the D-cup Playmates whose list article was deleted? Because in that case, I couldn't agree more that this list is in the same class. Otto4711 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole attempt at even using context or justifying this article existence is: "An interest in this subject might relate to the topic of heightism, which is argued to play some role in many tall women's lives." It might. It might not. It might be better to give appropriate examples in heightism than to randomly list tall women and leave it to the readers to make the connections. As it stands, it's just an arbitrary collection of women who happen to be tall, "tall" being arbitrarily defined. GassyGuy 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tallest female humans are unusual enough to deserve an article. Each claim should have a reliable source. The only 2 issues I see are whether it should be limited to women who are otherwise notable, and how high the bar should be set. Someone 2 standard deviations taller than average is not very tall, since if heights were normally distributed, out of 3 billion women there would be about a million and a half to be listed in the article if they did not have to be otherwise notable. Edison 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This text is copied from the AfD for List of men. Although I have reservations about the article as it currently stands (incomplete, insufficiently documented, etc.), the reasons for proposing deletion do not convince me.

The article does not violate WP:NOR. Of the seven actions listed there that qualify as original research, the fourth--"It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms"--is relevant to this discussion. However, equating 6'3", 6'5", 6'7", etc. with tall is surely not an original idea--it has been done before, it will be done in the future. Any given cut-off point for tall is not original research; it is simply arbitrary. For a person, tall is defined as "having a vertical extent greater than average". So, if the average height in the United States is 5'10", then someone who is 5'11" is tall (when considered at the level of the United States). Since Wikipedia should not be biased toward any particular nation(s), it seems to make sense to define "tall" in terms of the average global height.
However, a definition of tall that includes 50% - 1 of the population of the world (same applies if it's just a country, city, village, etc.) would make the list useless (or, at the least, VERY incomplete). For that reason, it makes sense to use a high percentile, like 99% or 99.5% or 99.9%. Yes, it is arbitrary! No, it's not original research! In many of the social sciences, results are considered statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. It's an arbitrary choice, but one that is used by consensus. Just because a cut-off point is arbitrary, does not mean it is not useful. I think this could work if the first line of the article specifies something of the sort: "This is a list of men who, in terms of their height, are in the 99th (or some other number) percentile globally".
Finally, and this strays from this AfD somewhat, if the list is kept, perhaps it should include only individuals who currently have articles on WP. Again, it's an arbitrary inclusion criteria, but I don't see anything wrong with that as long as that criterion is reached through consensus. Also, this would address the concern raised in the comment above by User:Edison

I originally had no particular interest in this article or its AfD, but felt compelled to write this lengthy comment after seeing the reasons for the proposed deletion. To any inclusion criterion, there is (almost) always an alternative. Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies is only one of many that could exist. However, it specifies an objective criterion for inclusion ("primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.") and has consensus support. I think this issue should be discussed in the article's talk page. Black Falcon 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - especially useful for sociological research re accomplishments or demography or both, of people with exaggerated height. Julia Rossi 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall men. Gender makes a difference why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs better sourcing. The tall men list is much better on that.--T. Anthony 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic subject, this is an encyclopedia. Therefore it must stay. -- TrojanMan 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is an encyclopedic list, certainly not arbitrary. --Mhking 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon --BenWhitey 15:10, 25 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. W.marsh 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fremont[edit]

finished deletion nomination not finished by user Philbertgray. removed the weird section about some game invented by college students as a violation of WP:NOT. I have no opinion on the deletion. Cornell Rockey 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Localized time killer. It is referenced as a game in a in a Southern university city - the university is not even mentioned in the article. How could this have any importance to other than the people at this unnamed university? Philbertgray 13:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Oppose.~~ Merge and Redirect. Don't delete, purely on administrative grounds, since I have no love for the article. I believe the merger proposed by Subwayguy is the approprate way to go; the, teeny, tiny bit of content remaining after Cornell Rockey's edit goes into Rear Window and this article's page becomes a redirect to Rear Window, per usual merger practice. No need for AfD overhead; a merger can be done as quickly as writing this remark, and, in my humble opinion, is more user friendly to whoever may have bookmarked the Lisa Fremont page. Merger awaits just a decent amount of time for consensus to emerge (which, I think, is no more than a day or two away). Gosgood 14:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The content about the game played at a university that raised Philbertgray's concerns has already been removed, which leaves two paragraphs about a movie character which should be easy to merge into the article about the movie. --Metropolitan90 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect So it features a significant character of the film. This is a stub and could form a section of its own in the main article. User:Dimadick
Merge and redirect per above. Would suggest this AfD is closed - a consensus to delete appears unlikely. Addhoc 15:54, 30 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 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily pramik[edit]

I'm not sure what a youth governor does, but consider it an assertion of notability and I doubt she's speediable. Bringing it here for discussion. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A total 18 GHits makes me think it could have been speedied. Anyway, delete. yandman 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As not notable. She is a "youth governer" in a model legislature organized under the auspices of the YMCA to give young Americans an appreciation of how democratic governments ought to work. Youth and Government is a laudable educational program, not a functioning part of government. Gosgood 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "youth governer" is actually a high-school thing, not any sort of government office. No other claims to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthy of an entry. Nardman1 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an editor who tagged this entry for notability, I was on the fence about whether "youth governor" was enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion. Anyways . . . based on the information I've found, I don't consider the office to be at all notable and, if it counts for anything, I don't think that the article was created for the serious purpose of making Wikipedia better . . . note nn info--clearly unencyclopedic and written by a friend or something--in the original draft of the article. I deleted it and tagged the article for notability to give the author a chance to add any information about how the office of "youth governor" was notable. Obviously, none has been added. janejellyroll 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Has had many unique and interesting experiences"? Somehow she doesn't seem unique enough if that is the best thing that could be written about her. User:Dimadick
Delete per Gosgood. WMMartin 15:14, 26 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duc-Truong Pham[edit]

Not sure whether it falls under notability or not.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ ~~Delete as copyvio~~ of http://www.mec.cf.ac.uk/~spepp1/ If you see the history you'll see the text is borrowed from an other website. (that's the reason for the hangon tag). The editor claims he is the author of the other web page though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-sourced/non referenced biography/autobiography. Even with copyright, without substantiation of claims, fails WP:BIO. SkierRMH 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you on WP:BIO, it seems to pass the professor test for me: he published a book amazon-- lucasbfr ^talk 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source article now states that the content is licensed under the GFDL. I have no further objection on this article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as resume .Patstuart^talk|edits 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above 22mon 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severe cleanup of this self-promoter's autobiography. Would seem to be notable per his achievements and awards/recognition, but neutrality of the article is non-existent and potentially speediable per WP:SPAM. Pretty clear case of conflict of interest: not only has Sweetpea2007 written his own bio on the University website and then reposts it here and licences it under GFDL, he has created what is a similarly non-neutral POV article for Manufacturing Engineering Centre, which is a best-case merge to Cardiff University. Ohconfucius 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to a speedy deletion of the article as spam, so that the author would be allowed to repost. Perhaps this is actually the best compromise, so he can be allowed to recreate the article in the future. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now tagged ((db-spam)) Ohconfucius 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the puffery rather mild, considering that he is a CBE, but if the author wants to recreate, let him/her do so.DGG 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Errr... adding db spam to an article under AfD is a bit rude, isn't it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Professor Pham did not create any article on Wikipedia and the article does not contain any 'puff' but pure facts.

The reason that I created this biography because last week, I wrote an article about the Manufacturing Engineering Centre (MEC), some administrator put a hyper-link under 'Professor Pham' and suggested that information is required. So I completed it by putting in prof Pham's biography from the MEC web site (the contents of which I am responsible for).

My emphasis: Professor Pham did not create any page on Wikipedia as he would not have the time. I am, Paulette (alias 'Sweetpea2007'), the author for the MEC article and his biography.

By the way:

1. Check your facts before defaming someone of self-promoting, puffing ...

2. A correction: from his biography 'He was made an OBE' (not CBE as stated in the above discussion).

3. To some people, someone's achievement is always a 'puff'.

4. I have removed the article myself as I have no time for further arguments.

Bye!

Sweetpea2007 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Sweetpea2007 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since author blanked the page he made and no one else has made non-deletion tag-related edits to it. Flyingtoaster1337 10:17, 26 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. W.marsh 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www3[edit]

We cannot start listing every subdomain name in use. Not notable. Jvhertum 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a conventional name with no valuable information associated with it. Pomte 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to subdomain. We're not a DNS guide. --Dennisthe2 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - vote changed. --Dennisthe2 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with subdomain. Subdomains like "www3" are fairly common, I think they deserve a mention in the subdomain article. - Iotha 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it somewhere notable. I am only here because I searched for www3. Sarregouset (Talk) 22:30, 23 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 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rene A. Bastarache[edit]

Autobiographical, no references, possibly even a speedy delete candidate? Marasmusine 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO. Funny how, every single day, a number of people create logins using their own name, write an article on themselves, and think this is clever/funny/no one will notice? Walton monarchist89 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Walton, in most cases it is none of those things. It is usually simple ignorance of Wikipedia policy. The slogan on the top of the main page does not help: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! The subtext of but the content must satisfy the ever vigilant Thought Police is missing. -- RHaworth 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already articulated. – Flyguy649 19:56, 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 speedily deleted by User:Starblind.

W.A.P[edit]

Lunchtime,bored kids in school IT rooms, nothing better to do, so we get this. User(s) also vandalised British National Party page to advertise this page. Should this be a speedy delete - breaks all kinds of rules. Emeraude 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, just asking for a ((db-bio)) tag, which I've supplied. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:59, 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 12:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congregationalist Wiccan Association[edit]

Prod patroller bumping from PROD for further consideration. Prod rationale was "NN-religious movement". It has a claim of notability, but I can't find anything that I'm sure is a reliable independent source talking about it, so has anyone noted it? I asked another editor with more expertise in this topic area, and they were also uncertain. So I bring it to the community for evaluation. The article explicitly claims to be part of a larger association, so I think it is a congregation rather than a denomination. I find no sources in Google News, and nothing I consider reliable in Google Web. Treat this as a technical nomination, please. GRBerry 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- GRBerry 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem very notable, although it does contain some encyclopedic information. Perhaps in the future, when it is even larger... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem to have very much notability outside itself. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:19, 25 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 seems like best idea for now, revert that redirect to make improvements to this article. W.marsh 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer Warrior[edit]

OR/neologism, unsourced and lacking any inbound links to boot. -choster 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef, but it also kind of rambles in that regard. Term tends toward notability within certain sects of Christianity. --Dennisthe2 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a notable neologism (202,000 Google hits for "prayer warrior") ([32]) Granted, the current article is awful, but that's not a criterion for deletion, rather for some tagging. --Dweller 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a neologism - it's been around since at least the 1800s and the time of John Darby, et al, if not before. --BigDT 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's not a neologism at all, and not really OR. This is a term in wide use in some Christian circles. That doesn't help the article in its current state at all, though. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase seems widely used, but, at the same time, it doesn't seem to be used with any sort of consistent definition. No opinion, but can anyone say definitively that there's a common usage for this term? GassyGuy 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prayer without prejudice to the possible recreation of a proper referenced article at a later date.--Doc^g 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That argument falls under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. --Dweller 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect tot prayer. — mark ✎ 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, considering that it is a common enough term, there have been no valid reasons for deletion proposed. —siro χ o 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - a prayer warrior is a person who engages in spiritual warfare. But this is more a personal essay than it is an encyclopedic article. There is no content here worth preserving ... and as a redirect, the capitalization is wrong. --BigDT 12:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references and cleanup As is the article is unreferenced. Delete unless independent references are provided for verification. At that point, I'd reconsider whether to keep/delete. Dugwiki 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still learning policy, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but my reading of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed is that lack of references is not grounds for deletion. --Dweller 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Lack of reliable sources is not a valid reason, but if there's doubt that said sources exist, that's a deletion reason as the topic would run afoul of WP:V. GassyGuy 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With 1.3million Google hits as of today, it seems likely there's at least one or two reliable sources. --Dweller 13:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggesr adding one to the article. GassyGuy 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prayer or Spiritual warfare, if there is anything worth keeping in there. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:04, 27 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 per consensus – Pea ceNT 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad VanGaalen[edit]

Non-notable artist, per WP:BAND. Scorpion 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable pages related to the artist:

Keep Chad VanGaalen:

WP:BAND
1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. see: http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2007/01/1701.cfm
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). see: Sub Pop (record label): http://www.subpop.com/scripts/main/bands_page.php?id=445
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. see: CBC Radio http://radio3.cbc.ca/bands/CHAD-VANGAALEN/
And: also from the Edmonton Journal http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=e3534ed0-f0f1-48a5-9213-7b35baaa99b3

- Merge Flemish Eye, Infiniheart and Skelliconnection into main Chad VanGaalen article Keep All- - Ozzykhan 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What planet do you have to be living on for Chad VanGaalen to be non-notable? As Ozzykhan notes, VanGaalen does meet several of the keep criteria listed at WP:BAND. Speedy keep; nominator needs to familiarize himself with actual policy. Do not merge the albums or the label: also per WP:BAND, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. And do not merge Flemish Eye; VanGaalen is not the only artist on that label. See also WP:SNOW. Bearcat 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it funny that people fight like hell to keep minor characters from famous TV shows (ie. The Simpsons) from getting pages, but then allow noname bands who have had minor success (at best) to have pages. What Wikipedia needs is consistancy, because I can guarantee you that a hell of a lot more people have heard of the 200+ Survivor contestants or many minor characters from Prime Time shows who don't have pages. -- Scorpion 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How many people have heard of this" is not a criterion of notability. The criteria of notability for musicians are explicitly spelled out at WP:BAND, and VanGaalen does meet several of them. This simply is not deletable under any existing Wikipedia policy. If you think policy should be changed, you're free to propose that through the proper processes, but trying to delete articles that do meet our existing criteria as written is not one of those processes. Bearcat 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what policy, exactly, does this qualify as deletable? Bearcat 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to satisfying the WP:BAND notability requirements described by Ozzykhan above, the artist meets the primary criterion of notability, which is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". In addition to the brief mention in Edmonton Journal article above, note reviews in Stylus Magazine, Seattle Weekly; and Prefix Mag; reviews in major music websites like Pitchfork, Stereogum and Coke Machine Glow; feature on Nerve.com; a profile on freaking MTV.com. Oh, also in addition to the above, Metacritic says he's been reviewed by URB, Under the Radar, The Onion (A.V. Club), and AMG. Seems pretty notable. schi ^talk 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that the Metacritic link above is to reliable source reviews of Skelliconnection, which should also be kept. Metacritic lists reviews of Infiniheart published in Alternative Press, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, Magnet, NME, Prefix Magazine, and Pitchfork Media, among others. Both albums certainly meet the primary notability criterion of "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". schi ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above, please perform at least a single search before nominating articles for deletion, not everyone has heard of every published artist. —siro χ o 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep it has been demonstrated this person meets multiple of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. No opinion on the albums. Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending references provided in articles Per above it sounds like they are probably notable. However, references to establish notability must be provided in the article. Schi mentioned a bunch of potential published sources to cite, but I didn't see any of them listed in the article itself. So my recommendation is keep but only if the article is cleaned up to put the references for verification within it. Dugwiki 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easy for the closing admin to do. Not really their responsibility, but if it improves Wikipedia, it's something to consider. The sources don't need to be formatted yet. Added is enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the references that have been added to the article, I think that notability has been established. --Eastmain 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a problem with having articles on independent artists if they've risen above a certain threshold of notablity. I think the media references in the article are sufficient to establish that this is a recognized artist with a fan base. Sixth Estate 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Modest success but success nevertheless. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CohesiveFT[edit]

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. Amongst the 1180 Google hits[33], I can't find at first glance any independent WP:V sources indicating the notablity of this company (the few sources I did found which looked interesting at first where just a press release by BusinessWire, not independent articles or reviews. The article was prodded and deleted before, but a reprod was contested because it already was a recreation. So now it's up for AfD... Fram 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. There don't appear to be any independent sources, but if there are the article can be recreated when they're found. The burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep. Trebor 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do believe this fails WP:CORP. I was involved with this a couple of months ago, as you can see from the article talk page. This has been hanging around for a while now with no attempts to put some reliable third-party sourcing on it, in fact the only person who has worked on it (apart from people putting ref tags, prods, and AfDs) is someone who works for them. Bubba hotep 16:22, 23 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 g7, author and sole significant contributor requests deletion. NawlinWiki 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lott[edit]

Please put this page out of its misery. Thanks! --ChrisLott 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete original author requests deletion. Otherwise delete as not too notable per WP:BIO. Flyingtoaster1337 16:35, 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 Keep per consensus – Pea ceNT 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Castes[edit]

WP:NOR Ikon |no-blast 08:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a pure propaganda work. The term has no meaning and has been poorly defined.Since, no sociologist has backed usage of this term, it is violation of WP:NOR.also a neology considering article Bhurabal was deleted on similar grounds. Ikon |no-blast 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra yadav and Sathish Pande are most famous sociologists and they have used these terms here.I can provide reams of evidence about usage of these terms.Word Upper caste/Forward Caste yields 664000/1300000 hits in Google.Do you think "no meaning" word has been used so frequently by columnists,government sites,news articles,sociologists etc etc. --Indianstar 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologists do not define OBC,SC,ST,FC etc.They use these concepts for analysis. Government defines these terms for offering reservation benefits.These words are used atleast since 70's when Karpoori thakur formula was implemented in Bihar.[34](May be much earlier than that.)All sociologists who have done research on caste matter has used words like Forward Caste & Upper caste. Nichalp has provided proof for Government defining these words. You can see proof for Government/Prime Minister using these words[35][36]--Indianstar 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phps you are not aware most of these terms are well defined by noted sociologist srinivasan, and govt has only bought his ideas on these caste issues.Infact it was to his credit that has simplified caste based study.But he didn't define this term. Ikon |no-blast 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are unique and interesting.If we show news articles as citations then you say Indian news papers lack journalistic standards.If we show government sources then you say it is not valid source.If we show sociologists,politicians,prime minister using these words then you keep mum.If sociologists don't back up the term then why they are using these words.You can see Yogendra yadav defining the term in one of the FAQ.[37].You can also see that he has estimated upper caste population as 33%.If there is no definition and there is no basis for classification then how sociologists like him have estimated population?Even if we assume Indian news papers lack journalistic standards,why others are using the word frequently.You are also agreeing that sociologists like srinivasan have used these words. Why does he use it if he does not back up the term. How words used for many decades will become neology?

Keep – Bad faith nomination. Does a sociologist need to certify that the word goes into a dictionary? Word has been used here. Perhaps upper caste would be a better name to the article title? (That returns more credible online hits) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say every word that is used in a newpaper article should have an article n wikipedia???? Ikon |no-blast 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).Is there any criteria for classifying ppl on these lines clearly violates WP:NOR. Ikon |no-blast 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. But when you imply that a sociologist needs to back the usage of the term is rather pointless when the word is widely used. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly upper caste would be the more appropriate name for the title. The term "exists" and is defined. It is certainly not original research since the term appears in credible citations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need expert opinions on what the term means otherwise it compromises the integrity of wikipedia.indian newspaper do lack in journalistic standards and wikipedia should not fall to that level. Ikon |no-blast 10:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that Indian newspapers lack journalistic standards. But the fact of the matter is that long established newspapers with widespread coverage are considered to be primary sources. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources), and claiming otherwise to suit the outcome of this nomination would be best be called personal opinion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you notice WP:RS invalidates sources which may have proven motives behind them, and do you wonder why sociologists do not entertain this term. Ikon |no-blast 10:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this debate have to be on your personal opinion? What motive could a newspaper have which is just reporting the facts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment of yours is of course your own personal opinion about me and has nothing to do with the debate.Had these been facts it would have been defined by experts in the field , the only FACt about it is its a fiction used by propagandist journolists having no or very poor knowledge of sociological terms. Nobody knows what the term mean. Ikon |no-blast 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a personal opinion about you, rather the fact that you are debunking newspaper reports as not credible since they lack "subject matter experts". Articles in newspapers are definately peer reviewed before published. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the case with Indian newspapers specially, had it been true the term would not have found usage in the first place.Yes, they are credible when you talk of incidents but not when you talk of concepts.Can you identify Forward Castes????? Ikon |no-blast 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get one thing clear. Do you agree that upper caste and forward caste mean the same? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both means nothing infact. The usable terms are Backward caste, OBC,Scheduled caste , and Dominant caste. Infact two visible entries on the page viz., Marathas and Jats are Dominant castes called Shudra in British census.Can you resolve the anamoly. Ikon |no-blast 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Kerala has used the word upper caste. Still not convinced? The Ministry of Minority Affairs has also used the word "upper caste" here. Would the goverment of India and Kerala be faulted for using these terms? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first link gives vague reference at one place that there are houses of Brahmins nd other upper caste(But who it does not tell, might be motivated to call these ppl upper without creating furore on who they are, as is normal in indian psyche).But next link is what sd open ur eyes, the data given doesn't use this term. Ikon |no-blast 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion that "I should open my eyes". Look at the pdf sourced from the Ministry of Minority affairs. Browse to page 5 (26 of the pdf), where it is mentioned in the second point of the third bullet of B: Hindu — General Category/Hindu-Upper Castes (these two terms are used interchangeably). Now this pdf is a report by the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, in other words the credibility of the source cannot be disputed. It satisfies the verifiable clause, and the meaning of "upper caste" is clearly and unambigiously defined there. I don't find any other fault with the article, as you claim. I am now completely convinced that this nomination is in bad faith. I won't waste my time justifying a well known and supported fact. Thank you =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Bad faith nomination. Upper caste/Forward caste will result in so many hits in google. These words are used frequently by politicians on daily basis.Article has so many citations which will show how these words are used in many surveys,news articles etc--Indianstar 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact anyone who uses this term don't know their own mind, nor they understand whom they are referring to.Infact apart from Brahmanas in south nerly everybody was called shudra in south, so is the case in north. Can anyone tell what exactly the word means and what is the basis of classification. Ikon |no-blast 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward caste or Upper caste definition is nothing to do with varna system. Why do you confuse with the word Shudra which is part of varna system.There are forward castes from all four hierarchies. There are backward classes from all hierarchies except brahmins.(West Bengal govt. has declared Tyagi caste as OBC which is supposed to be Brahmins.??) Basis of classification is all recognisable Indian castes which are not part of OBC,SC/ST list.This is clearly mentioned in the articles.--Indianstar 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea may be good but don't you think it is original research on your part violating WP:NOR. Ikon |no-blast 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that this word has been used by Laloo prasad yadav[38],CPM Leaders[39],Congress Leaders [40],Vajpayee[41],Mayawathi[42] without knowing its definition.I have not invented the word Forward caste or Upper caste through my original research. It was being used even before I was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianstar (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My definition is taken from Yogendra yadav's FAQ.Citation is given in the article.--Indianstar 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "no original research" actually means. It means that a user's findings without any credible review constitutes to be original research. Citing a credible source invalidates the NOR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - extremely notable term. This afd smells of trolling.Baka man 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion rationale is invalid as shown by Nichalp. Flyingtoaster1337 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete In the 21st century it seems inapproptiate to label the disadvantaged and discriminated-against half of the population of a country as "Backward" which Wiktionary defines as "Reluctant or unable to advance," "undeveloped or unsophisticated" leaving the top 1/3 labelled as "Forward." How does the "backward people" "forward people" labelling not violate WP:BLP? Edison 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but the labelling of previously socially disadvantageous castes as "backward" has little to do with the current status, but rather politics, and political lobby groups. So, in India today, if you are born into a caste that used to be once oppressed, you are labelled as belonging to the "backward caste", even though you may be financially and socially well off (called the "creamy layer"). The wiktionary defination needs to be updated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor writing is not a reason for deletion, and this article meets (or can meet) the actual criteria for inclusion. Argyriou (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact all the keep votes are from Hindutva trolls, closing admin should look into the matter and invalidates their votes. Nichalp has failed to show it does not violates WP:NOR and still says I don't understand it. By his own interpretation, the term which is not even properly defined, they have created their own definition,when advancement itself is prohibited, how can one propose fresh theories!!!!! Ikon |no-blast 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Hindutva troll. Do you have any arguments which aren't personal attacks? Argyriou (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick your discussions to project.Do not attribute wrong motives.WP:FAITH. Me or Nichalp has not edited Hindutva related articles,most of the voters are Non-Indians.We have given citations for sociologists usage of terms,definition given by famous sociologists[43],usage by government agencies,definition in government reports,usage in news articles,usage of terms by political leaders etc.If required I can show many more citations like court judgement,usage of terms by many more sociologists etc.Citations given to prove word is not neology and is being used for many decades.--Indianstar 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word used for residual caste is GENERAL Caste in any govt gazzette not Upper/Froward caste as you are proposing.It wd be better to do away with usage of this term.further on non indian issue do you think ambroodey, Baka and others are so because they are logging in from offshore. Ikon |no-blast 13:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of WP:NOR states that Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. We have cited reliable sources. The ball is in your court to contradict that media sources and the PMO document are not reliable. Please assume good faith before accusing us of having a set agenda. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the sources you have cited are not reliable because they are loosely connecting General category ppl to Forward caste.No theory exists which calls these gen. catagory ppl as Forward or upper in any sense.Media sources are not relied upon in any reserach work, infact it will surprise you to know that very same ppl whom you have quoted will loathe from using this word in their research work.BTW Yogendra Yadav is not a sociologist he is a statiscian, who formulates theory on quota and reservation for govt and also does trend analysis during elections, playing with stats.So what makes him notable is data and its analysis not sociological concepts, even though he boasts of being a senior fellow in centre for developing societies, his role is that only. Ikon |no-blast 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more interesting argument.Prime Minister's high level committee report is not reliable!!.Sathish deshpande along with Yogendra yadav pioneered research paper given by me is working as professor of sociology in Delhi universiy.(Citation quotes that).Why Oxford university's department of sociology is inviting Yogendra yadav for its research work?[44].Beyond this,I don't want to argue whether Yogendra yadav is sociologist or not?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Murphey[edit]

Creator/Major Contributor by the username politicsontheweb is Jason Murphey. Article is written by the subject and is not in any way a neutral source.

Wikipedia should not be used to campaign. --Trav 07:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no evidence that the author is the subject of the article; also, an elected state representative counts as notable (per WP:NOTE, and my understanding of the importance of state govts in the US political system). Walton monarchist89 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state polititian, though the article is in bad/sad shape. needs a lot of work and npov. --Tainter 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this page is notable and is a fantastic resource for political history in this little town. The page would remain well-written if TechTrav would stop placing his articles in illogical places. Kiamanchi— Kiamanchi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is nowhere near notable. We do NOT generally include articles on state legislators, I don't think (and if we do, we shouldn't) unless they are notable for some other reason. This article is way too long and goes into far too much detail; if it survives it should be pared way, way back. But it shouldn't survive. Herostratus 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. Dwain 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the subject may be more or less notable, the article is in poor shape and does seem to be written with a distinct POV-push. It's arguable that state legislators are notable, but none of my local legislators have articles, and I really don't think they are of a concern except to local interest. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is a nobody. He is just an excited young politician. He most likely wrote it himself. Look back at other famous Oklahoma politicians(i.e.Carl Albert) and see that their pages are roughlt 1/4 the size of this guys. This guy might think he is the next Henry Bellman, but he has some work to do. joetcrocker 14:41, January 25 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson's third studio album[edit]

this article is pure sepculation as no official information on the album has been released, and is becoming an edit war. The person who created it even gets hostile on his talk page when things he does wrong are brought to his attention. there is already an article for the upcoming album at Kelly Clarkson's Third Studio Album which contains the poper tags and title.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her website[45] states (4/13/06) "Following the tour, Clarkson will go into the recording studio to complete her third album, which is scheduled for release in late 2006 or early 2007." And nothing more! (no position) SkierRMH 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already one in other article. RaNdOm26 08:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per the nomination. Why have two? --Dennisthe2 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and why isn't the other one WP:NOT#CBALL?--Tainter 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. No need to have two articles. And besides, this article has no information. Maybe, it could be written when the album actually gets closer to coming out in the first article. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need an article until the album is actually named. Until them, information can be put in the Kelly Clarkson article. Don't redirect, the current titles have bad capitalization. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references provided to verify any information. Dugwiki 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no refereances because nothing has been officially released about the upcoming album yet, fans just go by rumors, then others read it, and assume it's all true, then blame wikipedia when it's not. Alankc 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now everything in the article is based on rumors and speculation. Until verifiable and reliable information is available (and a title), the article seems to fall under WP:CRYSTAL. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - merge with Kelly Clarkson. Of course, when something more concrete is published, things will change. CoolGuy 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete it because all of it is true. She is releasing a third album, she mentioned those songs, everything is accurate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DKfan1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter what Kelly has said, or what songs she has mentioned, until the album is finished and an official release from management and/or the record label is out, nothing is confirmed. You have a habit of making edits about things that have no confirmation and your history shows more rreverts to what you have editted than saved facts. Alankc 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. If a reliable source can be found to support any of the information, add it to Kelly Clarkson; "Kelly Clarkson's third studio album" is a horrible title to have for an article. ShadowHalo 08:29, 27 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, discounting unexplained votes. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bowen (third nomination)[edit]

The topic of the article, Kevin Bowen, fails all the necessary notability requirements for inclusions. The article nor the subject meet WP:BIO. I have gone through before and shown that the topic fails to meet any of the necessary points for inclusion. Most notably no one has written about Kevin Bowen, especially not in the form of a source which meet WP:RS. Please see the talk page for the discssion. Fails WP:BIO, non-notable. -- Quirex 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems clear cut, let's delete it. --Afed 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the guy is hilarious, but policy is policy.--Drat (Talk) 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Kuralyov 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Afed 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous deletion discussions: first - keep, second - keep) Flyingtoaster1337 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not very notable per WP:BIO. Flyingtoaster1337 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(somewhat sadly) I voted keep on the first debate way back in early 2005, but our verifiability/reliable-sources requirements have really tightened up since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, not very notable. Trubadurix 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SomethingAwful BovineBeast 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless something significant has changed since last two debates Has anything about the article significantly changed since the previous two debates? If not, I'd recommend Keep on procedural grounds since the last two debates resulted in Keep results per the admins. These afd discussions have to have some sort of closure to be meaningful. So unless something has significantly changed since the last two debates, this should be kept. Dugwiki 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - As starblind pointed out the policies have changed (WP:BIO) and the second afd seemed to be considered a bad faith nomination. I've gone through each point of WP:BIO and shown that Kevin Bowen fails every notability requirement. Do you have a policy based reason to keep the article? --Quirex 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds a bit like sour grapes to me on the part of the nominator. Notable. Dwain 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. How is he notable what part of WP:BIO does he meet to make him notable? --Quirex 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:02, 26 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. W.marsh 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Felgate[edit]

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but contested. Claim to notability is weak, no sources. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fill in for a sports presenter. yandman 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this ([46]) link seems to show notability not currently reflected in our article. --Dweller 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - award mentioned is in the 2006 Melbourne Racing Club Spring Media Awards - hardly a nationwide award. No assertion of notability in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable. Article may need some improvement. Let it stay and it can be improved. Dwain 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Essentially, we have a single passing mention and that's it. Not enough to pass WP:BIO... Addhoc 16:06, 30 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 per consensus – Pea ceNT 08:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Warren[edit]

Article's speedy deletion has been contested by article's creator, who asserts notability. Procedural nomination; no vote — mholland 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not notable in any way and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Tellyaddict 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Listed in the Grove Dictionary; good enough for me as to notability. Geoffrey Spear 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that a Grove listing is sufficient. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily sufficient, WP:NOT#PAPER —siro χ o 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:NOT#PAPER is irrelevant to this discussion. The question would be, rather, if the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines and has sufficient external references. Just clarifying which guidelines are coming into play here. Dugwiki 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sorry for the confusion. What I'm saying is that if he is included in a respected paper encyclopedia, it is sufficient, as wikipedia is not paper. I should ahve been more clear. —siro χ o 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Grove listing is indeed sufficient, especially when it has a bibliography with two titles attached to it (that means it has even more independant sources) Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grove listing is sufficient. JoshHolloway 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Glad I didn't have to do the work this time. But, a/c the history, after he was nominated for speedy, the Grove's listings were added by 2 different eds.,, and he was then renominated for speedy by the same ed. DGG 06:11, 25 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 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basszor[edit]

Contested prod. WP:NFT, no assertion of notability, no sources and no relevant ghits. KFP (talk | contribs) 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently no assertion of notability. --Dweller 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. According to the article invented in early 2007. 14 Google hits and none appear to be what the article describes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Scimitar | parley 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – Neologism for basic musical instrument. — mholland 17:51, 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 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scatter (Tennis)[edit]

non-notable game made up in school one day. Only source is a website created by game's originators. Has been edited exclusively by vandals and single-purpose accounts. Gets about 80 google hits, most of which are irrelevant. Reads like a hoax. And so on. Prod was removed by creator without comment. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. --Dweller 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day; nom really says it all. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – thoroughly non-notable. Governing body of this 'international sport' is these fine gentlemen. — mholland 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NFT. Problematic on all counts. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game was not "made up in school one day". It has been played for about 5-6 years, and when the idea of attempting to make it known more widely came up, a website was made, and a Wikipedia article was started. Now that this article is pending deletion, I am going to try and keep it up, but I don't know how to edit the page to add the sources, and references etc. If someone could please do that for me, that would be great. The source/reference would be http://www.scattertennis.com and it woul;d be greatly appreciated if this article was kept up. It would mean the expanding of Scatter and make the game known to people throughout the World Wide Web. --ScatterTennis P.S. Also, I know that Scatter is not big now, but we plan on hosting many tournements over the next few years (first is on March 24th 2007), and that may increase the game's notability. So I don't think it would be such a bad idea to keep the article up. 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, which details what a reliable source is. Also, please note that wikipedia is explicitly NOT for things that are not notable but might be someday, and in particular it is not meant to be a vehicle to increase notability. This is non-negotiable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a copyright violation of [47]. --Maxamegalon2000 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 15:15, 26 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 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lyke[edit]

No evidence of passing WP:NOTE (not for the first time, I have to point out that a link to Myspace does not constitute evidence of notability). Judging from the author's username (User:Lyke2Drink) WP:AUTO may also apply. Walton monarchist89 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. --Scimitar | parley 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – subject appears to be an industry hack (no offence meant); fails WP:BIO. — mholland 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page, non-notable blog...glug glug.--Tainter 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability. Too many sentence fragments. Caknuck 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes the "Is it a Carbon-based Lifeform?" test, but that's about it. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 23 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 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last digit[edit]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NFT - very clearly someone's semi-humorous invention. Walton monarchist89 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Scimitar | parley 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pomte 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be on the "wiki-howtoegetadate", not here. --Tainter 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 10:38, 23 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, local cafe. NawlinWiki 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Café Connect[edit]

Of local importance only; no evidence of notability per WP:NOTE. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cafes and coffee shops rarely if ever need their own articles, nothing in particular to suggest this is different. Slight advertising tone too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 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 redirect. W.marsh 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-Powered Project[edit]

Non-notable, created by user who admits professional connection to overseeing organization here Rkitko 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify: The entire article is also a section in The Hitachi Foundation article. My opinion is a redirect would be the most appropriate option. --Rkitko 08:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a redirect would be the best option. I have read up on the non-notable entry in the Wikipedia help page. This makes sense. Julieatrci 14:28, 26 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 by Aecis with reason (Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher) . Navou ^banter 01:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty mother nation[edit]

No evidence of passing WP:MUSIC; another band publicity page. Walton monarchist89 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy. (Not by me though) - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers; ((db-band)) tagged by another editor. (aeropagitica) 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per the Talk page, "a semi-professional rock band". Most fully professional bands don't make it. Fan-1967 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as adcopy. --Dennisthe2 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not even close to notable. college radio and myspace. oh how wonderful.--Tainter 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No assertation of nobility, fails WP:BAND, and per the the talk page as mentioned by Fan-1967. Kyra_~(talk) 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete might as well be the very example of a nn-band page. Photoshoppy picture? Check. No released records besides demos? Check. Link to MySpace page? Check. Lack of reliable sources? Take a guess... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 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. W.marsh 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurozone as an optimum currency area[edit]

Seems very POV and I find it reads like an essay. Also cites a particular book of 2004 as being its primary basis, which, in addition to adding to its essay resemblence, also may make it copyright infringement (maybe not though, I haven't seen the actual book). ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic POV fork. Walton monarchist89 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. --Dennisthe2 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFD tag added to the article. No evidence of this in history.... --Dennisthe2 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. Maybe I forgot, or maybe it had a "session data loss" I didn't see (but I probably forgot) -^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens. =^^= --Dennisthe2 20:17, 26 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 log. Navou ^banter 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel point pos[edit]

No evidence of passing WP:CORP; reads like advertising, but I thought it was worth giving this page a chance in case the company had some notability. (Otherwise I would have used a speedy-delete tag.) Walton monarchist89 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, advertisement. G11 applies even if a7 doesn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. Already had a speedy tag on it, and the two identical copies under different titles from the same author have already been speedied. Fan-1967 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spamvertisement--Tainter 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete advertising Argyriou (talk) 20:50, 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. GRBerry 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSIT MOTORSPORTS[edit]

No apparent evidence of notability Walton monarchist89 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 18:08, 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 Speedily deleted as ((db-author)) blanked. (aeropagitica) 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica London[edit]

Although the group of which this company claims to be a part clearly passes WP:CORP, I'm not sure this article provides evidence of notability for the Jessica London brand itself. I don't know much about the fashion business so I could be wrong. Walton monarchist89 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like blatent advertising, which is speediable under G11. Speedy delete ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've reduced some of the spamminess in the article; tagged it as being sourceless; and written a nice welcome message explaining why the article is being considered for deletion on the author's talk page. Maybe it can be re-written and saved; but I doubt it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:07, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Glaser[edit]

I was seconds away from putting a ((db-bio)) tag on this article, but then I reasoned that the claims of extraordinary intelligence could be, very broadly, construed as an assertion of notability, albeit one that drastically fails WP:V. Sometimes, I think most regular newpage patrollers (including myself) are too eager to use speedy-delete, when it's always better to give an article the benefit of the doubt. Still, as it stands it needs to be deleted. Walton monarchist89 17:57, 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 *. Muddled nomination, really it would have been nice if sources were added... but a reasonable argument was made for Bet Shira Congregation so I am going to redirect the other article there, and suggest sources be added. W.marsh 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Shira and Micah Caplan[edit]

As per past AfDs on religious groups and organisations, this one doesn't seem notable enough - no assertion that it's widely known outside the local area and/or Conservative Jewish community. Walton monarchist89 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to User:Walton monarchist89 you should not have nominated these two articles together as one vote. One article is about an established synagogue and the other is about a new rabbi (how can you know the importance of either?) You could have placed a ((cleanup)) template on the Bet Shira article, and I have now WIKIFYd it. In future, when coming across an article relating to Jews and Judaism could you please place a note or call upon the many editors editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. IZAK 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In actual fact I didn't nominate Micah Caplan, just Bet Shira - see my comments below. I agree that the two should not be lumped into one vote. Walton monarchist89 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bet Shira is known as one of the largest congregations of Conservative Jewry in the south. The Rabbi and Shul are well known in South Florida, and many Rabbi's continue to stay in the area and lecture on the Sabbath because of the large crowds Bet Shira draws. Elliot Dorf, the member of the Conservative movement who wrote the argument for allowing Gay marriage in Judaism will be an scholor staying at the Shul in febuary. (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bet_Shira" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjx3 (talk • contribs) )
Delete - there's no independent sourcing of this. The first person plural is a big warning. If sources are found and the article is rewritten, I'll reconsider my position. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is a first person NN advetisement for Bet Shira and for Micah Caplan Caplan should also be flaged as an article for deletion. And all of it was written by Mjx3 - who was also the anon quote above to Keep. Peacock Words and no proof of notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrav (talk • contribs)
Delete both. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable, and the Bet Shira article has no sources and is written in the first person plural, thus making it unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:COI. Micah Caplan has been ordained as a rabbi for less than 5 years, thus making it unlikely that he qualifies under WP:BIO. The source used in the article about him only devotes 2 out of 26 paragraphs to him. Finally, the claim that he is "spiritual leader to the majority of Conservative Jews in South Florida" is impossible because there are 9 other Conservative synagogues just in Miami-Dade County, some of which are larger than Bet Shira, without even taking into account Broward and Palm Beach Counties. [48] --Metropolitan90 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Metropolitan90 has explained, the relevent Wikipedia policies here are WP:ORG for the congregation and WP:BIO (and WP:BLP) for the rabbi. WP:ORG requires proof that the organization's activities are national or international in scope and/or that the organization has been a principle subject of articles in independent reliable sources. WP:BIO has similar requirements. The first step in meeting any of these requirements is the production of independent sources -- articles or similar in reliable scholarly or media sources establishing that the organization or the rabbi meets one of the policy criteria. None of these articles currently have any sources. Without sources, there will be no choice but to Delete. Supporters of this article should focus first and foremost on bringing in sources, if any can be found, and letting this discussion know about their progress. If this can be done, a rewrite reflecting a more neutral, encyclopedic tone that avoids smacking of anything that might appear promotional would be in order as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shira: I have Wikified the article. It is only a Wikipedia:Stub at this time, and as such all your citations of Wikipedia policies do not apply. Bet Shira is an important Conservative synagogue in Miami and as such it intersects with many other related subjects. If this synagogue can't get an article about itself then I would say no synagogue in Florida, or anywher in the USA would get an article. What makes a synagogue "notable" in the eyes of the world in any case? Size? Age? Membership? Or that they were all burned down in Germany on Kristallnacht? There are no real fixed criteria here so kindly stop treating this as if we need to expect synagogues to be like "St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York" to get articles about them, 'cause it aint gonna happen, the Jews are just too small a group. Soon editors will tell us that Jews don't deserve articles on Wikipedia 'cause the paltry Jewish population of 13 million Jews is "not notable" in relation to the world's 6 billion other humans. So I would say you need to watch out before you spout all those "WP"s. IZAK 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I didn't nominate Micah Caplan for deletion; I nominated Bet Shira on its own, and User:Jayrav added Caplan to the AfD (see the edit history). I agree that the two should not have been nominated together. I came across Bet Shira when I was newpage patrolling, and, based on Wikipedia policy (WP:ORG (and the proposed policy WP:CONG) and prior precedent, I felt it didn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia, as there was (at the time) no evidence that it was notable outside of the local area. Judging by the many Delete votes on the AfD, a lot of users agree. Although you've wikified the article, there's still not enough sources to demonstrate notability; the only external links are to the synagogue's own website. If, however, you can demonstrate (through the use of further reliable third-party sources) that the synagogue is influential and/or well-known outside its local area, then I will change my vote. I'm not saying it's automatically not notable, but at the moment there's a lack of sources to prove its notability. Walton monarchist89 13:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Walton monarchist89: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You do not seem to understand the nature and workings of synagogues that do not function like churches and thus whatever is written in WP:CONG cannot really apply. It's apples and oranges. The Jews are a tiny people relative to the rest of the population, and only a minority attend synagogues today, so usually the synagogue is itself a reflection that Jews are notable in that locale from a religious and cultural perspective. Any synagogue represents the accomplishments of its membership (as well as its local and broader communities) at reaching a variety of notability criteria. This is a discussion that will need greater clarification. IZAK 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPLIT VOTE: (1) Keep Bet Shira as it's a noted Conservative synagogue and easily fits with Category:Conservative Judaism synagogues. However, (2) Delete Micah Caplan as he is not notable and fails WP:N. (It was a bad and unfair idea to combine these two subjects into one vote.) IZAK 12:28, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Bill Reads the Funnies[edit]

No assertion of notability outside the local TV station (which doesn't even have its own article). Walton monarchist89 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. The article gives little detail, but, if this is the one I am thinking of, it was quite a famous regional show, and although I have never lived anywhere even close to Witchita, I have heard of it in a number of different contexts. Unfortunately it well predates google and will need old-fashioned paper references (I don't have a single moment to look for those anytime soon). bikeable (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Google News Archive search did find sources, sadly it looks like the host retired in 2003 after a career spanning a number of decades. There was also a New York radio show by the same name in the 40s and 50s, which appears to be unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 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. W.marsh 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ligue 1 results August 2006[edit]

Expired PROD, but the article had been PROD'ed previously. Prod rationale was "Wikipedia is not a soccer statistics site/collection of information/database/news service, see relevant and overwhelming precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006 and September 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006‎". I endorse this, and propose deletion. GRBerry 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, which have expired prods that could result in deletion, to ensure consistent handling:

Ligue 1 results September 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ligue 1 results October 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ligue 1 results November 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GRBerry 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly adding FA Premier League 2005-06 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Punkmorten 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to bundling this. As nobody else has opined yet, so it is fine. GRBerry 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale (i.e. my rationale). I took the liberty to add a similar de-prodded article. Punkmorten 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent set by listed previous deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all per nom (previous consensus on similar results articles) // Laughing Man 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of blow by blow account of everything in football as it happens. 128.232.246.141 23:26, 28 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. W.marsh 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Fish[edit]

Original Research, probably CV. At best: merge a quick mention into the team's article. ccwaters 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only if it can be verified by source. DMighton 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. The quote is take from 'Zamboni' John, a former Zamboni driver for the thunderbirds. We get many people asking as to what the fish is about and I thought I would put this up as something people could refer to. Ihlemic10

Reluctant Delete Word of mouth is not a reliable source, I'm afraid. There are hints that show this to be real: see "funniest thing you have ever seen in a hockey game, but there are no reliable sources that can verify this account. If a reliable source can be found, please add it, as this does appear to be an interesting bit of local lore. Resolute 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a forum post by 'Zamboni John'. After reading the wikipedia guideline on sources, it appears that it is not a valid source due to a lack of credibility. Ihlemic10 00:10, 24 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. W.marsh 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Matadore (Rapper)[edit]

Non-notability as per WP:BIO Jack 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE notability issue 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Global Warming. I'll go ahead and redirect, if anybody wants to do the merge work, the history will be there for you (and many thanks, by the way!). Luna Santin 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate alarmism[edit]

contested prod. title is inherently POV; an NPOV article can't be written with this title. Merge anything worth saving into Global Warming Geoffrey Spear 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the results of all scientific studies on this article's notability are in. Until then, we should take no rash action. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Global warming. We do not need a separate article for every story on every TV news program about global warming. This has its only source a single such BBC story. Edison 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral But if you delete it before I can provide enough additional sources to show the concept's notability, then please Userfy it for me. Or at least give me enough notice so I can userfy it my self to User:Ed Poor/climate alarmism. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, POV neologism. I think the argument made is roughly valid (in the sense that I see where they are coming from, not that I agree with them) but it is probably best to integrate it into the main article on the controversy, Wikipedia sucks when each POV has its own article. --70.51.228.137 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete:pov or not, it's a neologism and an article about a scientific topic that only sources popular media (in fact it seems to be mostly based on one bbc story). -- frymaster 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete.

Comments:

I've added 2 quotes to the article, so it is no longer "mostly based on one BBC story".
The title is unacceptably POV; something like "Politics of Climate Change" would be better.
The article is currently too one-sided (and I made it even worse).
Global Warming is the wrong place to merge this. Global Warming controversy would be more appropriate.
The debate on whether Climate Change has been oversold will, IMO, grow in importance. I suspect we'll end up having a separate article on the topic within a year or two even if we merge it now.

If we keep this article, we must rename it and make it more balanced. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~possible keep, conditional on something like my new intro surviving :-) William M. Connolley 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)~~ delete It didn't survive - this page doomed to be yet another in the long series of proxy wars William M. Connolley 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The blatantly POV material WMC added to the article is now back in a less POV form. CWC(talk) 11:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Similar material is spread across too many different articles -- Global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, Global warming controversy, etc etc. The (very little) material in this article that does not already appear elsewhere should be merged into one of those articles. Raymond Arritt 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any surviving content per WP:POVFORK. This article seems to be a classic example of what the POVFORK guideline is designed to protect against. Global warming controversy seems to be the right place. --Shirahadasha 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. Addhoc 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone wants to delete or merge, is it okay if I Wikipedia:userfy the page now? --Uncle Ed 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object, as long it includes a conspicuous notice that this is your personal work and does not represent the Wikipedia community. Raymond Arritt 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Warming, POV fork. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:08, 31 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. W.marsh 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century philosophy[edit]

This page has no encyclopedic content. Any useful information it has can be found in pages with better citations. KSchutte 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages?

As mentioned on the talk page, List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and its companions are a better referenced list of names. As for what little other content is to be found here, I think even philosophy does a better job than this glib rhetoric. KSchutte 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The author seems to be onto something, but it's unreferenced; the article is mostly lists, and the beginning reads like an OR or copyvio essay, and it smells like it may be a POV-fork. However, if the author can provide citations (and show that he's not plagiarizing the initial essay), and clean up the lists somewhat, this might be a pretty worthwhile article. Argyriou (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or a Strong Must be Rewritten - There is already a List of philosophers born in the twentieth century (and those other lists aren't worth having). The article should be deleted or, if it is to be rewritten the rewrite should go like this:

- all the lists should be stripped out (the article could have 'also see' links to appropriate lists),

- the article should be re-named as "Summary of 20th-century Philosophy's History" (or something like that) and be written with appropriate references.

There is a story worth telling if done that way. And it could grow into a series of 'History of Philosophy' articles (or do they already exist?) Steve 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least as article history is concerned, this would appear to be legit: this has a history of edits going back to 2004, and moreover the earliest text is obviously the ancestor of what is now here. A lot of its history seems to revolve around edit warring about whether Ayn Rand is enough of a philosopher to stand in this company, though, but there's enough there to convince me that this is not a POV fork. It certainly isn't very good, and should be sent to cleanup, but that's not grounds to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise. The intro needs to be rewritten to make it more wiki-styled, and the article as a whole could use more of a general-audience-appropriate overview of the topic, but the topic itself definitely seems notable enough to be worth keeping. WillHarper 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs cleanup and expansion. The only equivalent we have seems to be History of philosophy#Contemporary philosophy, which is just a paragraph, and this is already pointed to as a subarticle of History of Western philosophy#19th to mid-20th century philosophy. I consider this an essential article so it's a pity the state that it's in, but that calls for improvement, not deletion. Modern philosophy, according to that article, should cover the Renaissance to the 18th century, but redirects to the paltry 19th-century philosophy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: yes, the article needs work, but the fact my university offers classes in both "contemporary political philosophy" and "modern philosophy" tells me that there are ample sources for contemporary philosophy as a distinct field and article. Wintermut3 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seems very readable, and the list is appropriate. The page certainly seems to be actively maintained. DGG 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete to make this article passably correct and unbiased will necessarily make it into the equivalent of two or three volumes. It will either have to be too brief to be true, or too long to be useful. The field is just too large for century-based categories after the 18th century. it takes a few hundred years to filter out the best from the worse to get down to encyclopedic value in the age of a century. I mean you couldn't even do an encyclopedic entry of 20th century ango-american philosophy, not to mention the rise of philosophy in australia, etc. etc. and french and german philosophy? it is a delete as it can never be much more than the list and the list is best done elsewhere. --Buridan 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the condition that it becomes the Project's collaboration for February. - Sam 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Topic is the classic sort of topic any encyclopedia should have. Article is definitely poorly written, but content problems can be addressed through improvement. Expert help would be valuable. --Shirahadasha 19:15, 28 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 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in Dead Rising[edit]

Lots of original research, it reads like a game guide, and is badly done with many grammar errors and the like--SUIT⁴² 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and nom Cream147 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - The sheer number of weapons available in the game is one of the features that sets it apart, but this article is badly written, incomplete, and reads like a game guide. The number of weapons should be mentioned, and if at all possible a straight listing of their names would be welcome in the article, but this is needless detail. None of the weapons are particularly notable within the game, much less outside it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a gameguide, the locations and tips for usage of items in this game are not necessary here and are GameFAQs material. Mentioning the variety of usable items in the main article and giving some examples would be more useful. QuagmireDog 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above DurinsBane87 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Obviously a game guide. Nothing we can salvage from this article. --Scottie theNerd 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, the article's a few weeks old. Besides, what's wrong with a game guide? It's not a walkthrough, and there are many similar articles on Resident Evil, Halo 2 etc etc. Pictures are not yet available due to te recency of this game, and we do not yet know the total number of weapons available (the article mentions 'around 250 weapons'). I say don't delete, but it's fair to say I'm biased. but I can tell you I've not copied info from other sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The issue is that the policy WP:NOT specifically prohibits creating game guides. It is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia, in place since day 1, and it lays out this restriction quite clearly. I'm not questioning your efforts, as you actually seem to have put a good deal of time into this, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not and will never be a place you can post game guides like this article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' and Transwiki'ing to strategywiki. I Would have went through with it but the import isn't working there as of now. But I have it saved so that I can do it when it's working again. Chris M. 16:55, 24 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, one of a recent rash of fake Dreamworks/Pixar movie articles. NawlinWiki 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Car's Life[edit]

Googling doesn't show an upcoming Dreamworks movie with this title, which appears to be a hoax FisherQueen (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dumb hoax. Basically the same premise as Pixar's Cars movie, title a cross between Cars and A Bug's Life. Yeah, right.

Yeah some Dreamworks film that is some nonsense but I think it was cool but still nonsense. Experiment903 22 January Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 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 Keep – Pea ceNT 08:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie[edit]

~~Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie was previously nominated for deletion in July 2005 for lack of notability. The decision was to redirect.~~ Since then, the article has gotten larger, but no reliable sources have been added.

This article is entirely uncited original research. Tags saying as much, in addition to questioning again the subject's notability have been on the article since December 5, 2006.

This article has been on Wikipedia for two and a half years now, and the group's Web site is still its only source. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I voted keep on this last time, but that was a long time ago and it looks like verifiability has been a lasting problem since then. Google News Archive has some articles, but some are just press-release stuff and others are tangental or simple mentions. I can't really tell one way or another whether it would be enough to support an article or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact the article hasn't been improved is something to be discussed within the article. The comedy troupe is quite notable in Canada and as noted in the article even had their own TV series. Unless the nominator has some evident to suggest this article is a hoax, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept. 23skidoo 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find no reference to any television show outside of this article. Regardless, I can go get a television on a government-sponsored today, and anyone can self-publish CDs and DVDs easily. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it'd be a full keep if there was anything resembling a source in there. It desperately needs work on the verification side, but I know these guys were quite the thing in Canada for a while, and the CBC show indicates a high level of notability - if we can find proof of it. (There are plenty of mentions of the show on different pages, but I can't find a knock-em-dead kind of source right now.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — After two and a half years, I would expect that someone should have been able to find a reference to a TV show. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "three dead trolls in a baggie" CBC and weed through, there's lots of mentions of it in different places, but it was slightly pre-Internet, and it was only five episodes, so it's a challenge to find online unfortunately. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have removed the majority of unreferenced info, but what's left still has no source in the article. The site doesn't even have any real info that I can find. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've either misrepresented or misunderstood the original AFD conclusion; there was a duplicate article on this comedy group at a title with a marginally different spelling (the Wikiserver does not treat "in" and "In" as the same thing in a title). That article was nominated for deletion, and the final result was to redirect the other article to this one. There has never been a proposal to redirect the article anywhere other than its current spelling, and the deletion nomination failed because people felt they were sufficiently notable for an article. At any rate: they are a fairly well-known group in Canadian comedy, and they do get a reasonably good number of Google hits. An unverifiable claim is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to delete an entire article if other parts of it are verifiable; it's only a legitimate reason to remove the specifically unverifiable parts. And for what it's worth, this page does make at least a passing reference to the Trolls as an example of Canadian television comedy; whether that by itself is sufficient to verify the television show claim is certainly debatable, I grant, but the verifiability of the TV show claim is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion. Keep and cleanup. Bearcat 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I misunderstood. I'm not sure why I am supposed to think that this is actually a well-known group; I don't live in Canada, and I certainly have never heard of them. The article reads like any of the other article about a non-notable group on Wikipedia, their web site looks amateurish, and they self-release all of their CDs and DVDs. It just looks like some dudes who made an article about themselves. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- being a stub isn't itself a valid reason for removal, but a reason for expansion. As I noted on Chris Griswold's talk page, a quick search of Google yields over 33,000 entries. A review of some of those demonstrates notability of this group is met:

"Dead (Trolls) In the Water" - VUEWeekly (Edmonton indie weekly magazine); and, "Parkland Institute sponsors night of laughter" - University of Alberta ExpressNews
Turning comedy to cash on MP3.com, CBC Radio (Canadian Broadcast Corp), Oct 2, 2000, which notes, "Their sketch "Internet Helpdesk" is now in the top 20 comedy albums on MP3.com"
"Interactive Media: Professional Animation, Winner, Alberta New Media Awards, 2002
Voices for Hospices 2005, featured performer, part of the "The Worldwide Simultaneous Singing Event", October 8, 2005
FOIP Conference, Canadian Government "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" entertainer: "As we have come to expect, the entertainment at the second day luncheon was superb. Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie performed an original song about how to protect your privacy (to the refrain of "Lie, lie, lie, lie…") and showed a video depicting a day in the life of a "bad" and a "good" FOIP Coordinator." (FOIP News, Issue No. 1, August 2001) --Leflyman^Talk 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This group had their own show on CBC (which is not like cable access- it's a full-fledged network like NBC), one of the current and one of the former members have a show on a couple different Canadian specialty channels (The Geek Show http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/mmnr/booktv/), have been featured in non-3DT books (there was a giant Canadian comedy book that had one of their skits, can't recall the name) and "The Toronto Song" is infamous in Canada, although often incorrectly atributed to the Arrogant Worms. --TheTruthiness 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should never have been proposed for deletion. Don't nominate things just to get people to add sources. Rather, add some sources yourself! —siroχo 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I take offense to this. I nominated this because in two and ahalf years of existence, this article has never had a single source. That is enough to make someone believe that there is no source. Assume good faith and don't be rude. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't take offense, as none was meant, and I did not assume bad faith. I should not have phrased my comment the way I did. But before nominating an article for deletion, check to see if your primary reason for nomination holds up past a couple quick searches. —siro χ o 08:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of minor comedy groups on Wikipedia, and most of them have articles that look and read very similarly to this one. Notable group articles tend to explain the notability right in the intro, for example, rather than giving a rundown of the membership changes.I did look for information, but as I said, I did not dig too deeply because the article had not had sources for so long, despite editors' having worked on it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont see why removal is necessary unless it is in fact a redundancy. Pardon my noobishness, but once I figure out how to use the system better, and what exactly counts as a reference, I'd be willing to try to cite one. --xOrion73x 19:20, 25 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. If anyone wants this content for a transwiki, I will make it available. W.marsh 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software Test Techniques[edit]

Long, with sources, but seems to violate Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. NawlinWiki 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4; in the first paragraph, "and explains when they may be used". Even without that part, it still seems to close to a how-to for my tastes. Kyra_~(talk) 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like original research and how-to material to me. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you all for your comments. Yes, I accept that it looks like a "how to". However, it is difficult (for me at least) to write an article on this subject without including some "how to" information. That is, to explain this subject it is necessary to describe a situation in which it is used, which inevitably tells someone how to implement the technique. However, the "how to" part is not detailed. Your suggestions are welcome. For example, would it be sufficient (or even a step in the right direction) to change the sub-titles to, "Description", "Example" and "Where It Is Used"?

As to it being original research, no it is not. These are standard test techniques. This is my profession and my expertise. Other Software Testers will validate this. Robinson weijman 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure about how consistently the "how to" rule is applied. This makes it hard for me to stick to. E.g. see Cups and balls (and others from List of magic tricks). Robinson weijman 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transwiki to Wikibooks. This is a great start to a Wikibook. —siro χ o 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I appreciate the comment. That's the first positive feedback I've had from Wikipedia! Robinson weijman 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been giving this a lot of thought and researched some more (on Wikipedia). So I'm offering to rewrite the article to make it more encyclopedic and less (or not at all) "how to". How does that sound? Robinson weijman 07:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this endeavor, and suggest that whoever ends up closing this debate postpone deletion to give a chance at rewriting. —siro χ o 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for that support. I've also noticed that, after rewriting, it should be merged with this article: Software test techniques! Robinson weijman 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also the discussion page: Talk:Software_Test_Techniques. Robinson weijman 14:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've now made a number of minor edits which I believe re-qualifies this article for Wikipedia. Would you (reviewers) please recheck this? The "how to factor" is diminished if not removed entirely. Thanks. Robinson weijman 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's gone pretty quiet on this page. Can we remove the deletion tag please? I've had no negative comments since the rewrite, and one very positive one here: Talk:Software_Test_Techniques. Thanks. Robinson weijman 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article but there is some good content which could be merged into existing articles such as White box testing and Black box testing, with which this article already overlaps to some extent. I believe this would put the information into a better-defined context and avoid the potential duplication that would result from adding more contextual information to this article.--Michig 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for that feedback. I've update this article to include links to White box testing and Black box testing. However, both are fairly short articles and do not cover the same material. This is specific techniques, those articles merely address the two classifications of test techniques. Question - Is there any other test specialist prepared to comment on the validity of this article before it is (possibly) deleted? Robinson weijman 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are fairly short articles, but a 'Techniques' section in each could hold most of the information in this article.--Michig 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why delete this one? Why not incorporate those articles in this one, or leave all three as they are? By the way, if I do not comment for a few days, it is because I will be away. Will recheck this page within a week. Till then. Robinson weijman 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Black box testing techniques is logically a subsection of Black Box Testing, and not v.v. It also makes sense to have articles with titles that reflect terms that people are likely to search for. The whole field of software testing includes techniques from unit testing of modules of code using white and black box techniques right up to testing usability, security and accessibility, which is a very broad spectrum of different topics, and it seems to me that the best structure is to have Software testing as the most general article, with articles for the more-specific areas beneath this, then detail about specific testing techniques applicable to those areas beneath these. If we attempted to describe all software testing techniques in a single article, which would mean adding an awful lot more techniques to the list in this article, we would undoubtedly end up splitting it anyway because it would get too large. --Michig 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article contains very useful definitions of various testing techniques which are not described elsewhere on the Wikipedia, the information should be retained. Suggest it is just a matter of where to place this information. What if some of these techniques are applicable to both white and black-box testing? JPFitzmaurice 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that individual techniques have their own articles (as several already do), and if they apply to more than one area of testing they can be linked from multiple articles as required.--Michig 10:53, 26 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. W.marsh 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii elbow[edit]

A pseudo-medical "diagnosis" and a neologism. Kafziel ^Talk 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Original Research. As this shows, this article was once speedily deleted as being patent nonsense. However, I say we let this AfD stand until the time limit is up (unless we can get a WP:SNOW). After this AfD passes, I say we need to either protect the article page to prevent recreation or keep the page as a redirect to the Wii article itself. While there've been enough people injuring themselves playing the Wii for it to be notable, it certainly doesn't deserve an article as the injuries to date have not been limited to repetitive stress injury OR elbows in general. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tennis elbow. Caknuck 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. Don't be fooled by the picture of an elbow and the supposed sources (the first is just a recap of the second, which in turn isn't meant to be a serious medical entry.) See WP:NEO. Kafziel ^Talk 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like my last vote, I call for a Merge and Redirect to repetitive stress injury. --Dennisthe2 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually agree, as per the WP:NEO article. Maybe through a small statement into the article on Nintendo Wii, because it is a prevalent injury. -- JE.at.UWO^U|_T22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to repetitive strain injury (repetitive stress injury is a redirect page). The injury is real, but not distinct enough for its own article. Link repetitive strain injury and Wii articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 24 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. W.marsh 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean South (wrestler)[edit]

athlete failing WP:BIO due to lack of non-trivial sources ZIekenheadf9 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable pro wrestler --- Paulley

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zirana[edit]

Tagged for Speedy G11 and then contested, I don't think this necessarily is a G11 case, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB so I'm bringing it here. My opinion is Delete.--Isotope23 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if not G11, then damn close. Cornell Rockey 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence of notability due to lack of sourcing. Trebor 22:37, 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 merge/redirect. I will redirect for now, editors interested in this topic have access to the edit histories to merge over content as appropriate. W.marsh 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanzia[edit]

I'm nominating Sanzia and Sanzia Devil Child because I think they're misrepresenting something fictional as real -- as best I can tell from a bit of Googling, these things only exist in the movie Dolly Dearest. I've brought them to AfD instead of just prodding them to get more eyes in case I'm terribly wrong. Pinball22 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I started the process of creating the AfD for these, someone (not the original author) has added to them a note that these things are only in the film. If everyone else agrees that this is so, I'd be fine with a Merge to Dolly Dearest. Pinball22 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Agreed, merge seems most sensible option. Jeodesic 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. It is clear labelled as fictional, but appears to have more context if placed on the main film page. See WP:FICT for rules on where to put articles on fictional entitities. Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Stumbled across this when looking for information about this film. A google search definitely shows basic information about the film, but a lot of the other information (injuries on infants?) seems to have been made up to make the article seem "real" and not fictional. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 07:28, 25 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 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adri Mehra[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable writer/musician, fails WP:BIO. 102 distinct Google hits[49], maostly from blogs, myspace, and 9/11 or indymedia sites, and the minnesota daily. No WP:V sources about the subject asserting his importance. Also serious WP:COI / Wikipedia:Autobiography concerns (as can be seen from the image additions of the creator, who identifies with the subject). Fram 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above. Fails WP:Music as above. Obvious vanity article. No sources. Assertion of notability is certainly all trivial. Cricket02 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced to show he passes WP:BAND. The conflict of interest is not a good idea either. Trebor 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure which is the claim to notability. Bad joke published in a children's magazine? School geography bee winner? Played on a stage that was featured in a film? Writing a weekly column in a local student newspaper? Whichever, they're all unsourced. CiaranG 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expect that Adri will become more well known over time, but currently he is just a student writer for a college newspaper that is starting a series of articles questioning 9/11 -- he is not yet a notable researcher into 9/11. I agree he is not yet notable, but if his column gets noticed, he may become so in time. bov 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a "sweetened" CV essay. NN autobiography entry. MURGH ^disc. 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even this glorifying article only mentions this of his CD "sold hundreds". So a few hundred people may know his music. Somehow I doubt the rest of the world cares to know about him. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rare automotive features[edit]

Very subjective criteria. If the list includes aftermarket modifications, it's potentially limitless (eg.someone can glue an eggbeater to their windshield and have it recognized as rare). --Interiot 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — despite having just done a cleanup of the article! I was considering nominating it here and Interiot has made the decision for me! ;-) Editors may wish to check out the article's talk page for a description of why the article was created, and it seems like a noble, but inappropriate, motivation. The article isn't just potentially limitless and subjective; it's also likely to be PoV and wrong from time to time, on the basis that it's likely to be hard to prove that some feature or other is considered rare everywhere in the world. If the article is kept, the word "rare" will have to be better defined. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - delete as an overly subjective and unmaintainable list. -- MarcoTolo 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too subjective to be properly maintained. Someone could easily refer to an obscure feature as a 'rare feature', regardless of the feature's notability; I could easily envision this list blowing up in size if it were left. Kyra_~(talk) 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the page's discussion

Reason this page created - some automotive designs and accessories disappear and are generally forgotten or are completely unknown to younger generations. Many such features may have been been individually desirable but not as parts of packages. Others have become obsolete as they have been superceded by newer technology. While there might be some description of some items on other pages, this page could be a bit more like an endangered and extinct species page.

Usefulness

This is the automotive technology equivalent of "evolutionary dead ends or side streets." Curious and interesting. Should be expanded with photographs.

157.128.148.150 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where else would we find this information?

Do not delete!

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Interiot 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no assertion of "rare." Woodgrain paneling is listed. What? That stuff was EVERYWHERE. The list is too subjective and blatant OR. --Sable232 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be original research based on extremely subjective criteria. ^Blank ^Verse 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, will only lead to endless arguments and an incomplete un-professional list of editor POVs. Signature ^brendel 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of original research and isn't well defined. Would an odd part on every toyota carolla be rare if it's the only model that has it but sells 20 million? Too subjective. James086Talk 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is on too trivial a topic. Karrmann 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:V. You can create articles on the individual features if they don't already exist (e.g. suicide doors), if you think they need "preserved". The problem with the page is the listcruftiness of it, not the merits of individual entries. Although, on the subject of wood panelling, I think the author means the external panelling seen on old wagons, not woodgrain appliqués on the dash and door trim. --DeLarge 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the page however after reading the discussion above have to agree that it was misguided. My aim was to gather some of the more creative and often practical but generally unknown designs used in the industry (yes all highly subjective terms). Moreover, I have to admit my original use of "obsolete" is much like "extinct" - again subjective - white swan thinking. User: Albertasunwapta
Delete Well, I'm back but waffling a bit on the whole "subjective" thing. I stumbled across a Wikipedia page on Death by natural causes - now that's subjective. Oh well, feel free to wipe this one out. User: Albertasunwapta
- "Death by natural causes" isn't necessarily precise, but it's a term of art used by emergency responders and statisticians, it has something of an understood meaning that's used in government publications, and so has reliable sources to back it up. And it's not a list. --Interiot 21:51, 24 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 12:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Family[edit]

Delete. This article is pretty states who the main characters from House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects are with little else. All of the other major characters have their own articles. Its pretty small, with only one category and very little links from other pages. I don't see what could be added to this page without A.) merely rehashing the plot of the two films or B.) feature material already focused on in the individual character articles. CyberGhostface 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could leave a redirect. Completely in-universe, and I'm not sure there's much (or any) potential for expansion. Trebor 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Possible redirect - No need to duplicate information contained within other articles. Redirecting per Trebor's suggestion sounds like a viable alternative to a full delete, however. Kyra_~(talk) 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge It should be merged into the film article. --Nehrams2020 04:00, 26 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 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rok Playaz[edit]

non-notable vanity page Nardman1 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the author has removed the delete tags 3 times from the article. Nardman1 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned him on talk page; if he does it again, I'll list it on WP:AIV. Trebor 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are added to show it passes WP:BAND. I can't find any independent sources, so it fails the primary notability criterion, and I can't see any evidence to suggest it passes the others. Trebor 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a Myspace page but not much else, certainly nothing resembling reliable sources. You'd think if they released a single with Kanye West that might have been mentioned somewhere, y'know? Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 10:37, 23 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 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bethpage High School Masquer's Guild[edit]

Extracurricular activities of high schools are almost never notable, and this one certainly isn't. I replaced this page with a redirect to Bethpage High School. The original author of the page disagreed with my judgment and asked that I restore the page and submit it to AfD. --Hyperbole 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Bethpage High School as nom. --Hyperbole 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per precedent against student clubs at a single school, and the article is basically just a place to stick the cast list of a school play. Mind-numbingly unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the high school's page. It's not notable on its own, but it can help that article. Just H 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obvious vanity page for a high school drama club. Article makes no claim of notability so much as any verifiable ones backed by reliable sources. No encore please. NeoFreak 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I agree now that it can be deleted. I condensed the article and merged it into bethpage High School. I also put Bethpage High School up for a semiprotection because of the vandalism the page gets- so if you can help me support it.
The article is about a subject so profoundly lacking in notability it almost implodes under its own bloatedness. Delete. And then wash your hands. WMMartin 15:19, 26 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. W.marsh 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of KTVX translators[edit]

Non-notable. WP:NOT a directory. See also this discussion. I could be persuaded to change my mind if more info is provided on the subject, though.

Delete There is no benefit is copying a long directory of TV repeaters out of an FCC database to make a Wikipedia article. Just list the FCC database as a "See Also" in an article on the station. There is a lack of multiple sources, and even the FCC list is a mere directory listiong. Edison 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I flagged this as ((mergeinto)) KTVX just a few days ago; this AFD nomination seems to have replaced that tag. You're correct that there's no particularly compelling reason for this to have its own article separately from the existing article on the television station proper — but it's perfectly legitimate content to have in the television station's main article. I've already expressed my opinion on the talk page that this should be merged rather than deleted. I don't mean to suggest that my opinion should be prioritized over anyone else's, but Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages does indicate that a merge proposal should be left open for at least two weeks, and I only just flagged this five days ago. Therefore, I would request that this AFD be suspended until January 31 so that the merge debate can run its proper procedural course. I have no objection to deleting it if that's the consensus after the proper two weeks have ended. Bearcat 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I put the merge tag back. I had removed it because I thought a deletion discussion would impact the article more, and I didn't wait for the merge discussion to run its course because it was heading towards a unanimous merge vote. I haven't seen any reason to keep the info, save for interesting translators in Nevada. Xiner (talk, email) 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - of the same class are KBYU-TV/List of KBYU-TV translators, KSTU/List of KSTU translators, KJZZ-TV/List of KJZZ-TV translators, KUCW/List of KUCW translators, KSL-TV/List of KSL-TV translators, and KUED/List of KUED translators. All of these articles were made by User:Dhett who is active on Wikipedia. I left notice on his talk page. Whatever happens to this article should happen with all of them. Cool Hand Luke 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (edited) I've listed all these pages and placed a link to this page per WP:IAR (i.e. no formal tags), so we'll be held up by dhett's absence only. Xiner (talk, email) 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I explained in the merge discussion, CVS doesn't list all the cities it does business in because it is trivia, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. This list is also very likely to be original research, and if it's not, then there is a published source that we can link to, instead of hosting the info ourselves. It'd be more authoritative, too. Even KTVX's own website doesn't have this list. Xiner (talk, email) 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Thank you, Cool Hand, for bringing this to my attention. I am the author of all of these lists, so I will provide my defense. It has been customary to include a list of translators in each television article; however, the Salt Lake City television market is unique in that their primary stations have anywhere from 50 - 120 translator stations, as opposed to fewer than 25 translators in any other market. When I initially began adding the translators, it quickly became clear that the list was too unwieldy for inclusion in one article. I sought the advice of fellow members of WikiProject Television Stations and was advised that the best way to do this would be as a separate list that the main article would reference. I believe that it is appropriate to keep the list of translators, as is the custom for TV articles, and it is appropriate to keep it as a subarticle, as it was never meant to be a standalone article, but rather an adjunct to the main article. The data is authoritative, having come from the FCC, but is not in an easily referenced source in its original form. Also, while KTVX doesn't provide a list of translators on its website, the other stations do. The FCC data is self-reported, but it is not advertising; it is instead a mandatory report as part of their license renewal application. I welcome input on how to better present this information, but firmly believe that the information is relevant and notable, but too bulky for inclusion in the main article. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I will not have access to an Internet connection for the next couple of days and so, will not be available to respond to questions, so although AfDs are generally resolved after five days, I request a couple of additional days so that I can answer questions before any action is taken in this matter. Thank you. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dhett has expressed difficulty in reaching the internet for the next couple of days, so we should wait, but here are my thoughts right now. 1. Even if the data are kept, they should be trimmed to a format like City, State (callsign), since the channel number is the same as that in the callsign, with the text linking to the corresponding FCC page. 2. I still don't see why we can't just mention a few of the more notable translators -- if a store has only a couple of locations, then we would list all the locations, but if it has over 100, then no one would argue we should keep them all. 3. If other stations' websites list their translators, then we should simply link to that. If they don't, see point 2 (someone could also set up a webpage or publish the info somehow). Xiner (talk, email) 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the rampant spirit of WP:IAR, I second Bearcat's suggestion to suspend AfD for at least 5 days. This will probably permanantly table the deletion, but if—upon closer inspection and discussion at Talk:KTVX#Merge notice—we determine that the sub-articles irredeemably violates policy on original research or something else, we can reopen this AfD. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have most if not all of the facts available, which are not much different from how they appeared before the nomination, and it's not clear that this discussion is going anywhere anyway. I thus would like this deletion process to take its course. We can always extend a discussion. I also believe the merge discussion can take place simultaneously. I just want everyone to contribute their thoughts, because before this deletion discussion no one was saying much at all, as evident in that merge discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should also be noted that one centralized deletion nomination is a better place to discuss this issue than having various separate merge discussions. Xiner (talk, email) 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which is why I left notes on all of the pages directing them to the centralized merge discussion that was already in progress. It's not clear to me whether this violates wikipedia policy or not, and I think discussion will be served if we remove the pressure of imminent deletion, especially since the primary contributing editor will have limited access the next few days. I would like to keep the deletion option open, but if no other editors agree, I'll have to vote keep to cement the fact that there is no consensus. Let's try a good faith effort at consensus first, eh? Cool Hand Luke 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool Hand Luke, I've said more than once that this discussion should be extended. I'm not trying to rush this through, only saying that it's attracted more posts than the merge discussion, which had three participants I think. Xiner (talk, email) 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was a pageful of commentary on the notice before you nominated it (which, by the way, was before anyone thought to ask the original contributer about it). I don't mind the nomination, but in light of the good faith and effort that User:Dhett put into properly presenting this info (by asking the relevant wikiproject)—data which is always included for other stations as a matter of policy—I think that the only decent response is to ask for this nomination to be withdrawn. I accordingly vote keep and look forward to discussing this further on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This deletion nomination was created at 2007-01-22T17:07:51. At that point, the merge discussion looked like this. I don't think it is fair to say that I acted anything but prudently in this matter. I was in fact taking up your suggestion of AfD. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I specifically said, I don't blame you for nominating it. do think the original reasons for the nomination have evaporated though. I do blame you for turning this into a personal crusade. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also believe now that the TV WikiProject had erred in their advisement to Dhett, which resulted in his continuing to work on the admirably long lists. No one would argue that CVS Corporation should keep a subpage of the locations of all its stores. I'm sorry I'm proposing for deletion someone else's work, but though I don't expect this particular nomination to succeed, my question about the encyclopedic value of the lists was what finally made anyone care about them. Xiner (talk, email) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this whole collection of articles. Merge the info. Shaundakulbara 05:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Clean-up. I'd be happy to assist with the clean-up. I believe this list is useful; someone who was looking for this information should be able to find it, without having to query endlessly at a government database. People often cite WP:NOT for these types of lists, but my own encyclopedia at home (World Book) contains many lists, albeit not specifically for lists of translators. I'm not sure why there's a need to link to each query, and I think the tables can be reduced (or at least prettified by removing the ALLCAPS). Many Wikipedia TV station articles have information on translators, as this was a compromise between those who wanted no mention of translators and those who wanted full articles on each translator. In the case of Utah station translators, this information becomes huge because Utah has only one market and is a rather large state. This article should ideally mention these facts in the article itself, with proper reference. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one should come to Wikipedia expecting to find a translator. That's the TV dial's job. As for prettifying the list, I've offered a suggestion above. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have a dial on your TV? Oh, man, your TV's gonna suck in 2009. ;) I often come to Wikipedia looking for archane stuff (usually old TV station history), and my TV's reception doesn't reach to Utah, but a researcher writing a book on television might well find this article a useful place to get started. I don't think deleting the list will make it any prettier, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this. Xiner (talk, email) 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given Dhett's source of this information, it would take an unusual view of original research to conclude that this page violates WP:OR. The fact that it's hard for a novice to navigate fcc queries shows that this tabulated data is quite useful. I don't want to dump 100 translators into all the Salt Lake TV station articles, but this information merits inclusion. The only question remaining is how to go about formatting it. The original subpage scheme seemed like a good compromise, but I think policy strongly frowns on it. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main argument has always been that this is trivia, as indicated by the fact that not even the station's website mentions translators. And if other stations do list the info, we can simply link to that. Xiner (talk, email) 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate that the Salt Lake City, Utah television market consists of around 2.5 million people, 2.3 million in Utah alone. Of those, only approximately 1.5 million live within range of the primary stations' broadcast signal. That means that the stations' translator network serves around a million people, or 40% of the market. That is hardly trivial. The stations' websites don't mention their history either; does that make the stations' history trivial also? No, translator information is relevant and encyclopedic; I think our challenge here is to find a better way to present it. Your suggestion above has a great deal of merit and is a good start. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest Wikisource or the Commons as a depository for this info, with a link from the article? Xiner (talk, email) 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding of WikiSource that this material would be quite inappropriate there, as Wikisource is dedicated to "exist to archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history, and to present these publications in a faithful wiki version so that anyone may contribute added value to the collection." As these lists are neither artistic nor an "intellectual work" in most senses of the phrase, I don't think this material would last long there. Commons is supposed to be a repository of media files. Again, I'm not sure this list qualifies for that. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into station article. Do not keep. Vegaswikian 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope we understand that WikiProject Television Stations did not think this stuff is appropriate in the station article. Xiner (talk, email) 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Delete. If the wikiproject does not consider this information appropriate for the article then it is clearly not encyclopedic on its own. Vegaswikian 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not exactly a true statement. The translators are appropriate in the station article, as they are in almost all other articles for stations with translators. The only reason these translators are in a separate subarticle is due to the size of the list - putting the translator list in the separate subarticle keeps the main article readable and of a manageable size. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: KBYU and KUED provide the lists on their websites. Both are PBS member stations. What should we do we those? Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Other stations' pages have translator info available, thpugh usually on the same page as the article itself. The reason why the Utah stations have separate pages for translators is that there are so many translators on the air within the Salt Lake market -- which consists of all of Utah, plus portions of Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and Idaho. If they're placed on the same page, the article gers too big and cluttered. Therefore, I'm for keeping them as they are now. -- azumanga 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm back; was away longer than I'd expected to be. Naturally, I strongly disagree with comments that TV translator information is not encyclopedic. This is not a paper encyclopedia so there is no reason why the articles shouldn't include translators, as they are relevant. I also contend that Xiner's CVS Corporation analogy is not relevant here; television stations are not the same as drugstore chain (or any other corporate) franchises, as each station must be specifically licensed by the federal government and that no change can be made to any station without that change being specifically authorized and licensed. Also, these are not simply lists of locations; each station listed contains a link to the FCC website, which has further information about that translator, including its broadcast coverage area. None of the translators is any more important than the other, so listing only a handful is not feasable either. I do however appreciate Xiner's thoughtfulness in listing his ideas on how the article should be treated. His first idea, removing all information except city, state and calls could work using multiple columns in the article, thereby reducing the size of the information. As soon as I have opportunity, I will try that in my own user space. I believe it will be a reasonable compromise, and allow the lists to be merged back into the main article without making the main article unreadable. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you should be able to fit a few translators in one row that way. As for FCC approval, CVS stores would have to abide by local zoning laws and acquire consumer agency licenses...I still don't think it's a big deal, but like I said, I think this will end up a discussion about how to merge the stuff. Xiner (talk, email) 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have created a KTVX proof of concept article in my user space, putting into effect a suggestion by User:Xiner. This should allow all translators to be listed in the main article without making it unreadable or too large for dial-up connections. It should also be an effective compromise that will resolve both this AfD and the KTVX merge notice. Please review and comment under the merge notice - your feedback is greatly appreciated. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compressing the data into a table doesn't actually help the page's size for download over dialup. In fact, the table html makes it bigger. It does help prevent the article from getting overwhelemed though, so I like it. Cool Hand Luke 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The comparison was actually between the example and just merging the existing table into the main article, not between the example and the main article without the translator info, but thanks for the feedback. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know, but rearranging the table doesn't save bandwidth. If you view source on the independant article, the table consumes about 26k, so dumping it into the article would add that much for those who care (really not a terrible amount anyway). The version you've arranged on your user space (prior to adding links, mind you) is 20k. Making the table wider and shorter won't save much bandwidth. Most of the savings if from abbreviating the verbose links. I wish I didn't say anything though, because your table is great—it won't overwhelm the article. I think download time is not an issue. It adds about two second to the article on dialup. Cool Hand Luke 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on dial-up at home and was able to access the test article pretty easily. No problem here. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 30 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 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Rhodes[edit]

This artist fails to meet WP:Notability. A search on the Dialogue Elevaters Crew on Google finds fewer than 330 references. A search on his name finds double that. The editor removed a speedy tag and PROD tag without providing any evidence of notability. Most of the Google Entries are self generated by the subject. Delete Maustrauser 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless more notability can be found on this artist, he would fail WP:MUSIC. --Dennisthe2 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NN, and runs the risk of being blocked unless he accepts this.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no 3rd party coverage, fails WP:BIO, as stands nothing in the article argues for inclusion according to WP:MUSIC. SkierRMH 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:57, 23 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 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Molly[edit]

This article is totally incoherent and has no reference source at all. I suspect the whole thing is made up. Wooyi 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article boasts, "Selling over 3000 copies..." as its main notability point, it really barely matters whether this is a hoax or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can determine from the semi-incoherent text, even the author appears to agree that this is a non-notable article about a non-notable book. I absolutely agree with him.--Anthony.bradbury 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Selling over 3000 copies does not bode well for finding independent sources. Trebor 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1,000 copies a year does not a "huge fan base" nor a "cult classic" make. SkierRMH 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. Maxamegalon2000 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources and does not appear to show any nobility. I found some information on google, but little about the novel. --Nehrams2020 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With an estimated audience of 3000 people, this hardly makes it world notable. Add language article nowhere near the encyclopedic and the editor actually signing for it. The only reason to keep this would be as an example of what editors should not do with their articles. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prior to debate end here . Navou ^banter 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fort (Malvern, Pennsylvania)[edit]

non-notable place some kids are invading Nekohakase 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has now been ((speedy)) tagged, whicj is wholly appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 23:21, 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 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaplan (actor)[edit]

Another vanity article by an alleged actor who has appeared as an extra a few times, and as an unnamed character in a DVD sold on its producer's website. It goes out of its way to give "sources" but they're basically the IMDb, which takes submissions from the public (in cases such as this they're basically always written by the subject). There's been a lot of this sort of vanity going around. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Croteau for a recent AFD of a very similar article. R. fiend 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking part in a DVD sold on a website does not satisfy WP:NN. Neither does owning a candle factory.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't quite meet WP:BIO.--Tainter 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usual fiend has to lie to get his way! Pretty much everything Mr. fiend has reported above is a lie. He claims that the only source is IMDB lie. He says that he was just been an "extra" a few times - lie. He has held major roles in at least five films. His book is being sold at Amazon as well as at least one of his movies in which he gets second billing. This supposed "unnamed character" is a lie as well. The article on Michael Kaplan is nothing like the deleted article on Frank Croteau. Kaplan is much more notable. As an admin. fiend should be made to tell the truth and no longer lie and use shadows and mirrors to fool people into voting the way he wants. Michael Kaplan is an actor who has appeared in many independent films a couple have aired on televion. He has also been included in some documentaries. I bought one of his films The Deserter in Newbury Comics. I beieve his notability is established hence the reason for beginning this article. He is well known among military enthusiasts too. And no I am not Michael Kaplan nor am I a member of his family or a friend of his, since this would be the next accusation that fiend will try if his predictability continues. Dwain 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO, and the "major roles" are in films barely a cut above home movies. Oh, and Dwain ought to stow the bad faith accusations. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Calton, or should I say fiend, since you two sound so much alike, but "bad faith" doesn't come into it. He is lying, and he has to know he is lying because he is forming his lies in such a way to get a result. Just like you are lying too in the very same way. So close to Rfiend that it makes me wonder. For you to make the statement that his films are "barely a cut above home movies," is a falsity. Have you ever seen any of the films he has appeared in? If not, then how can you and fiend make these same "home movie" accusations? If you have then tell us which ones. I own one of these films on DVD and it is in no way a home movie. It doesn't even have a low budget indie feel to it and looks very professional. And of course, you don't think it meets wpbio because you always seem to agree with fiend from my previous experience with you. Dwain 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB shows a few bit-parts and one film that we deleted despite Dwain's best efforts as lacking any provable notability. Where are the multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 10:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability per WP:BIO. Google searches on actors name and the name of any of the productions returns no reliable sources. Nuttah68 11:24, 27 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 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color Africa[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. Mostly irrelevant Ghits for "color africa". Two irrelevant Ghits for "color africa" "one campaign". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Was previously speedied under CSD A7. However, author claims articles about the organisation by The Independent and Amarillo Globe News are in the pipeline. Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If what the creator says it true, possibly delay the deletion. Nevertheless is does need a big cleanup and wikify. SGGH 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball; we can't keep stuff because sources may be in the pipeline. This can be deleted and then recreated, if and when sources are found or written. Trebor 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once it is up and running with third party verification then it may be notable Maustrauser 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the supposed sources show up. We can't take chances with verifiability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone tell me how much information needs to be out there in order to keep a page like this active? Are you looking for one verifying article, ten of them or more? Or am I simply way off on what makes this verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctbrons (talk • contribs).
- Generally speaking, we're looking for multiple articles in reliable sources. Color Africa should be the focus of the article, not merely mentioned or listed within it, and the article can't be a press release or based on one. Two such articles would be the absolute minimum, and the more the better. Four or five would be excellent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find a good way to think of it this: A wikipedia article should be catered for the researcher, if the article puts all the useful information from a number of good sources together, it is of help to a researcher because he/she doesn't need to go looking at all of them. If it is merely giving the same information as it's one source, the researcher could just look there instead and the wiki article is a little superfluous, if you see what I mean? SGGH 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organisation was created only few months ago. No indications of notability earned in such a short timespan. Julius Sahara 18:51, 23 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 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizazz[edit]

Non-notable music with unsourced article since June 2006. --CyclePat 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asserts some form of notability but fails to back it up. Fails WP:BAND. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notbale web phenomenon.--Tainter 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only release for their music is the Internet and they are mocked more often than not? I think this falls far too low from our notability criteria? User:Dimadick
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, no apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 23:03, 26 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. Well personally I think some sources are needed, no real compelling need to delete just now and no real interest in it apparently, given this AfD... W.marsh 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konstakuten[edit]

PROD bump. Prod rationale was "This doesn't have enough context to expand or determine notability." WP:ORG is the relevant standard. I thought the context was clear, and that there was a clear claim to notability. However, looking at the history at least one other user had concerns about context. Bumping to AFD for evaluation of notability. Treat this as a technical nomination. GRBerry 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think an invitation to the Venice Biennale is enough to confer notability. It's one of the major shows in the world. (Of course it needs to be documented.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, I actually visited the space and they did great stuff! the article is a bit sketchy and needs to be beefed up. But if the article stays I am sure that more info will be added.sklaw | Talk 23:19, 23 January 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 23:58, 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 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky River Grillhouse[edit]

advert NN-restaurant, speedy delete removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam -- Whpq 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Beefcruft. You'd think they'd at least bother to link to a restaurant review, just to go through the motions... Caknuck 22:51, 17 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, Nishkid 64 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to fit WP:LOCAL -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less notable than my socks. WMMartin 15:20, 26 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 per consensus; article improved by Dhartung since nomination. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman Curtis[edit]

This article appears to advertise the services of its creator. Anyone know if Hillman Curtis meets notability standards? Emiao 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, and as you can see from my talk page, I am not affiliated with Hillman Curtis. Nevertheless, I believe Curtis is notable. This page lists many of his accomplishments. "Hillman Curtis needs little in the way of introduction. He is one of the most recognized and acclaimed designers working today." — James McNally, Digital Web Magazine

MaxVeers 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noted web designer with many years association as a Flash evangelist. I've added some accolades and external links. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, new information added by Dhartung establishes notability. Heimstern Läufer 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in his field at least. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars included in Gran Turismo 4[edit]

Listcruft and fancruft. nothing encyclodedic, and completely useless to anyone not playing the game DurinsBane87 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not ready to promote a particular direction, but this is a tough one, listcruft can be a problem and normally I would be happy to delete it, but GT is a powerful force in the automotive enthusiast world especially among young people. Being featured in the game helps cars achieve cult status, and this is really not just my personal opinion(if I need to I could dig up some car magazine sources). I remember reading once that Gran Turismo was responsible in part for the popularity of cars like the Mazda RX-7 and Trueno Sprinter in America as well as the popularity of American muscle cars and TVR in Japan. It should not be deleted without careful thought. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gran Turismo is an important part of popular culture, and the above point is a good one. Inclusion in Gran Turismo is important to car manufacturers, to the extent that Nissan even released a special edition of their 350Z called the Gran Turismo Edition [50]/Spute 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While GT has substantial influence in the real world industry, Wikipedia is not the place to promote that influence. As a list of cars, this article has no encyclopedic value. The impact of GT on the car industry can be explained on the respective game articles; GT being popular does not justify the existence of a complete car list on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would be great on a car enthusiast site or GameFAQs, but not Wikipedia. Korranus 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Scottie theNerd. Combination 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scottie theNerd. The game/series is notable, but the list of cars is not. --Alan Au 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has been nominated and deleted twice already. one and two. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. Cars included in Gran Turismo 2 should be included in this deletion discussion also. Exactly the same type of article, just for a different version of the game. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:43, 26 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.