< January 23	January 25 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy delete as advert. A ecis^Bravado 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant vodka[edit]

An obvious advert. Gab.popp 10:39, 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 result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeUsables Network[edit]

Although presumably a good cause the following article does not appeat to show notability. Alex 13:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no assertion of notability (incidently, new nominations should go at the bottom of the page) JCO312 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I can certainly see, even without knowing the policy iy is non-notable. Retiono Virginian 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable website --Amxitsa 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Snowball - Can't see how this can be notable. Virtually no sources, No proff that it has had wide spread coverage and the fact that it barly ranks on teh search engines proves this. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable website. Comment on posts who said "speedy delete": Speedy deletion is only available if the article was created within 48 hours. Big top 23:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have missed it, but you could please point me to the policy or guideline which states that Speedy only is acceptable for articles created within the last 48 hours? I can't find it on the general deletion or Speedy policy pages... Fram 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no obvious assertion of notability. ~ Arjun 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no evience of notability. Sorry, freeusables is not usefull here! FirefoxMan 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasspeedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. -- Merope 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save a Cup Recycling Company[edit]

Notability Alex 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. No third party sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Really, a tag can be used for this. It doesn't show the guidelines as an encyclopedia article. Retiono Virginian 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' Aggreed a speedy tag could have been used on this. Fails most guidelines. I suggest earily close per WP:SNOW Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attempt to establish notability through verifiable sourcs. Shaundakulbara 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Speedy Delete I am just to cowardly to put on the tag FirefoxMan 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I attached a WP:CSD#G11 tag to the page.-- danntm ^T _C 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep with a strong suggestion to merge this to Three Little Pigs.--Isotope23 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San zhi xiao zhu[edit]

not notable. at least i never heard of it Dontuloveme 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-to Three Little Pigs, as Chinese Wikipedia has. This article appears to be a less than accurate transwiki translation from the Chinese Wikipedia article. The online article cited in the English Wikipedia article appears to be covering the said issue - although a more accurate translation is needed as it is published in Chinese. The issue is not notable enough for its own article and will never have enough content for its own article. Luke! 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. JCO312 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Someone reasonably surefooted in Chinese and English may want to reword this; as written, it's rather confusing. Questions: are there significant differences in Asian versions of the story as opposed to the Western one? Where did the story originate? These things would make the section more interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. Never heard of it. Retiono Virginian 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in singapore and i have heard of it. It defnitnly can be expanded. The news is very hot in taiwan. ~~`~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaiFei (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- To above two editors and nominator, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not subjective: Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as this has no notability as an English term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has reliable sources. WP:N doesn't mention language at all as a criterion. If something is notable, it's notable period, regardless of language. The article could use a better name, sure, but that's a separate issue. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you are responding to my vote, note that the article has been expanded significantly since that time (per CaliforniaAliBaba below). It still lacks context; I've read it several times and I still have no idea what the point is. Vote changed to weak keep. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be missing the point because (IMO) it's a really stupid, pointless controversy in the first place. Basically, chengyu are traditional phrases which reference old literature (sometimes thousands of years old), poetry, folk sayings, etc., and whose meaning isn't readily apparent unless you know the stories behind them. Hence the need for chengyu dictionaries. People who view dictionaries as prescribing correct usage rather than describing existing usage are thus all up in arms about the official national dictionary being polluted with popular culture that lacks time depth. Or to put it in Wiki terms, they think it's fancruft and want it AfD'd. =) (Unfortunately, the above summary qualifies as WP:OR, so I can't put it in the article) ... cheers, cab 07:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and think of a better name. Notable controversy due to non-trivial coverage in many reliable sources [1], including at least one non-local one (Ta Kung Pao). cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded beyond sub-stub and further sources added. cab 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done! I still wonder, though, whether it's going to be easier for uses of the English language Wikipedia to find this if it's merged at the Three Little Pigs article, as opposed to appearing under the current title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe a title like "Three Little Pigs chengyu controversy" or something. So far, the only coverage in English is from Eastsouthwestnorth [2], so it's hard to say what the English name should be. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per cab. If it's notable in itself as a controversy, it's worthy of an article. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above FirefoxMan 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguments to keep based on the news story are ill-founded: news coverage does not equal notability. Notability other than newsworthiness is not proven. Sorry. WMMartin 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that if we were talking about one or two newspaper articles in the Podunk Times on a slow news day, but there's now 131 Google News hits on this. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to four-character idiom (chengyu redirects there). This controversy, at its heart, is not about the Three Little Pigs. It is about what defines the limits of a linguistics term. Its inclusion in the term's article seems appropriate to me. Serpent's Choice 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the prior merge arguments were made when the article was a substub; given the length of the article now, merging to four-character idiom would unbalance that page (though a link from there seems appropriate). Also it isn't purely a linguistic controversy, but also a political one (the dictionary was put online over a year ago, but only started getting news coverage recently, tied in with a scandal with the Ministry of Education head Tu Sheng-cheng's son). cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest douche in the universe contest[edit]

Speedy Delete Get rid of this pointless vandalism.Gan fon 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page against Bill O'Reilly and Jabba, hoax, nonsense, etc. If this isn't deleted swiftly, Jabba will put a ((db)) tag on the article so big, it won't be able to go near a civilized system. --N Shar 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BJAODN Enjoy! --Shirahadasha 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this nonsense. --Renrenren 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is the most obvious hoax I've seen. --Sable232 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems like it was created just for BJAODN... -- feb^talk 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as joke based on an episode of South Park, The Biggest Douche in the Universe. --Joelmills 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasspeedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- Karada 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Velocity Energy Cable[edit]

Blatant hoax, quite amusing. I copied it to BJAODN. Check those references, you're not going to get finer references anywhere. The only reason I didn't speedy it is that it's been around since 2005, which is somewhat disconcerting considering some of the smart people who have edited - David Gerard 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is utter, utter nonsense. Delete. Preferably speedily. And all of its images and related cruft with it.-- Karada 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete if possible, along with its images. --Sable232 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (I hope) as blatant hoax. I can't believe this has survived for so long. --N Shar 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This should not have to go through through the deletion. Patent nonsense. Pure vandalism. Blatant advertising. This is a bulshit article. This is a huge embarassment to wikipedia this has existed since 2005 and has not been caught. I am repeatedly marked it for speedy deletion and the author's bot has automatically reverted my marking!!!!!! 128.220.251.100 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrunga[edit]

A community centre located in Croydon Hills, Victoria, Australia. Not notable or encyclopedic. -- Longhair\^talk 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some Google News Archive hits for this but it is basically about community events held there. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously. 69.40.255.35 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N JCO312 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can merge this into the article about Croydon hills, saying it is a feature of the area. It doesn't have the notability to have its own article. Retiono Virginian 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability issues ~ Arjun 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Croydon Hills, Victoria per Retiono. -Toptomcat 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Croydon Hills, Victoria. ShadowHalo 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above FirefoxMan 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 16:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior[edit]

Non notable (high?) school newspaper. Has been speedied (by another user, removed because it might not be recreated material from previous AFD), prod'ed (by another user, prod removed by IP), and now at AFD. MECU≈talk 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --- RockMFR 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notabilty. Philippe Beaudette 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn newspaper -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely non-notable. At most, information from it can be merged into the Pleasant View Christian School article. --Nevhood 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The paper is non-notable. There really isn't much to merge, since it only warrants a passing mention as the name of the school paper. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the high school (though I wonder whether the school itself meets WP:N JCO312 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pleasent View Christian School. -Toptomcat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per Toptomcat FirefoxMan 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pleasent View Christian School. With less than two years of activity there is not much to cover here. User:Dimadick
Delete. Non-notable school newspaper. WMMartin 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge its pretty well written but other than that school newspapers aren't usually very world-renowned, and this doesn't appear to be any different. DogJesterExtra 18:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and there is a distinct lack of verifiable sources here.--Isotope23 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Owl Words used in Guardians of Ga'Hoole[edit]

I think this is a pretty bad case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pascal.Tesson 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the way, I'm too lazy to do it but there's a slew of articles about characters of Guardians of Ga'hoole like Siv, Lord Arrin, Kludd, etc... Should all be merged into a character list. (In fact, I'd rather have them all deleted but I don't think that's the majority's opinion.) Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. Philippe Beaudette 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge unless article expanded with real-word context/analysis There's a reasonable case that this goes against the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section on plot summaries that says an article should provide fictional plot details with real-world context or analysis (as opposed to simply listing them). So as is, I'd favor deletion/merger with the book series' main article. However, if the article could be expanded with published material explaining some real word implications for owl words, then I'd be willing to reconsider (assuming it avoids original research issues). Dugwiki 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up - it is a documentation of a fictional language. Please see Languages of Middle-earth, where we have MULTIPLE articles on the language of that fantasy world. Granted, the article does need clean-up and non-universe sources. Johntex\^talk 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to reply, note that the Languages of Middle-earth that you linked does appear to include a fair amount of explanation and analysis of how and why Tolkein created the languages. It doesn't just list phrases, but explains why the creation of the languages has some real-world significance and value outside of the fiction itself. By contrast, the owl words article simply lists the words and doesn't go much beyond that. Dugwiki 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't a language, at best it's Jargon. Also there are vast numbers references for Tolkien's languages, but I couldn't find a single page discussing this specifically and all the google references I found for the series itself were bookstores or blogs. When universities start teaching[3] courses in this, we can bring it back. --Jamoche 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree, the Middle-earth languages have been the subject of much scholarly work. This, clearly, has not. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These vocab terms would be okay in a section of bullet points in the G of G'H article. Shaundakulbara 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft FirefoxMan 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this list isnt that long, i think it should just be merged with the main article. Polygon 01:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think merging is also a bad idea. Do we really want to add a huge overwhelming chunk of original research to the GoGH article? Pascal.Tesson 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a collection of lists. And, by the way, any time you want to put some Tolkien-cruft up for deletion, you've got my strong support. And, although I'm a trekkie/trekker ( your choice ), I'm all for deleting Trek-cruft too. WMMartin 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic list. Jerry lavoie 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Many of the delete opinions include a suggestion to merge and there is really no consensus to keep this as a standalone article. If anyonone wants to merge the content from Mermaid Man to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy, feel free to do so. A redirect seems to be the good middle ground though.--Isotope23 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Man[edit]

Minor fictional character from SpongeBob SquarePants. Only appearred in 6 episodes. Redunant with the Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy and List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters articles. Article has no sources but WP:NOT says: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. 650l2520 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable fancruft. --- RockMFR 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's any additional information we can merge with Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Heimstern Läufer 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cruft is strong with this one. JuJube 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as above. Philippe Beaudette 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy seems fairly obvious, one character's name is a much more likely search term than two character's names in a particular order linked by 'and'. Content can be replaced with a redirect without recourse to AfD. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly merge whatever's unique to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy and then point the redirect to Merman; or redirect it at the main article if there's nothing to merge; but either way deletion is counterproductive because there should be a redirect anyway. And if he's voiced by Ernest Borgnine, that's not nn. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly merge any new information to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy and then redirect Mermaid Man to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy --Candy-Panda 05:12, 24 January 2007
Merge anything useful toMermaid Man and Barnacle Boy and Redirect.-- danntm ^T _C 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the article into the list of characters in spongebob squarepants. If its a minor character. Retiono Virginian 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mermaid Man is a very notable character on SpongeBob SquarePants, and people would be searching for him. If this article is not kept, merge and redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy or List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Leave message) 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MMABB. -Toptomcat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge and redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Shaundakulbara 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-contradictory. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lyrl FirefoxMan 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spongebob-cruft. WMMartin 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-encyclopedic fancruft. Jerry lavoie 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - wow. I'm surprised at resistance. Wasn't it Jimbo Wales that said, "why shouldnt' there be a page on every Simpsons character"? And SpongeBob is just about as notable as the Simpsons. He's notable in his own right, as much as Mr. Burns. Part Deux 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid Man for my full reasoning, but in a nutshell this is the best middle ground and interested parties can merge content from Barnacle Boy page history if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnacle Boy[edit]

Delete. Non notable fancruft. --- RockMFR 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly merge info to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Heimstern Läufer 01:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy seems fairly obvious, one character's name is a much more likely search term than two character's names in a particular order linked by 'and'. Content can be replaced with a redirect without recourse to AfD. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly merge any new information and redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy --Candy-Panda 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy, merge if there's any useful information.16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Not more Spongebob Squarepants minor characters. Merge into the Spongebob Squarepants article in the list of characters section. Retiono Virginian 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Barnacle Boy is a very notable character on SpongeBob SquarePants, and people would be searching for him. If this article is not kept, merge and redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy or List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Leave message) 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MMABB. -Toptomcat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', merge and redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Shaundakulbara 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy --Caldorwards4 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above FirefoxMan 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge One of the important characters in the TV series and featured in several episodes. and should be kept. If it is decided to be deleted, include it within the list of characters of the show. --Nehrams2020 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spongebobcruft. WMMartin 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-encyclopedic fancruft. Jerry lavoie 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per my comments at Mermaid Man. Part Deux 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. By the way, this should have been at WP:RFD, but no matter. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirties poets[edit]

Incorrect use of redirect? SERSeanCrane 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as redirect. The Auden Group says that they were also known as the Thirties poets, so redirecting there is not unreasonable. Googling doesn't produce millions of hits, but those that come up refer to Spender, Auden etc. What's the harm in having this as a redirect? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. It's a fairly concise term for a group, it's common in those circles, it's scholarly. Philippe Beaudette 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect per Squiddy and Philippe Beaudette. Newyorkbrad 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - theoretically this should be handled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion; however it looks like there's a general consensus here that there's no reason to delete this (and go through the hassle of moving everything over there for a similar discussion). SkierRMH 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't vote because I'm the person who created the redirect page, and it's not my call whether or not to keep it. I created it because there was a "red" link to the term "Thirties poets" on a page that I was working on, and the phrase is in fairly wide use. I don't have strong feelings about keeping or deleting the page, but there are books and articles titled "The Thirties Poets" or similar terms. Googling the phrase in quotes "thirties poets" produces some standard examples. Unless there's a strong reason to delete that I haven't seen, I guess I would say it does some good to keep it. Macspaunday 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to elaborate my reasoning on nominating the article for deletion. When I came across the re-direct I expected to be taken to a list and/or a nice summary of popular poets in the 30's. I was not aware the Auden Group was synonymous with '30's poets' and I have no problem with that. I simply nominated the article because I feel the term is inherently misleading. Perhaps the page should be disambig'ed? SERSeanCrane 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the list of linked names in the first paragraph of the page that the redirect goes to is enough to serve the purpose? It's impossible to create a definitive list of "Thirties poets" beyond the obivous ones listed on the target page. It would be possible to add a few dozen other poets who wrote in the 1930s, but I think the term "thirties poets" is more or less synonymous with "Auden Group". Still, it might be an idea to have category pages of "British poets of the 1920s", "British poets of the 1930s", etc., if those categories don't exist already. Macspaunday 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...and shouldn't this be over at WP:RfD? The article states that the group went under the names of "Thirties Poets", so it's valid. If there were a list of poets from the 30s, I don't think it'd be under this name. --UsaSatsui 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that everyone, including the editor who orginally suggested the deletion, agrees on keep. Is it possible to close the discussion? Macspaunday 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please close the discussion. I jumped the gun on this nom, my apologies! SERSeanCrane 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Fried[edit]

I'm not sure about this, so I'm putting it in AFD. Supposedly a retired football player, but I can't find a football G-hit on this guy at all. There's 26 pages of other stuff, but no football. Possibly a hoax 11kowrom 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability. I searched for a few minutes, and nothing. Philippe Beaudette 01:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears hoax, and the creator's only other contribution inspires no confidence. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Hoax. According to this, Chicago Bears all-time roster, no player by that name ever played for the Bears. Scottmsg 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax? I don't know. But no verifyable sources have been provided to establish notability - Shaundakulbara 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shasta Groene[edit]

The subject of this article may have seemed notable for a time of news coverage about the AMBER alert, but this individual is not notable and there is little reason to having an article for them. Whatever hype there may have been in the media has long passed and we should not set a precedent of keeping record of every single record of an AMBER alert and news story. The article also needlessly violates the privacy of the subject and her family. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Cowman109^Talk 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This is a major news story, even years later it is still making headlines today!- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070123-1515-wst-duncanslayings.html This is an encyclopedia not a privacy service.Tommypowell 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the murderer is more notable than the girl herself. This article could potentially be merged into that article, but I see no encyclopedic purpose in having one on her. Cowman109^Talk 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The abduction is notable, the girl is not. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AniMate 03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must admit that I am not in favor of keeping articles on everyone who was ever mentioned in a newspaper ever, which is a trend lately.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmz5. Montco 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bovineguy. Prometheus^-X303- 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Tommypowell. Furthermore, the story is currently back in the news, her relevance is back up in my mind. eveningscribe 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Tommypowell. I think it should stay in light of the recent events with Mr. Duncans pending federal case and knowing she will play a key role - And how could you say the girl is not notable that would be like saying "Megan Kanka is not notable because she was the victim".So if we take the delete comments would we not have to delete Jessica Lunsford or Polly Klass or anyone else who was in a situation like this. Redsoxunixgeek 07:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would go along with deleting those articles you listed, except in the cases where they got a "law" or an "alert" named after them. Feel free to nominate them for deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial site for crime victims unless they meet the same standards for notability as a scientist, an author, a musician, a political candidate or anyone else per WP:BIO. Edison 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Joseph E. Duncan III, if there is anything here that isn't already there. This story is definitely notable, but there is not enough biographical information here to warrant a separate article. Merge Dylan Groene as well. -SpuriousQ 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notability does not diminish with time (see WP:N) so an argument that they may have once been notable but no longer are is invalid. Tarinth 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I argue that this article was never notable and should not have had an article in the first place. Nothing came out of this case but some news stories that soon died out, as opposed to say, the children whose abductions led to the creation of laws or alert systems. Cowman109^Talk 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Encyclopedic notability requires more than 15 minutes of fame. The only sources cited in the article are fro July 2 and 3, 2005, when she was in the news. This is not a newspaper, and not Wikinews, and not Victimpedia. Whether she is in an editor's "mind" has zero bearing on whether she meets the standard for notability, and as the article now stands, she does not. Reprintsof the same story do not add to notability. If she becomes notable during the upcoming trial, the article could be recreated. Edison 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the removal of this notable subject does not improve our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Joseph E. Duncan III. Likewise other abductees. "Victim of.." (like "husband of..." or "friend of..." or "brother of...") a notable person doesn't transfer to the other person, especially when there's no info about them that isn't or shouldn't be contained in the notable person's article. Shaundakulbara 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge and redirect what be relevant to article on events and murderer/abductor. A solo stub article on innocent surviving child victim feels inappropriate.—MURGH ^disc. 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This girl is very notable in my opinion. To come out alive with that creep Duncan, after what he did to her family, is remarkable. Fighting for Justice 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep a crime --or anything else-- which attracts substantial media attention is notable, and forever notable. Thats the whole point of N. but I would remove the picture as a privacy violation, even though it may have appeared elsewhere.
MergeMerge To Joseph E. Duncan III. Too little biographical content not relating to him. User:Dimadick
Delete per original nom. WMMartin 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Does not pass the will all references in the article be verifiable in 10 years test. Simply not notable. Jerry lavoie 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Borden[edit]

The last AFD of this closed suggesting that this be re-opened in several months, and I am of the opinion that this individual is not notable and that there is no point of having an article for them. Whatever hype there may have been in the media has long passed and we should not set a precedent of including memorial pages and keeping record of every story of someone's troubled life. This article also needlessly violates the privacy of the subject and their family. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Cowman109^Talk 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. The lead pretty much states everything, a girl who was kidnapped and had her parents murdered. Not to sound harsh, but many murders and kinappings happen each year and almost all of them generate some press. Unless there is some evidence of huge press coverage (books, tv shows, etc), I don't think there is enough significance about this person to warrant an article. Mitaphane _talk 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete very sad, but not notable per WP:BIO. Jerry lavoie 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She does, in fact, pass WP:BIO with flying colours. WilyD 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She does NOT pass WP:BIO I think you are overlooking the words the subject of. You can not substitute is mentioned in for this phrase. Kara Borden is not the subject of the Fox news source identified in the article. This is about Ludwig and the murders. Kara is mentioned, but is CERTAINLY NOT the subject of. The other source which reads more like a blog than a verifiable source (the one on the court-tv site) could be argued to have her as the subject of, but it is a stretch, and that would be only one source. The blog by the boyfriend does not count as a verifiable source, and Kara is not the subject of that either, anyway. Please explain how you arrived at the conclusion you are proclaiming here and in my editor review about how she passes WP:BIO with flying colors and how my comment above was editing from the gut and used poor reasoning. Jerry lavoie 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She most certainly does pass WP:BIO and is the subject of the fox news article. If the closing admin will check the foxnews article, he or she will see that she is indeed the subject of the foxnews article. The claim that she's not is so disconnected from the truth I'm not sure how to address it. WilyD 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea how to address it: read the article. The subject of the article is the killings of the parents. The person doing the talking in any situation is NOT the subject of what is being said, except when the person is talking about themselves. The article is about the death of her parents. So one could argue that they are the subject of that article, and therefore notable. But the daughter is not the subject of the article, and therefore, if that article alone is used to determine notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), she does NOT pass. Jerry lavoie 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This story has passed its "sell by" date and its not even something you here about very much in PA anymore. Montco 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this affect David G. Ludwig?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every murderer needs an article. Philadelphia alone could crash the server. Montco 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AniMate 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading the article again, it seems to be mostly about the "abduction" and the crimes of David G. Ludwig, rather than about Kara Borden. I do believe the incident is notable, but there really isn't any information about her that requires her to have her own article. AniMate 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A tragic story, but things like this happen more often than we realize. Keeping this one would do no good. Prometheus^-X303- 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philippe Beaudette 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story continues to generate major media coverage worldwide. Idon't understand the constant mania amongst some users to delete articles. What is the gain? Tommypowell 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this story was currently generating major media coverage worldwide, then this debate would be easy. Cite the sources. Perhaps she IS notable, and those of use who only have information from the article are unaware of her notability??? If you have information pertaining to her notability, edit the article and improve it. The supposed current frenzy of worldwide media coverage that you speak of is not mentioned even a tiny bit in the article. Jerry lavoie 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability does not diminish with time. Tarinth 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO - this is an encyclopaedia, not a news service, so topicality is irrelevent - I'm not sure why the nominator included this statement which invalidates any possible delete argument, as far as I can see. WilyD 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was briefly in the news, but never notable. She had her 15 minutes in the news, but there is no reason to have an encyclopedia article about every 14 year old girl who made bad choices. Let her get on with her life. Does not meet WP:BIO due to lack of multiple sources. She was a runaway, not a killer. Edison 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this confusing, given the presence of multiple sources. Care to explain? WilyD 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much summed up by the nom, Mitaphane and Prometheus. Agent 86 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of problems with the nomination. First, for purposes of inclusion, notability and verifiability doesn't "expire" with time. (If it did, we'd lose all manner of historical information that the public has lost interest in.) Either she appears in published articles or she doesn't. Assuming the references in the article are valid, and she has been the subject of multiple articles, she would be notable. Second, the nominator mentioned the article was previously up for afd discussion, but looking at the article history and talk page I don't see any links to the previous debate. If someone could provide a link to the previous debate for reference, that'd be great. At any rate, workign under the assumption that the references check out, I see no violation of policy here. Dugwiki 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:BIO was linked a couple of times above, but it no longer exists and redirects to WP:Notability. Just a heads up for people using that link. Dugwiki 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it redirects to WP:Notability (people). This is just as intended. WP:BIO is shorter to type and easier to remember. Therefore, citing it will probably continue to be prevelant. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kara_Borden is the previous ADFD. And I agree with you that notability does not expire with time - in that case, I'll change my stance to state that this article never was notable. This was simply (sorry to put it harshly) another abduction that led to nothing notable, unlike other such crimes that spawned the AMBER alert system or Megan's law. If this article is deleted, policy should more clearly state what notability is in terms of short-lived news stories. Why do we write about common abductions that just happen to get news coverage when we don't cover every single murder that reaches news headlines and car accidents as well? Cowman109^Talk 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((WP:BIO|Notability is not subjective]]. I'm frankly puzzled at the people who keep arguing delete because she's non-notable. She's indisputably notable - she meets one or more of the notability criteria. I mean, sure, the article is of low importance, but Low importance is not an accepted criterion for deletion - and given that article evaluations keep it as a level of importance, I think it's fairly clear that establishing "only somewhat important" as a criterion for deletion would not be an easy task. WilyD 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WilyD. Article passes WP:BIO and this is an encyclopaedia, not a news service, so topicality is irrelevent. It would be great if we had such an article on a similar girl from Roman or early Myan times. It might be informative to today's historians. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it? Murder and Kidnapping have been around for a long time. Historians are interested in the past (not the present) as it shows what past events have shaped our present day. Looking down the road, is there anything significant about this murder/kidnapping(note: we are ultimately judging this article based on the murder/kidnapping since outside of this event, nothing exceptional has happened to this Kara) that has an impact on our culture that will significantly effect the future of society? —Mitaphane _talk 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WilyD. -Toptomcat 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to David G. Ludwig. "Victim of.." (like "husband of..." or "friend of..." or "brother of...") a notable person doesn't transfer to the other person, especially when there's no info about them that isn't or shouldn't be contained in the notable person's article. - Shaundakulbara 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - meets WP:BIO, "notability" doesn't expire. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry lavoie FirefoxMan 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable crime case to look back at. I agree that notability does not expire. User:Dimadick
Keep - I don't think any of these articles that srping from news sories should be concidered for deletion until at least a year has passed since their creation. If you read the article about the various encyclopedias and the history of them in general then you know that wikipedia has alread changed what it meas to be an encylocepedia. FOr these sorts of sensational stories wikipedia provides a service that wikinews lacks, goals that wikinews does not have. Further in many cases I suspect the articles will prove to be notable in the long run. Keep them all and then come bback next year when we dont have to have a crystal ball to say they are not notable. Dalf | Talk 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just a G-News Archive search shows she's the subject of many non-trivial published works [4] (added a couple to article). WP:Notability is permanent. --Oakshade 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PM1287 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst the story is sad, it is no more notable than any other of its kind. Newsworthiness is not per se long-term notability. WMMartin 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Newsworthiness is not per se long-term notability - WP:BIO disagrees. WilyD 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We may have lost track of what non-trivial means, lets again look at WP:BIO for a definition: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial" - - - She does NOT pass. Jerry lavoie 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. is maybe the most important omission. The word trivial is pretty self explanitory, but the sources are not mere directory entries, nor do they only mention the subject in passing. While the coverage on her may not conglomerate to a 200 page book (and if we searched, it might - I have no idea). Why not look at the other kind of criterion in WP:BIO for a guide of what kind of person is notable. Anyone who's taken the field for an inning of major league baseball without touching the ball passes WP:BIO - and they're likely to have comparable or lesser coverage than this girl does. Whereas the sources here don't match the 200 page biography example, they're far closer to that than the example of trivial coverage. If you believe the coverage is trivial, you need to go back and review it. It's not, and it's not even mistakable for trivial coverage. Look, I recognise you must have formed your opinion earlier when the article was in worse shape, but as it stands the article is now a 100% clear cut case of passing WP:BIO - it's not even remote possible to plausible argue otherwise without being inconsistant with the facts. It happens that an article that looks like a delete at first glance turns into a keep, after some editing. Hell, the first article I nominated for deletion got improved during the AfD and even I have to recognise that by the ene it was a clear-cut keep. Rather tha struggle to vindicate your original conclusion, rejoice that the the encyclopaedia has been improved in the meantime. A positive thing has happened for a valuable, encyclopaedic article. Fighting about it simply makes no sense. WilyD 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nathanm mn 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has been the topic of quite a few news articles. As said before, notability does not expire. This passes WP:BIO criterion and should be kept. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD A7, non-notable persona. Cowman109^Talk 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffinni Saint Ranae[edit]

Pure spam. -- RHaworth 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Boy (Restaurant Chain)[edit]

contested prod. NN defunct restaurant chain, no indication the company ever met criteria of WP:CORP Agent 86 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Searches for "Top Boy" restaurant yield nothing reliable. The vague desciption of the chain makes me believe that it would never pass WP:CORP and finding reliable source would be impossible. Mitaphane _talk 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that the restaurant did anything outside Rantoul, IL. And the only source is some sort of blog or forum which doesn't really even discuss the chain. The creator's note on the talk page seems to confirm the lack of notability. Montco 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. Philippe Beaudette 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant and probably not even notable. Kai A. Simon 12:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article says, "This is basically a fishing expedition to gather more information on a soda cup I found in my basement." I think the research should be done by the person submitting the article so it meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards from the start. Delete. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable sources are given that establish sufficient notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I throw a little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Boy_%28Restaurant_Chain%29">stub of an article</a> up on Wikipedia in the hopes it attracts someone who has actually seen the subject in question and can actually provide some facts about what the place was really like. The place has been either a parking lot or a Dunkin' Donuts for as long as I've lived here, and the locals I've talked to have no idea what it was like. But for a while, it was a living breathing piece of Americana.

All I have to go on is an empty soda cup and someone's comments on a Burger Chef fan page. So I figure I can harness the powers of Collaborative Information Gathering and Organization and revive this dying piece of history--I might jog the memory of someone else who can contribute something useful to those who study pop culture.

(Unlike the lot of you who think pedantic nonsense like "correcting" the spelling of amoung to "among" is helping out, it is those thousands who are moved to contribute their knowledge to a topic few others have heard of that give the wiki its strength.)

So enjoy deleting this article and continue being the bunch of petty counter-productive bureauratic tryant-knobs that you appear to be. Just don't be surprised when Wikipedia vanishes into obscurity as quickly as it flashed to the forefront, all because you thought collaborative information gathering wasn't as important as you casting a vote on what is "important" or not.--ObsequiosityFYM 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the WP:CORP has been met. WMMartin 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have to say that anyone who wants to destroy modernist-looking churches ( see pic with article ) is OK with me. WMMartin 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP As obscure as this company is now, this does not preclude it's importance in a specific geographic area or period of history. WP:SNOWBALL Nkras 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Eminem LP[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As the article itself states, there is no information available about this LP. We can create the article once there actually is information about it. Prod tag removed. Sopoforic 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#CBALL. No sources, no article. Mitaphane _talk 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure crystalballery. Metrackle 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystalballery (and the article doesn't try to hide it). I have trouble understanding the motivation behind creating an article for a subject about which nothing is known. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Philippe Beaudette 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation that does not contain notable content at this stage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until verifiable information is available Article is unreferenced and unverified. Ok to recreate, though, if and when verifiable published information is available. Dugwiki 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Tcpekin 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable sources are given that establish sufficient notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes in One Piece[edit]

Contested prod with edit waring over the prod tag. Prod reason was "[Completely] [unneeded] page. Most people here are [English] readers and writers we cannot check this page is correct. Plus in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga rules it clearly states we should be concerned with only the [English] and Japanese languages. On top of that, we do not need yet another One Piece article, we already have many in-universe pages and this one was not discussed with the rest of the community. On top of that, on the GERMAN [Wikipedia] there is significant info supplied to concern its likely readers. Also badly written and [organized] providing info of little using relevance to a reader. [Creator] of page also changed the name without consent of vote, to avoid his page being lost." Neutral --Farix (Talk) 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somebody tell me how a list of changes for the German translation of an anime is relevant to English Wikipedia. Unverifiable (WP:V) and no reliable sources (WP:RS). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move/merge to/with another appropriate One piece article. ~~Make it a subpage, if the article tzarget is already too long, ie: [[One_piece/name_changes]], and then list it in the article as any other wikilink.~~ (removed because it was contrary to WP:SUBPAGE) Jerry lavoie 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. If this truly a practically informative list for the Central European audience who visit English Wikipedia, then merge to One Piece#Foreign Language Adaptations and articles like List of minor characters in One Piece, as there doesn't seem to be an article for the main characters. Pomte 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece#Foreign Language Adaptations or any other appropriate One Piece article. --Candy-Panda 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. I haven't looked to see who created the article, but I'd be willing to bet it's the same user who has created a lot of One Piece cruft articles recently. This needs to be curtailed. Wryspy 07:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just want to say that we created a One Piece Wikia to avoid the creatation of pages like this on wikipedia. We realised there were too many pages on Wikipedia related to One Piece and the more we got the harder it was to explain their value. After loosing several pages to deletetion for one reason or another, the Wikia was started to house the expanded version. The same who created this page did indeed create several other One Piece related pages recently, one of which was a failed delete. The creatator (although you don't have to do this) does not discuss the matter with the rest of the community before creating this type of page.

The main concern for this page is the fact it broke several rules in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga when it was created (it was souly a German adaption thing). The creator renamed the page to open it up to other adaptions to save it however it still breaks most of the same rules it broke before. It is fancruft completely. Also the reglaur editors of the One Piece pages cannot check the info of anything that goes onto this page (their mostly English). While I normally support the saviour of the One Piece articles even when they break the rules, the workload and trouble behind this page in question just is too much for the reglaur editor to handle. Angel Emfrbl 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, this information is verifiable, but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. We don't need one of these for every popular TV series that gets translated, nor for One Piece. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Or not even really merge, perhaps just include a quick note in the main article for the main characters. Minor characters are irrelevant and probably fancruft --TommyOliver 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Overall, there is an excess of minor details. One main page, one page each for the Straw Hats (and maybe a couple others), and a page for minor characters. Then any updates would be about characters on their respective pages instead of having 29 pages per saga of summaries (i.e. CP9 Saga - I looked at the sum of pages, and can not even imagine rewriting it). As for the One Piece-a-pedia, it is useful, but is also inaccessible to the average Joe. Actually, I did not even know it existed. Yes, I know it is under "external links," but how many people actually read those? The Piece-a-pedia is only a substitute for the main One Piece page if there is a redirect from the Wikipedia "One Piece" to it. --AstoVidatu 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me just say that if this page is allowed to exist after breaking so many dam rules I'll loose faith in the judgement of everyone on Wikipedia. Even if it gets merged into another article, the info is out of place on the articles we have already to do with One Piece. Everyone is forgetting something when they say "merge" - This is the ENGLISH wikipedia. We only reference Japanese because its a Japanese show... I'm sure a German reader would want to know this info... Also this is one of the most unencyclopedic of the One Piece related pages we have, partly due to its half-thought out layout. Angel Emfrbl 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvinorin extraction[edit]

This is a how-to guide which Wikipedia is WP:NOT describing how to extract a hallucinogenic drug from a plant, and possibly doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia Reswobslc 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Delete I guess this was already someone else's edit war. Nardman1 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ~~this was split off from the main Salvinorin article because it was getting too long. It's not just a random drug making guide. Nardman1 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. The entire purpose of the article is to document the procedure on how to extract the salvinorin from the plant itself. So it's not a "random" drug making guide, it's a guide specific to Salvia Divinorum. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a how-to guide and needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's to stop someone from reversing the split and adding it back to the article then? Nobody objected when it was in the article. Nardman1 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that nobody objected. I sure did (here and here, 2 weeks apart) - I deleted the content and explained to the posting new users that how-to's weren't acceptable (example). These people (or socks of one person) were far more persistent than I could handle, making nearly 300 edits to the article in the course of one week to re-add this garbage (see Special:Contributions/Dusenostachys123 and Special:Contributions/DivineSalvia). I didn't have the patience to revert 300 times, and then there's that WP:300RR rule, you know ;) Reswobslc 06:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because nobody objected to it then doesn't mean we can't object now. This is not an encyclopedic entry, particularly as its own article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has to be rewritten. In the current form it clearly violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Cacycle 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. I thought this information was inappropriate and distracting from the main Salvinorin A article, which was getting a bit too long. I definitely did not want to start an edit war of any sort, and I apologize if I inadvertently raked up an old conflict. If people want to throw it out altogether, I suppose that's also an option, but I definitely would hate to see it go back into the Salvinorin A article, especially now that Salvia is in the news so much and a concise and accurate source of information is so sorely needed. Sjeng 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It needs to be deleted from Wikipedia because it's not within Wikipedia's scope. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and an article explaining how to extract Salvinorin doesn't belong here. It's not because Salvinorin is a drug or is controversial, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and simply not a how-to guide - an article explaining how to extract a tooth would also have to be deleted. Reswobslc 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salvinorin isolation is clearly an interesting and encyclopedic topic and it would be perfectly ok to write about it in a general form and give references to the respective publications or (serious) online sources. However, I'd guess that wouldn't fill an article of its own. Cacycle 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the article itself: ' the extraction and purification of salvinorin A should only be attempted by qualified researchers with experience in chemistry and the proper laboratory equipment.' Who are not people who typically use Wikipedia to find expirimental procedure. Delete as useless for any legal purpose.
Keep - This article is not labratory instruction. To quote the article: This summary does not contain nearly enough information to act as a Step-by-step or how-to guide for extractions, such guides are readily found on the Internet via search engines. This proceedure is as enyclopedia worthy as other scientific and mathematical proceedures that are uncontested for Wikipedia inclusion. If the Salvinorin A article is getting overly lengthy, it is completely appropriate to give Salvinorin extraction its own article. Shaundakulbara 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying we should keep it because it is too poor and useless to be considered a real how-to guide for WP:NOT? Or because in spite of its heading "How To Extract", it's not really a how-to guide because it claims so? Or perhaps because the information is available everywhere else (just like porn) that Wikipedia needs to mirror it? Policy says that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and Wikipedia is not a mirror. WP:NOT is a policy not a guideline, and I think the consensus being sought is whether or not this article violates the policy, not whether the policy should be disregarded here. Reswobslc 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is proposed for deletion as a W:NOT violation because it is allegedly a "how to article". I (1) pointed out that it isn't a "how to article" and doesn't purport to be, (2) opinioned that it is notable and (3) said it sounds as if a merger is impractical. I can't spell this out any more clearly. If still confused, you're on your own. Shaundakulbara 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To quote the heading: "How To Extract". Seems pretty clear it's a how-to to me. Reswobslc 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Shaundakulbara, renaming the section from How To Extract to Extraction Process doesn't change the fact that the bulk of the text remains a how-to guide. To stop it from being a how-to guide, you would have to reduce the entire article to a summary of a couple paragraphs. It would then be a stub which couldn't be improved on without making it a how-to guide, indicating that Salvinorin Extraction should be remerged into the main article under the new summary. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deletethis may not be enough directions for a beginning chemist, but the amount of practical detail is way out of proportion to other articles about chemicals in WP. DGG 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but re-format from a "how to..." to a more general "extraction process for...". We're not a "how to" manual, but information on how a particular compound is extracted is perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia. WMMartin 16:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Clean up, obviously. WMMartin 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might be helpful to point out that actually instructions for this process are much lengthier than this article. This article is a synopsis of the process that is appropriate for Wikipedia (but yes, this synopsis could be streamlined further). I suspect that some of the delete voters believe this article advocates or encourages hallucinagenic drug manufacture. It doesn’t. There is no POV in this article nor is there censorship on Wikipedia. Shaundakulbara 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assure you that advocacy of drug manufacture is not the issue. I have personally extracted Salvinorin from leaves using essentially the procedure described, and used the resulting product myself. I'm hardly trying to advocate morality here. Wikipedia is just not a how-to guide. For example: "Although extraction may be dangerous due to solvent toxicity and flammability, Salvinorin can easily be extracted from leaves using chilled acetone. It can further refined by using naphtha or isopropanol to remove impurities, as salvinorin is poorly soluble to these" just about covers it. Being two sentences, they would fit right back in the main article, not in a new one. Reswobslc 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ_Killa_Wali[edit]

not Notable, fabricated history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergroundmuzik (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, no verifiable material, and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing from google. Also, as a note to the nominator: Please put more effort into AfD nominations. The least you could do is sign it--Wafulz 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is everything, my dears. Philippe Beaudette 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry for not more information, this was my very first article I ever submitted for deletion Undergroundmuzik 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note, this person had another page of the same content that was deleted before, and then protected to prvent recreation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killa_Wali - I suggest the same for this one as well Undergroundmuzik 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can vote in a poll twice.--Rudjek 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Project Park & Ride[edit]

Non-notable – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. There is no possible claim of notability, nor is any actually asserted. Ugh. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lack of notability. Kai A. Simon 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. --Sable232 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayber merge a mention of it to Eden Project, but a park & ride shuttle for an attraction is not deserving of an article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There maybe notable park and rides in the world, but probably not, and in any case this isn't one of them, even if "Eden's Car Parks are unique in that they are named after types of Fruit" instead of cities of the world or numbers or colours or what have you. Artw 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, the cited quotes act to make this article a disparagement of its subject, plus self-reference and several other good points raised below. A good-faith request for userfication may be honoured provided that references to specific editors and conversations are excised. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimob[edit]

Was marked for speedy delete, but probably deserves fuller discussion here. This seems too self-referential and unencyclopedic to me. NawlinWiki 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought of nominating this myself, because it seems to be more an essay about Wikipedia politics than an article about an actual subject. I think it's therefore probably original research that fails to cite reliable sources (one of the sources is a Wikipedia talk page, and the other seems similarly unreliable from its name - but I couldn't get it to load, so someone who can should take a look.) I think a small portion of this could be an essay in user or possibly wikipedia space, but it's not an article for article space. --TheOther Bob 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, neologism, fails to cite sources. 32 unique G hits. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-referential, neologism and original research. I was able to load the second source, but it doesn't justify the existence of this article. I would have no objection to a speedy delete.-gadfium 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as essay on WP itself. --N Shar 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Shar are you suggesting this entry would be ok on a user page but not as an article?--Janusvulcan 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a userpage where you can work on it more and then post it as a WP essay. CyberAnth 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Userfy - the article has a point, often mentioned inside and outside of WP, and would make a fine WP essay. CyberAnth 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Userfy as a WP essay. --Candy-Panda 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think avoid self-reference applies here, but I see no problem in user space... Wintermut3 08:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. --Philippe Beaudette 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, alternatively Userfy, under WP:ASR, WP:V, WP:NEO, and WP:NOR.-- danntm ^T _C 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as noted above; as it is, it's lacking in reliable sources and is far too self-referential to be an article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs to gain a LOT more traction before being included in WP. WP:ASR, WP:NEO, and WP:NOR --JJLatWiki 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before I have to call the Don. The Don doesn't like original research. — coelacan talk — 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A call to the don coelacan talk? That is an admission to a wikimob or a bad joke. If it is a joke, wikipedia has no place for that. Try myspace. If the referance to Don is code to a mob than my article is warranted. Either way Coelacan's vote should be striked. --Janusvulcan 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janusvulcan, I may be misinterpreting sarcasm here, but frankly, a little light-hearted humor isn't out of line every once and a while, it's just when it gets in the way of making an encyclopedia or is done in leiu of productive work that it becomes an issue. In addition, votes are virtually never 'stricken' in AfD discussions, they may be discounted when determining consensus (IE an administrator ignoring 10 "me too!" or "delete per nom." 'votes' when determining the real results of a debate) but are generally not removed. Also, I beleive that Coelacan was simply attempting sarcasm, while it's not always the best thing for consensus-building, please try to understand the comment in context. Wintermut3 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wintermut3 your comment real made me think “Could I be missing a sense of humor.” So I began almost three hours ago to familiarize myself with Coelacan. To see if this users sense of humor was misunderstood by me. I spent time in his discussion page, user page, user contributions to articles and talk pages, looking at the other users who had contact with Coelacan, following the history back on virtually every page he edited, and one thing is for sure, Coelacan doesn’t joke around. I’ve noticed in many situations quite the opposite. Sarcasm and a little light-hearted humor toward the above mentioned user is usually met quite harshly. So what I knew before I started on this journey, but ended up verifying is that I was not misinterpreting sarcasm.

I don’t dispute your comment, but who draws that so called line? a little light-hearted humor isn't out of line every once and a while, it's just when it gets in the way of making an encyclopedia or is done in lieu of productive work that it becomes an issue. --Janusvulcan 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all true. I have no sense of humor. In fact, just the other day, I beat a clown to death with his own floppy shoes. — coelacan talk — 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ey. Tony don' like dis kind of stuff. You don' wanna mess with the WikiDons or you go swimmin' with the Wikifishes. Capisce? Don Tony 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the WikiMafia. Artw 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Userfy~~ as WP Essay - It's a phenomena I've seen myself, basically a collective version of WP:OWN. However if this is really a covert method for the user to gripe about edits on some specific issue not going his way we should just delete it without mercy. Artw 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without mercy - covert method to gripe. Artw 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Userfy per Candy. -Toptomcat 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. Can be rewritten into a useful WP:Essay, but does not belong in mainspace. -- Kesh 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. Rereading the article, as well as the author's comments, it seems more like a Conspiracy theory in the making. The author could write something that better fits WP:ESSAY on the subject in Userspace, but this article just needs Deleted. -- Kesh 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are the people voting delete against userfication? Because I don't see any reason not to userfy. It's not a personal attack. --N Shar 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no point in userfying, as it would have to be rewritten from scratch to become an essay anyway. -- Kesh 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After reading all the comments I agree with many of the users opinions. I would like this article userfied, I don't want to do this while the AfD is in progress and I don't know how to. Could someone please help or do it for me. --Janusvulcan 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - not notable neologism Alex Bakharev 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and tone down—There is no cabal.Circeus 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toning down. Taking afd a little personal. Will start now with the tone down. ––Janusvulcan 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-space it - I don't think it would be too bad as an essay under Wikipedia:Wikimob either, if it was toned down just a bit as author has suggested (keep in mind how many words we've made up on this encyclopedia, anyway). Essays can sometimes be a little inflammatory anyway: see m:Guerilla UK spelling campaign for an ugly example. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy an excellent option that satisfies most parties involved. I think it could be a good essay someday given some editing love, wikimobs do happen, correcting systemic bias may be the greatest modern challange to maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wintermut3 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as original research and blatant advertising. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Coins[edit]

Tagged no references since July; none have been added, and given the scarcity of google hits etc. I suspect none are likely to be forthcoming. Unverifiable and original research. Chick Bowen 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn - Per nom and WP:AN comments on spam magnets. (It has been orphaned since its creation as well.) PTO 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN I somehow thik it is funny. SYSS Mouse 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conspiracy, dude. :) PTO 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys but we have been attempting to update this site for some weeks. Be patient - this is not easy for new users!!! Many more links and updates are sitting ready to go! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anna Jackman (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, I was like >< close to prodding it myself for spam/lack of notability. :) (oh yeah, delete). Patstuart^talk|edits 07:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOR, thanks, bye bye. Proto::► 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research.-- danntm ^T _C 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoaxalicious. RFerreira 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of advertorial makes my flesh creep. WMMartin 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add special seasonings. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Seraphimblade 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Winer[edit]

Article is based on the word's of a company's owner. Listed by Random832 as a courtesy for 4.159.98.208 (aka probably Nirelan) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is evil person who invents claims about himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.135.220.234 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to state for the record that my position is keep but I figured this deserved a fair shot rather than simply not getting listed because Nirelan messed up the AfD listing. —Random8322007-01-24T03:17:48UT C(01/23 22:17EST)
Keep, Winer is obviously notable (1200 Google News Archive hits, 116 Google Books hits), and even in 2005 articles without inline links were getting featured. Tag as unreferenced/primary sources, possibly some POV in a few places. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, note article history and discussion at Talk:Dave Winer#Deletion. I find it extremely lame (and a waste of resources) to use AFD to resolve a content dispute. The nominator has few other edits than this recent activity. Yes, the subject is noted for self-serving statements, but that means you provide a sourced counter-argument. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe speedy, as this seems to be a bad faith nom. -- MarcoTolo 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Assuming that it's a bad faith nomination isn't really in the spirit of WP:AGF, is it? I do think Nirelan has some legitimate complaints about the article, and it needs to be cleaned up - just the problems with it do not, in my opinion, merit deletion. —Random8322007-01-24T13:30:16UT C(01/24 08:30EST)
  - I'm not assuming the nomination is in bad faith, simply suggesting that it may be. In other words, based on my reading of the talk page and Nirelan's contribution log, the nomination of this article to AfD does not appear to be in good faith. And, yes, I agree that Nirelan has made some valid editorial points. Like Dhartung, my concern is that we've gone from "0 to AfD" without the appropriate page-based discussion. -- MarcoTolo 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable figure in weblogging as cited by the articles and books about him. Calwatch 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but IMHO, it requires some cleanup. Kai A. Simon 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a rather notable figure in web technology with numerous recognition inside and outside the industry. Tarinth 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, requires clean-up though Alf photoman 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean it up somewhat. OverSS 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admit there are refrences to him, but most of them contain false information. For example, this article orignally said that ScriptingNews was one of the first blogs. However, blogging exisited long before his site was created or he became interested in it. Also, RSS was created by Netscape and Dave talked Harvard into controlling it. While he has told those refrences that he played a part in creating blogging or RSS it just isn't true no matter how many sites link to it. Dave has the power to influence the media because he worked for Harvard, but that shouldn't give him the power to influence a community site like Wikipedia.Nirelan

Please look at the top of the article. I disproved the main reasons to give Dave an article. If major items like that are not true why should we waste time and space to create a biography of a man who did not really invent anything?Nirelan

- You are addressing what you perceive as inaccuracies in the article. These are not reasons to delete the article. Please do not use AFD to address content disputes. Nirelan, has it ever occurred to you that he did not parachute into Harvard out of the clear blue sky? His notability, for better or worse, was well established before that time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Dhartung, If any of us claimed to have invented a widely used program Harvard would probably take us seriously as well. However, the truth is that he tried to sell outliners and basicly had to give his company to Symantec because his own company was so unsucessful. --Nirelan Talk
- Nirelan, it's good that you deleted your potentially libelous comment here[5]. I don't know where you were or what you were doing 1997-1999, but I was an early blogger (third public blog using Blogger.com, three-digit Blogger user number[6]) and I have also used Userland products. The problem with Winer has never been "lies" as even the people he has alienated -- which is a large number of people -- respect his accomplishments. The problem has always been whether he allowed others credit or control. He sold outliners back in the pre-web days, and he adapted quickly and successfully to the web, and he was an enthusiastic evangelist for blogging even before the word was coined (see blog). This article and his claims regarding his career are necessarily contentious, but asserting that his accomplishments are non-notable misses the point of WP:BIO (which is for better or worse), and your efforts to turn the article into an attack page really demonstrate the bad faith of this nomination. The fact that you're trying to dismiss a Harvard appointment as based on lies really demonstrates how thin your argument is. --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 79 references to Dave Winer in Google News alone at the moment. There's no question he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Don't use AfD to deal with NPOV and article quality objections. Rcade 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan has removed the AFD tag from the article [7] - does this count as a withdrawal? Can we get a speedy keep? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs).
- I concur, removal of the AFD notice by the nominator is generally interpreted as intent to withdraw the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Intent is further underscored by this comment:

I removed it becuase they cleaned up the article. The template says that should be left there until the disscussion is resolved and it was definatily resolved because the only person that felt the article should be changed is now happy.

And this comment:

Nothing in the rules says an administrator has to remove it. It says "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions" I respected the wishes of those that thought it should stay and removed it after five days. It may not make the administrators happy, but we followed Wikipedia's guidelines.

Both posted at User talk:EdJohnston#Winer AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This theory is hard to credit, because: (a) User:Nirelan is not fluent enough with the mechanics of Wikipedia to close an AfD correctly, so it was unwise of him to try, (b) Since he removed the AfD banner he has entered his own vote for Delete, so his tag removal seems whimsical. Now that User:Random832 has restored the tag an administrator should be able to close the discussion in a proper way. EdJohnston 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of editors contributed and modified the article, It is irrelevant in this case that the person itself provided content to the article (which is not a bad thing by itself anyway). Notability is clear and does not require arguing IMO --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Winer is a seminal contributor to outlining and blogging, and is clearly notable. Ad hominem nominations should be struck down fast. Kevin Marks 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course keep He's Dave Winer, for God's sake.

The result was delete and redirect. --Core desat 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive[edit]

We already have Supermassive black holes which adequately explains this term. I cannot see it being used anywhere else —Moondyne 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically a dicdef; we also have wikt:supermassive, although a bit of this might be transwikied there. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and redirect. Philippe Beaudette 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not needed, per Dhartung. Also I call bunkum on the "supermassive void" oxymoron. :-P — RJH (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I don't care guys, that was like a test article for me. Do with it as you will, I leave it up to you. And the person above is right. It's not a dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous Dissident (talk • contribs).
Delete. Per author Anonymous Dissident. Jerry lavoie 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge from One Piece manga (English version). W.marsh 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece anime (English adaptation)[edit]

Almost entirely original research with few sources cited. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related One Piece discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece manga (English version)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Enies Lobby arc (AKA One Piece plot summaries)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Christ, the dub was bad but it wasn't bad enough to be a seperate entity. --tjstrf talk 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not really necessary is it?--SUIT⁴² 03:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I wanted One Piece manga (English version) merged with the Manga adaptions page but no one was prepared to discuss that motive... The alternative option was we could merge it back with the main page (though it will have to be broken down because there is too much info). I'd rather see a merge then a deletetion on this info. Angel Emfrbl 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with One Piece manga (English version), but rename to One Piece (English version) or One Piece (English adaptation). Matty-chan 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim, or merge to original article. The article is most definitely not original research: it appear quite verifiable to me, as anyone can compare two images. However, there is surely some unverifiable material which should be removed. Also, I would suggest to the Wikipedians above to not use WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. "Not really necessary" is not grounds for deletion. *Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is verifiable, it needs to have third-party citations from reliable sources. However, if it is just the editor comparing two images, then it's original research. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's an idea; merge all salvagable and verifiable content into the main One Piece article under the heading 'controversial English translation'? -Toptomcat 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE per Matty-chan and Dark Shikari, but merge the information into one "One Piece English adaptations" page; that page would be easily verifiable. Cough cough (Justyn 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
For both of these "English version" articles I think they should at least be merged together into one page, if not merged into a smaller section in the main article. FredOrAlive 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Justyn. Jerry lavoie 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to One Piece anime (English adaptation). Redirecting for now, editors on this topic can merge content as called for. W.marsh 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece manga (English version)[edit]

Almost entirely original research with few sources cited. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related One Piece discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece anime (English adaptation)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Enies Lobby arc (AKA One Piece plot summaries)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not a separate thing from One Piece. --tjstrf talk 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Seems like a pretty extensive and, indeed, interesting and informative article (and I am not a fan of One Piece - never seen an episode of it). In fact, these articles have more sources cited than most anime articles. Should be merged with One Piece anime (English adaptation), maybe cleaned up a bit, more citation perhaps? I dunno, maybe my standards are low. Snarfies 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Extensive, yes, but it basically amounts to WP:NOR-violating fanboy whining about what are generally minuscule changes, while your suggested merge target is an anti-4kids slaughter piece. --tjstrf talk 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being an "anti-4kids fanboy whiner" is not the way to get your opinion accepted by others. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I don't really feel he did that. No hard feelings. Snarfies 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Interesting, verifiable, and as far as I can see doesn't violate any guidelines, though it probably needs quite a bit of trimming. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is verifiable, it needs to have third-party citations from reliable sources. However, if it is just the editor comparing two images, then it's original research. --Farix (Talk) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not seeing the part of WP:OR that the picture in question is (in theory) violating...? Would a picture of a red apple and a green apple to illustrate the difference be a problem as well? Snarfies 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A man presents you with two fruits. An apple in his left hand, and an orange in his right. However, he has no third-party citations from reliable sources actually stating that there is in fact a difference between his aledged apple and aledged orange. The existance of the man is not considered note-worthy until appropriate findings are published in a scientific journal. -13:23, 29 January 2007 (WST)
Merge. It works for Sailor Moon (English versions). --Masamage 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For both of these "English version" articles I think they should at least be merged together into one page, if not merged into a smaller section in the main article. FredOrAlive 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Definitely needs to be cleaned up, but I honestly think it would be a waste to trash a resource like this. Perhaps with more images to illustrate changes made. And I'm sure it'd be easy enough to find some citable source of public outcry if you wanted. -13:30, 29 January 2007 (WST)
Keep/Merge. Per Snarfies. Jerry lavoie 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the whole discussion about the orange and the apple above is hilarious! Jerry lavoie 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, youth footballer, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Salman[edit]

WP:BIO: A NN 12-year-old playing for a local youth football (soccer) team. Prod was removed by original author. On the 23rd, this article was declined on Articles for creation by user Patstuart here. External links are all to non-reliable sources. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Girl (Book Series)[edit]

Recreation of a speedily deleted article. There is no information about sales, authors, publisher and virtually no context about the books at all . . . The article is little more than a list of titles. I can't find any information indicating that WP:N has been met. janejellyroll 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy again: no context. Can't find books on Amazon. I doubt this meets WP:N. --N Shar 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete --Candy-Panda 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI respectfully disagree that these books being in bookstores confers notability. There is no indication that through influence, sales, or media references (however you want to measure notability) that these books meet any of the criteria of WP:N or the proposed guidelines for book notablity. janejellyroll 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the books exist, but they're not popular or notable (also the characters heads are a funny shape). I change my vote. --Candy-Panda 08:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any published reference, but would consider changing my opinion if someone else can. Otherwise, doesn't meet the proposed WP:BOOK. TheronJ 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. --Philippe Beaudette 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no context given for expansion. Johntex\^talk 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bohn[edit]

The person while worthy of a mention in Artix Entertainment and/or AdventureQuest is not particularly notable and fails WP:BIO. The current article does little to establish notability, and lacks any real sourcing (Largely because such sources do not exist). I know the individual personally and know he was not the source of the article or else I would consider it Vanity as well. I have been asked to clean up, expand and source this article and would do so if I myself felt in good faith it was notable enough to be encyclopedic. If consensus disagrees with me I am willing to help improve the article however I do not see it myself. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 03:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that's worthwhile and redirect to Artix Entertainment; I couldn't find any good media mentions of this person; it looks like sources will be preciously hard to find. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --QTCaptain 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artix Entertainment. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tony Fox as that satisfies the nominator's concerns. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12._Hitoe[edit]

Lack of notability Mmoyer 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia: Notability (people) --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 04:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article names an album released, which is at least a claim of notability. As I don't read Japanese, I'm not in any position to judge how notable the group may be. The article would have been a good candidate for a prod.-gadfium 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established and no neutral sources are provided for verification. Kai A. Simon 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is difficult to judge because of the language difference, but absent respectable sources, no evidence is available in the article to indicate this band passes WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fixed the external link to point to the band's page at Sony Music Japan. A Japanese wikipedia article also exists; but, with only one released album, it doesn't appears to meet WP:BAND. I can't find any ranking info at Oricon either. Neier 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Knights MC[edit]

lack of notability Mmoyer 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any notability or WP:V here. Luke! 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Upsidedown[edit]

This is the third or fourth time this article has been created. Author cites only one media mention (Magnet Magazine, no page number or issue information). Still fails WP:BAND. janejellyroll 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Kai A. Simon 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and protect unless notability can be asserted. Do not protect. --UsaSatsui 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Article now demonstrates notability. See comment below. --UsaSatsui 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this go through a G4 if it's been recreated numerous times? Speedy Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recently updated with references and notable facts. Included now are article issues and dates, and other referenced press. still learning wiki and have edited accordingly to avoid speedy deletion. this article is neutral, factual, and referenced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsidedown8 (talk • contribs) 02:36, January 25, 2007

- But is it notable? That's what the debate is. Please read WP:BAND and show us where it qualifies. --UsaSatsui 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per G4, possibly G11. Still fails WP:BAND, no citations beyond the Magnet Magazine one. No, saying "it appeared in this TV episode" is not a citation. -- Kesh 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing in progress .will reference exact tv episode and pod cast date and more.hold on the speedy delete. notoriety has been asserted and documented. no speedy delete.

You keep saying that. How has it been asserted? I still can't see how it passes WP:BAND. They've received a few magazine blurbs and been the opening act on a couple of small tours. If you could tell us "This passes because of criteria X", that would help your case. I don't think meeting the criteria for you guys is too far off, so I'm changing my "protect" opinion. Give it time. If you guys are really that good, you'll make it soon enough, and someone else will write the article about you (it's very, very hard to get an article in that's about yourself, see WP:COI. And remember to sign your posts, use the "signature with timestamp" button. --UsaSatsui 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and feedback. I've read the WP:BAND criteria and improved upon the original, and will continue to try and meet what's expected.Note: The Upsidedown headlined most shows in Portland and Seattle and on tour. 2 of the members of the band were formerly from bands that are on wikipedia. the record was produced by Tony Lash who's also represented on wikipedia.The Out Crowd and The Village Green, also represented on wikipedia are friends and recommended we submit an article. The Dandy Warhols are working with us in the studio to finish our new record.

there are 20 or so write-ups from press around the country, including The Boston Globe, The Nashville Scene, etc. should I reference them all? I don't see huge press detail on other band articles. I think this passes because The Upsidedown is an established working band, has released a record that has gotten good reviews and airplay in west coast markets(kexp-seattle,knrk-portland,littleradio-LA) , and been used on soundtracks to recent television shows. Upsidedown8 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If other band pages don't cite their sources, they need to be edited or deleted as well. For this article, we need notable, reliable sources. The Boston Globe would qualify, so please add that citation. Random appearances on TV shows aren't necessarily notable. Exceptions would be if it were central to the episode, or became a theme througout the series. If there are any reviews of the band or their album in notable publications, that would go a long way towards resolving this. -- Kesh 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will cite major publications..in progress Upsidedown8 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understand WP:COI. For what it's worth,please note that nowhere in the article am I promoting or linking any of the band's music, products or sites. I've honestly attempted to state facts and cite references to the history of this band.Upsidedown8 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear it. I see you've been attempting to add information, but it's not easy to follow. Make sure you're properly citing the references. Simply saying it was an article in The Boston Globe on X date is not a true citation. -- Kesh 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, now citing article references with external links as best can be displayed...thanks for your patience.Upsidedown8 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article a bit for you, added a template, some categories...I'm not too good at this stuff yet (if someone wants to cleanup my cleanup, be my guest). In your zeal of adding stuff, things got a bit messy. Much of the information was either condensed down to the template, or really not needed (more than half of it was article quotes...if we really need to see them we can look up the articles). I also threw in a link to your homepage and Reverb's homepage. I believe the sources now establish notability, but I dropped the indy magazine ones, they don't carry a lot of weight (The Globe and The Oregonian do, though). Feel free to add in some history, a discography, what have you...there's more to be done.And even if it still doesn't pass AfD, don't be discouraged. As I said earlier, you'll get there eventually. --UsaSatsui 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first external link doesn't pull up anything for me. The second (Boston Globe) seems to be a collection of media mentions, but they all seem to be blurbs about upcoming shows that the band is going to be part of with other, frankly more notable, bands. I don't see anything that meets WP:BAND beyond the Magnet mention. The article as you've rewritten it looks much better re: formatting. But I feel like the the original author is just having to stretch too much to make the case for WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the Stones, no. But I'd call it "multiple non-trivial published works". Just because a band just does opening acts doesn't make them non-notable. I think they're borderline, but I think it qualifies. Oh, I screwed up the links, they're fixed now. --UsaSatsui 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite UsaSatsui! much learned.Upsidedown8 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After the latest updates, the article looks much better. The references are still somewhat weak, but the article has received a drastic improvement thanks to Upsidedown8. More references would be good, but at the moment I'd say it just barely passes WP:BAND. I'll let other editors improve this article. -- Kesh 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing toNeutral The article looks a million times better than it did when the AfD was started--in sources, clarity, and NPOV. I still have my doubts that the sources cited qualify as "non-trivial" mentions, but if the consensus seems to be going in the "keep" direction, I can certainly understand that. janejellyroll 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest this be re-listed if nobody else chimes in? A lot has changed since the original AfD tag, and I think there needs to be more input on this one. --UsaSatsui 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's input and help on this article. I added a discography per UsaSatsui's suggestion. Upsidedown8 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as blatant advertising. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IHome[edit]

Advertising, non-notable. Biruitorul 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. (When I saw the title I feared that Apple had gotten into the construction business.) Bucketsofg 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as advertising for a non-notable product. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - advertising. Luke! 13:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to spam/advert. Kai A. Simon 13:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam-a-liscious. SkierRMH 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted by Mailer diablo. --Core desat 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hever Translators' Pool Inc.[edit]

There is no advertising or copying of other websites User:b7i4g8 24 Jan. 2007

Advertising and apparent copyvio. Biruitorul 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source given is their own site. Google search reveals only that and various bulletin boards and advertising directories. CiaranG 11:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails to comply with WP:Corp. Kai A. Simon 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford green

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miami mafia[edit]

Nomination for deletion Article for supposedly famous and influential University of Miami alumni group connected with Drew Rosenhaus and "dedicated to dominating the fields of business, politics, and sports by any means necessary" fails WP:V for reliable sources. Current article only has a couple blog links for references.

Yes, there was a previous afd in October 2006 but this was speedy closed as the nominator didn't actually want to delete and seemed to have confused afd for a merge debate forum.

Now,about those blog links:

1) The Fantasy Sports Trades Blog post directly references [8] this November 2005 Wikipedia article which is the only apparent source for the "Miami Mafia" claim. The Wikipedia article statement is unsourced.

2) Yes, the second blog is on the Fox Sports website but its also a fan community blog written by some random guy who's a contestant in a Fox sportswriting competition (see the red sidebar on the right[9]), not actually by a professional sports writer on the Fox staff. This source is referred to in the current article as if it is an official Fox sports news report.)

Google and Factiva searches:

Screening a google search to filter out "miami mafia" hits related to Opposition_to_Fidel_Castro gives ~378 hits, mostly spam or wikimirror sites[10].

Factiva news and magazine database search gives zero hits for "miami mafia" + "Drew Rosenhaus". 62 hits on google[11] - basically just wikimirrors and spam sites.

Factiva gives 3 university of miami hits for "miami mafia".

These Factiva hits are all passing mentions:

in the Dallas Morning News (Jan 10 1991, literally just the line "David was almost family in Johnson's Miami Mafia." i.e. Jimmy Johnson - a coach at U.Miami but an alumnus of the University of Arkansas, not Miami; and David Shula who is an alumnus of Dartmouth College, not Miami).)

in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (August 12 2001 - literally just a quick reference to the U.Miami coaching team: Butch Davis's "Miami Mafia is a cast of two: secondary coach Chuck Pagano and Pete Garcia. Butch Davis is another alumnus of Arkansas, not Miami. Chuck Pagano is an alumnus of the University of Wyoming, not Miami[12]. Pete Garcia is a Miami alumnus[13].

in the Washington Times (Nov 13, 2006) - used in headline "Miami Mafia busted" and then only again at the end: "But this season it's just not happening for the Redskins' Miami Mafia". The use of the term in the headline is the strongest claim so far for the term. However, the article is about Miami University alumni who are players on the Washington Redskins who were hired by Coach Joe Gibbs, a graduate of the San Diego State University, not Miami.

Conclusions:

1) Current article is based on unreliable sources - a fan blog entry and a blog entry based on an unsourced wikipedia article.

2) No indication of more reliable references from general google (nothing on google book either[14].

3) Factiva brings up very few uses of the term which are all different. None of them related to Drew Rosenhaus. None of them suggest a group of Miami alumni "dedicated to dominating the fields of business, politics, and sports by any means necessary".

4) Recommend deletion of this article's content, removal of the related content from Drew Rosenhaus and University of Miami, and redirect to Opposition to Fidel Castro

Bwithh 04:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (overly long) nom. Bucketsofg 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of research is why this article has persisted. Wikipedia does not suffer from excessive/"overly long" research efforts Bwithh 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (thanks for doing the research). As this article is not well-sourced, this could be considered an attack page, which is worrisome. --N Shar 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom - unverifiable super-secret society. -- No Guru 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-researched nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per... extensively detailed nomination. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax, a conspiracy theory or a libel. Either way not a good thing to keep. User:Dimadick

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ossics[edit]

No sources. Fails WP:V. Fails WP:CORP. Prod contested by author. Since then, no information has been added to address these concerns, despite a number of edits. N Shar 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is basically no assertion of notability. Could be a Speedy candidate. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"delete' per above. Depressingly like spam as well. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pick a reason - it's clearly blatant advertising with no assertion of notability. CiaranG 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, and advert style. Kai A. Simon 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn company, doesn't meet WP:CORP. --theblueflamingo^confab 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete. The content has been trimmed by avoiding reference to individuals and improved by incorporating register number, authority and year. These informations are valid and required to be there on wikipedia as OSSICS is a social organisation and is part of the begining of a movement in Kerala, India. Joseph Thomas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Thomas (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment How exactly is it "required to be on Wikipedia"? It doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for companies. At least, the article does not assert that it does. Basically, it reads as promotional material for the company and not as an encyclopedic article. The article does not contain citations from reliable sources (or citations for any sources, for that matter) and seems to be based on primary information. Leebo⁸⁶ 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Map[edit]

Self-promotion by Donald Heathfield of his concept. Original research. Note the use of three sock puppets to make it look as though others are interested in this idea. -- RHaworth 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense. --N Shar 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked at the "Big Picture" - original research, self-promotion, non-notable concept, unsalvageably incomprehensible management-speak and sock-puppetry. CiaranG 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, non-notable, Most of the links don't work. This article is on a roll here. --TommyOliver 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a "Delete" here somewhere, but I disagree with the reasons given forth so far. I don't know if it is was necessarily against guidelines to create a page about yourself or something you created if it's notable enough, and this guy does have some outside magazine sources as references. I just wish I could check them According to WP:OR, if someone else has published it, it's not original research, and there's an implication (not a statement, an implication) . The weblinks at the bottom, though, are completely useless. As for the "nonsense"...Okay, just reading the article, my eyes glaze over. Just seems like a load of business-babble. That doesn't make it nonsense, just unreadable. Now, if those sources check out, and if someone else has worked with this idea unrelated to the author, and if this article can be cleaned up to be actually readable, I'd throw out a Keep. As it stands, though, I'm afraid it's a Delete. By the way, have you proven sockpuppetry, or is it just assumed? --UsaSatsui 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just assumed. The most telling thing is that none of the three has edited any other article. -- RHaworth 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- really not significant enough to warrant an article -- appears to be the product of one or two people (also, and let's put this out there -- rather a nonsense/contentless concept if you ask me.) Sdedeo (tips) 07:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:BOLLOCKS. Rosenkreuz 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete It does not read like nonsense exactly, but it does seem extremely vague. Almost all the references are from one fundamental source. The Oxford conference is the most conventionally respectable, but it does not seem clear that the papers on the agenda have any particular connection with the viewpoint in the article. This is not yet notable. If it becomes so, a more meaningful article could be written DGG 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else has said. Lesnail 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a legitimate blanking, then I apologize for reverting. 黒雲 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete. None of the reviewers have presented any conceptual argument or claimed any experience in future studies, scenario planning or business management. I guess it is the novelty of the concept that provokes the negative reaction. The concept has been accepted in business and futurists’ community. The article on the Balanced Scorecard is rather similar, yet the Balanced Scorecard was also new in 1993. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ann50 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I think the unencyclopedic style of article and the manner of its creation provokes what is arguably an unnecessarily negative reaction. WP:AUTO is very good reading, as is WP:NOTE. It's often the case that newcomers to Wikipedia are bitten by not being familiar these policies and guidelines. What's normally a friendly and supportive atmosphere seems to go by the wayside where new articles are concerned. Can I suggest you read WP:NOTE, and then see if you still think the article should remain. CiaranG 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still can't find anything independent of the author, but this PDF is better written and referenced than the article, if anyone wants to investigate further. CiaranG 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphor[edit]

This AfD was orphaned; listing it now. The nominator's reason was "nominate for deletion b/c of lack of notability". Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. The only reason I found it was because it was in the orphaned category from June. --Sable232 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have this stuff in my house right now, it's probably in almost all pharmacies, and 291,000 g-hits isn't too shabby. →Ed Gl 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication why this is notable. Seraphimblade 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I found two reputable scientific studies of Aquaphor here and here. I only added a link to the Kentucky study to the article, as there was just an abstract for the other one. I also tried to find some financials for the product, but I got tired of trying to decipher the records of the giant German multinational that actually owns the brand. However, I submit that the two scientific studies are sufficient for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to petroleum jelly. Vaseline redirects there, so it is safe to assume that this page should as well. I don't think a single brand is notable enough to need it's own page. --Sable232 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:35Z

Bobby Mercer[edit]

Completely WP:OR biography of a nonnotable movie character, who is already well covered at Four Brothers (film). Skipping PROD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack "Jackie" Mercer also turned out to require an AfD. Sandstein 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flyguy649 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article per WP:FICT, as a fictional character without multiple independent sources showing notability except that of the film. Per Sandstein, it doesn't appear that there's more to be merged beyond what's already in the parent article. I also suggest Redirect to Bobby Murcer (the baseball player) as a commonly entered misspelling. Barno 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's sufficiently well covered at Four Brothers (film). Support redirect to Bobby Murcer.-FisherQueen (Talk) 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interstate highway multiplexes[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO. Concurrencies are a common feature on highways, including Interstates; an exhaustive list isn't necessary (and this list is likely incomplete.) Additionally this page has been marked as an orphan for over three months. Krimpet 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perpetually orphaned listcruft. szyslak (t, c) 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can name several examples in Wisconsin alone that aren't on this list; an exhaustive list would be so long that it would be useless. Leave it to individual interstate articles. BryanG^(talk) 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to see how this could even be merged to multiplex. Gimmetrow 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete, despite the malformed AFD listing (((afd1)) is substed onto AFD'ed articles, not ((prod))). --Core desat 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hao Chen Yen[edit]

This article seems to be a vanity page... the subject of the article does not meet WP:BIO criteria, and contains little more than trivia anyway. Markjdb 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and only a single page of GHits Metrackle 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, salt, and redirect to David Yen due to constant recreation. Metrackle 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete "Favorite Food: Spaghetti". If this is encyclopedic then the editor has a weird definition of it. User:Dimadick

The result was Speedy delete as spam. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachGirls.org[edit]

Author has created two different articles for this organization and has deleted notability tags on both without comment. The articles claims that the organization has come "under fire" from the press, but there are no press mentions cited at all. janejellyroll 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per WP:N and WP:SPAM --Mhking 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clearly a non-notable organization based on the author's fervor to have it at three different names.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment inexperienced editor - the tag deletion issue may not be all that it seems. Viridae ^Talk 08:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits in ProQuest Newspapers. —Cel ithemis 09:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spamtastic. JuJube 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:N and WP:Spam. Kai A. Simon 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete by JoJan as empty (CSD A1 or A3). Agent 86 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachGirls[edit]

Sister article to TeachGirls.org, pretty much identical text. Assertions of notability are made, including a claim they have come "under fire" from the press, but there are zero citations of any sort to indicate media coverage. janejellyroll 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits in ProQuest Newspapers. —Cel ithemis 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spamtastic. JuJube 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:N and WP:Spam. Kai A. Simon 13:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Long[edit]

Main assertion of notability is creation of video "Deep House"... which was "released" on MySpace. The rest... two self-published poetry books, one self-published music album, work as a production assistant etc. is very unnotable. Basically a vanity page. Herostratus 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Self-promotion/vanity article. Kai A. Simon 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, this is only self promotion if it is infact, 'self promotion'. This gentlemen hasbeen recognized by Wolfgang puck in several books & also was a consulting producer of Wolfgang Puck's televisioun show. There are articles that confirm. This clearly is not self promotion, because I ( robert swanson ) am not the subject.I have followed this man's career for some time & feel as if you are discriminating, because you don't this man's work on MTV or a the movies theatre. I understand what your saying, if this was a self promotion vanity article, however it clearly is not.} -- robert swanson ( aka: Clashique ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clashique (talk • contribs).

Kekekeke! clashique.com is the "MySpace Music" website of "John Long & Kevin Long," and your only contributions have been to this article and to add links to this person in other articles. What an amazing coincidence! Salad Days 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, then maybe it's not self-promotion; doesn't matter. Is the person notable? Connection with Wolfgang Puck is given as "served as a consulting producer for Puck's Emmy award winning television show, producing the celebrity chef's web site & Long is also acknowleged for his role in the creation of Pucks cook book... Through this work Long became a co-founder of Wolfgang Puck Worldwide". I don't know what a consulting producer is, but it means he worked on the production team. Even if he had been the producer his WP:BIO notability would be extremely questionable in my opinion. But consulting producer? We have to draw the line somewhere. Herostratus 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless problems with WP:N and WP:BIO can be fixed by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Long is a known media guru, and intellectual who flirts with Hollywood. He has worked with John Sculley ( founder of the term 'PDA' ). Long is a media entrepreneur & information architect. Even without his relationship with Puck, he has done some incredible technology & media work. I've read some of his collaborations with Noam Chomsky. I've also read conceptual healthcare concepts developed with Richard Saul Wurman on Childhood Obesity. This biography of Long, only begins to uncover Long's body of work. His speeches & books represent a new type of ideal. To delete this entry is a step backwards for that which wikipedia is based upon. If Long didn't exist, I would agree with having it be deleted. However, I'm continually learning about new work, patents, stories, speeches & concepts that 'Long' has created and he is operationally applying a theory known as the 'digerati principle', with a patent known as 'rotary 23' a three dimensional super imposed image for communication being developed at the Sloan Institute at M.I.T. I suggest, you permanently defer deletion & begin to consider following Long's work.((prod)) comment was added by Clashique (talk • contribs).
- Ah, well, I'm glad you at least concede that if Long didn't exist the article should be deleted... as for the rest, why isn't any of this in the article, and sourced? The whole thing sounds fishier and fishier to me. Herostratus 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an almost totally unsourced vanity page. Subject gets a feeble 97 google hits (less than me!), and would require a vast amount of work to properly source the claims made, an effort which the author apparently is unwilling to do. Salad Days 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Miller[edit]

I believe that this article fails WP:BIO, specifically because there are no non-trivial published articles about Kyle Miller from a reputable news source. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :* Great, I screwed up the template and have no idea how to fix it. I probably shouldn't be editing when I am so tired - can someone fix it for me? --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I copied the code from another AfD and edited it :D --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 06:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Citation to Washington Post was already in the article, I've also added an Amped citation, but the Washington post article alone should be enough. —siro χ o 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo, from browsing Google there seems to be several articles written about him, albeit on niche websites. hateless 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not as notable as for instance Manuel Schenkhuizen or Johan Quick, this person is a top professional in his field (video gaming), which is reason enough to pass WP:BIO. The article needs some sourcing and pov cleanups, though. -- DJiTH 13:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article should be cleaned up and properly sourced ASAP. Top people in their field should have no problem to pass WP:BIO Alf photoman 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, although clearly needs cleanup. schi ^talk 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Siroxo. Miller is definitely a notable Counter-Strike player. --Credema 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major media coverage makes him pass WP:BIO (even if barely... he still does pass) ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison[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)).

Early Sunday-morning (i.e., dead time) college radio show -- a show that the station's own Web site buries deep inside its listings. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP with the edit summary This page is legit. The info seems to check out. "dead air" is an inappropriate value judgement that has no effect on the accuracy or legitimacy of this article.. Actually, it's an entirely appropriate value judgment, since a 2 a.m. Sunday morning time slot helps illustrate the utter non-notability of the program. Calton | Talk 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Morning sickness (disambiguation), because once Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison is gone, it'll be a uselee disambiguation page. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this show received a better time slot, it would still be just a college radio show, and presumptively non-notable. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Madmedea 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - otherwise i'll write an article about my own Sunday morning (8 a.m.) student radio show! Grutness...wha? 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the "anon IP" and just a recent Wikipedia user. However, I am familiar with the WNUR station and do know that the station broadcasts throughout the majority of the city of Chicago with a range comparable to commericial stations. Thus, any show that airs on the station, regardless of timeslot, can conceivably be heard by most people in the city of Chicago. This would apply to any other radio program that airs overnight. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with radio, put I'm pretty sure that the term "dead time" is incorrect in this case as the show does indeed broadcast. It's not an internet podcast or private show, but rather exists on a station, 89.3 FM, that is fully accredited by the FCC (like ANY other radio station) for the Chicago region. Lastly, because there is no way to tell how many listen to the program, I see no reason not to grant the benefit of the doubt. To do otherwise would create a "value judgement" and precedent that radio doesn't really "count" after the sun sets. Many, many people in this country would disagree. 24.12.186.181 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The current argument is irrelevant, according to Wikipedia's own criterion for notability: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness"." In context, this means that "Morning Sickness With Eric And Harrison" is a valid article so long as verification of its existence can be determined. Since it is publicized as part of the WNUR lineup (however obscure this is), and since WNUR 89.3 FM is an official, FCC accredited radio station (despite what may be playing on it), the argument of lack of notability cannot be backed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unillenium411 (talk • contribs)
- — Unillenium411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I don't really understand how the time of day that the show is broadcast makes a difference as to whether or not they have a wiki page. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about things to interested people and that's what their page does, especially since their official website isn't detected by search engines. What is wrong with allowing them a page? It's not hurting anyone, if anything it's just allowing them more visibility. Additionally, as a college student myself, I can say that their early Sunday morning timeslot is valuable air-time since everyone stays out late on Saturday nights. What's wrong with a little late late night (aka, early morning) radio comedy? Leave it alone, let them keep their page and promote their show.--Elysiasegal 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Elysiasegal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
""Keep"" I am a huge fan of Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison and listen every week, please don't delete this page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.125.86 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete because being on a station which the FCC proves nothing if the show is non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs)
KEEP this is ridiculous this show is extremely funny. we will definitely be hearing from this guys later and won't wikipedia look stupid then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.60.114 (talk • contribs)
- — 141.161.60.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. Although I don't know how to determine how many people listen to "Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison," I have seen the radio station ratings for the Chicago area. As shown here, WNUR is not even one of the 30 highest rated stations in the area and has less than an 0.9% share of listenership. Admittedly, the Arbitron ratings cover only 6 a.m. to midnight and thus do not cover the "Morning Sickness" time slot, but there isn't any evidence that this show has a large listenership either. If it were a very popular show, one would think that WNUR would prominently feature it on its web page [15]. I can't even find any coverage of this show in the college newspaper [16]. Keeping this page to allow the show more visibility and to promote the show would violate WP:NOT#SOAP which says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." Finally, if we decide to wait until Eric and Harrison attain more fame before giving them an article, that's fine with me; the question is whether they warrant an article now, not whether they will in the future. Consensus can change. --Metropolitan90 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shameless self promotion... the banner at the top with their faces on it is a dead give away. --Candy-Panda 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This debate seems a bit blown out of proportion. But...WNUR is, by both its own wikipedia entry and verifiable sources a popular and respected college radio station throughout the country and other shows on the station have wikis. As to the previous post about arbitron ratings, with all due respect, most people (myself included) don't know jack about how to interpret them. I'm a resident of Chicago who has telecom. experience in both tv and radio and listen to stations torward the bottom of that list--they certainly seem legit to me. See #30 105.9 WCKG. Despite having a %9 share, this station airs Opie and Anthony and the Steve Dahl show, the former being a popular nationally syndicated show and the latter being a perennial top-100 talk show host in the country according to Talkers magazine, the leading industry trade-mag. To be honest, I don't care what happens, there seems to be bias on both sides. I just can't tell the difference between this show and the COUNTLESS other talk shows that have wikis. Let us see the actual ratings. Until then, this is just guess work by people who, unlike myself, do not live in the Chicago market and have no idea of its makeup. JmpJckFlsh1968 08:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — JmpJckFlsh1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. One of those edits was creating Morning sickness (disambiguation), though[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned about the name calling on this thread i.e. "socks" I'm not a sockpuppet for one. For two, I'm interested with this discussion The leader poster, calton has even taken to insulting a WIKIPEDIA ADMIN, Rspeer when he tried to clean up the thread. please try to have an open forum to voice an opinion 24.12.186.181 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinions" mean bupkis. Evidence, on the other hand, does. I'm not in the mood to play your games, so listen up: provide some shred of evidence -- from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources showing someone outside the WNUR studios has even heard of this show and you're golden. Arguing irrelevancies, logging in from different computers or enlisting roommates/friends/siblings to chime in with "me too!", and changing the subject won't do a bit of good. I refuse to argue irrelvancies or "opinions": bring me evidence. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want this to turn into dispute between the two of us, but, as far as I'm concerned, you originally brought the charge for deletion. I thought the page was worth it, and thought this would be a fair forum to discuss an important issue: a "value judgement" on the legitimacy of a radio program. Instead of sticking with the merits of that discussion you've swerved off into namecalling and malice. I am not a sockpuppet. 2, I don't have access to a "shred of evidence" and I don't know where anyone would get one and I didn't think I needed one for my opinion to be heard. Like I wrote above, I'm relatively new at wikipedia. I think its great how the articles are fluid and represent true "freedom of expression" on the internet you call for a "shred of evidence" . You made the charge on the article. I just can't figure how you can be this closeminded, altough a quick look at the user comments on your page show that this isn't the first time you've pulled this, and it won't be the last 24.12.186.181 12:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would urge the IP address contributors to avoid incivil comments and personal attacks and to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, both on conduct (WP:NPA and WP:CIV for example) and on content (WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS would make a great start). Fram 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Overnight show on a college radio station with a signal so weak it's unaccessible from most of the Chicago area. No independent coverage I can find anywhere except mirrors of this article. This is as non-notable as they come. Fan-1967 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment I was a contributer to the original Morning Sickness wiki. I made my opinion known in an earlier comment on this delation page which has since gotten out of control. Sooooo I challenge all posters to deal with the relavant issue: Essentially this debate boils down to who determines the value of a broadcast vehicle. What I hear up to now is this: 1. Morning Sickness broadcasts on a college radio station and thus is not "notable" 2. Morning Sickness broadcasts during the night and thus is not "notable" Will wikipedia now way that college radio and night radio (both viable forms of comm) are not notable. 3. The Morning Sickness wiki serves as a publicity device. The FACTs are: every wiki for every tv show, movie, radio, show, racehorse, etc. serves as publicity. This is because INFORMATION is publicity. Notice I did not say PROPAGANDA. There is nothing on the Morning Sickness wiki that is an exageration or unencyclopedic. It is verifiable fact. How is it verifiable? By listening to the show. Otherwise, I feel this attempt to delete this page is an unjustified attack on a show that for some reason the Federal Communications Commision thinks is valid even though wiki editors who are not familiar with Chicago radio nor WNUR the station (which does indeed have national notoriety) nor the Morning Sickness program. Once again, I urge all posters to address these issues without giving curt reasons that don't even appear to be thought out. JmpJckFlsh1968 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Notability in the Wikipedia context is (the first line from WP:NOTE): "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. ". No such notability has been shown for this radio show, and this is what has been used as the relevant issue by those suggesting to delete it. If you can give us verifiable reliable published sources to assert that the claimed notability is recognized by independent, trustworthy sources (like newspapers), then those wanting to keep it would have a good argument. WP:ILIKEIT, on the other hand, is not a good argument. Fram 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of independent coverage. But I encourage commenters here to keep things civil and refrain from biting newbies, even ones you disagree with. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and as per Elysiasegal. Dwain 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoua Lee[edit]

Not notable. One of several pages created by User:Thaoworra after he listed the contents of a poetry anthology. Nposs 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The user noted above is also a contributor to the book, but I have note listed the book for AfD because it is notable as the first anthology of Hmong American poets. The authors listed below contributed to the volume, but none have gone on to notable literary careers (at least for the time being).

Nposs 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Fails WP:BLP across the board, as well as WP:V. -- Kesh 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those are stubs. No way to establish if they are notable or not through the information presented here. Surprisingly enough though they are "writers" no books is ever mentioned. User:Dimadick

For most of the articles, it appears that the biographies were simply copied directly from Bamboo Among the Oaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nposs (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC). Nposs 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, not just non-notable, but copyvios as well. I'd say this one can be Speedy Deleted then. -- Kesh 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First comment, it is totally unclear for a newbie to figure out how to post a comment. This comment is to be posted as part of the discussion related to the deletion of several Hmong writers. Granted, I am one of the persons concerned. However, reading the reasons why the articles are being considered worthy of deletion, I have to make the following responses: - re: none have a published book: no writer in Bamboo Among the Oaks has published a book yet; even the most awarded ones, namely Ka Vang or Maineng Moua, are still figuring out how to get published as a single writer with a book deal; - if the above is the criterion, no Hmong writers can be listed on wikipedia: that would be to make invisible the emerging Hmong writing community; - I would caution people as to how they evaluate what is achievement for communities that are so new or so challenged: sure, you all can say we are nothing, but we are the pioneers of Hmong American literature and if not us, there is no one else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacyinz (talk • contribs) 07:00, January 29, 2007
- Please read WP:N and WP:V. In order for an article about a person to survive on Wikipedia, they must be notable and we must be able to verify that notability. Specifically, there are strict rules about biographies of living persons, which these articles do not satisfy. -- Kesh 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Tomlin boxer[edit]

No sources, possibly autobiography esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much chance of the subject being notable. CiaranG 12:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article failing WP:Bio and WP:N. Kai A. Simon 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IncludeAfter the 31st of January I will have more sources or at least more reliable. I also am trying to get permission of reprint an article from the Richmond Times on John Tomlin in the Flair section. I hope to get a respond from the Richmond Times later today. Also this is not an autobiography, I accidently put the title of the article when I was applying for a screename. This is also not a vanity article, it simply states fact of how John has done and also my opinion as well as Joe Lewis and Erick Easter's. If I recieve reprint from Richmond Times I will also have access to many more facts and information on John than when I wrote this article.Johntomlin 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an entire dialouge from an anouncer at the 2006 Virginia Junior Boxing Championship commenting on all of John Tomlin's matches and am currently seeking authorization of reprint form this source as well. Until then I implore that this article not be deleted. Furthermore, as for Encyclopedic format, in case you couldn't tell I am not an experienced writer nor journalists, I give speeches and local news reports for a living, not journalism despite my high school class. If anyone desires to edit the article so that the information is sperated from my opinions and those of Erick Easter and Joe Lewis please feel free to do so, it would be much appreciated.Johntomlin 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I just realized that you have to say keep when you want something to be kept, not include as I did before. Johntomlin 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ forgot to bullet it...give me a break it's my first article and I'm 52, I dont speak the cyber language so I don't know how to bullet something. Did that explanation make any sense? Johntomlin 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - as above Onthisday 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -I have just added another source from announcer Kevin Wilson on a play by play for John's match against Tim Haushalter in 2005 and am still seeking permission of reprint for the Richmond Time's article by Lawrence Latane III and the play by play for John's round against Sam Greene in 2006. This meets the requirement for resources and verification. As for encyclopedic format, this is my first article on Wikipedia and if anyone wants to edit it so that it has more suitable content or content arrangement please do so. BY THE BY, HOW DO YOU CHANGE YOUR SCREENAME, THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT AND I WANT IT TO BE Patricia_Brown Johntomlin 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please note duplicate votes by the author. Onthisday 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:Bio 22mon 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you had to place your vote every time you commented on this page, Onthiday, my mistake. Also, after reading the Wp:bio page, I was curious if you could include resources or rather verifying sources that you didn't use. I merely listed all the resources I used, though there are plenty more sources that could verify the information in John's biography.Johntomlin 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore nobody has alerted me as to how I change my screename...this would be most appreciated. 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah nevermind I have found why this article should be deleted, and I personally agree. John maintains notability for his entry into boxing history for being the youngest competitor ever in a Middlweights division class to win a medal, but he will not national fame for his boxing fame until he earns a gold medal in the Virginia Junior Boxing Championships and moves on to the East Coast division championships, which would in turn break another record. I would like to ask if i can resubmit this article upon it's imminent deletion (so far i'm the only one who voted keep) if or rather when John wins a gold medal and earns national recognition as well as the proper signifigance for a Wikipedia article. Johntomlin 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CarInsurance.com[edit]

This article fails to demonstrate CarInsurance.com's notability per WP:WEB. See Talk:CarInsurance.com for details A. B. ^(talk) 07:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like advertising. --Candy-Panda 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no visible notability --BozMo talk 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spam, with no reliable sources provided. This is definitely the type of article that should normally be Speedy Deleted under G11, but the nominator chose the proper course of AfD'ing it due to the strong debate on the talk page. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I had weathered so many personal attacks from 208.30.173.194, I was concerned I might be viewed as acting in bad faith if I requested speedy deletion. That's why I brought it to the wider community. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. —Moondyne 13:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The case laid out by User:A. B. at Talk:CarInsurance.com is persuasive. No-one has offered any reliable sources to show that this company is notable. The article, which reads like an advertising pitch, has also been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. This is the type of article which normally could be speedy-deleted as spam, but in this case is being offered a full-length AfD debate. If the result is Deletion, I suggest that the name be salted due to the past re-creations. EdJohnston 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam 71.70.158.242 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is the editor who added the PROD tag earlier this month.[17] --A. B. ^(talk) 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam: reads like advertising, and the forensic case made out at Talk:CarInsurance.com seems convincing. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if this article is deleted, I will request the domain carinsurance.com be blacklisted; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Outside opinions wanted: CarInsurance.com (January 2007) regarding linking problems with this domain. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally go with a G11, but I'm deferring to the discussion here. Nonetheless, I vote for a Speedy Delete G11. --Dennisthe2 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantive sources have been provided in the article to satisfy WP:WEB. Also, pretty clear spam, thus likely WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep with a strong suggestion to merge this to Three Little Pigs.--Isotope23 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San zhi xiao zhu[edit]

not notable. at least i never heard of it Dontuloveme 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-to Three Little Pigs, as Chinese Wikipedia has. This article appears to be a less than accurate transwiki translation from the Chinese Wikipedia article. The online article cited in the English Wikipedia article appears to be covering the said issue - although a more accurate translation is needed as it is published in Chinese. The issue is not notable enough for its own article and will never have enough content for its own article. Luke! 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. JCO312 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Someone reasonably surefooted in Chinese and English may want to reword this; as written, it's rather confusing. Questions: are there significant differences in Asian versions of the story as opposed to the Western one? Where did the story originate? These things would make the section more interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. Never heard of it. Retiono Virginian 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in singapore and i have heard of it. It defnitnly can be expanded. The news is very hot in taiwan. ~~`~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaiFei (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- To above two editors and nominator, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not subjective: Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as this has no notability as an English term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has reliable sources. WP:N doesn't mention language at all as a criterion. If something is notable, it's notable period, regardless of language. The article could use a better name, sure, but that's a separate issue. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you are responding to my vote, note that the article has been expanded significantly since that time (per CaliforniaAliBaba below). It still lacks context; I've read it several times and I still have no idea what the point is. Vote changed to weak keep. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be missing the point because (IMO) it's a really stupid, pointless controversy in the first place. Basically, chengyu are traditional phrases which reference old literature (sometimes thousands of years old), poetry, folk sayings, etc., and whose meaning isn't readily apparent unless you know the stories behind them. Hence the need for chengyu dictionaries. People who view dictionaries as prescribing correct usage rather than describing existing usage are thus all up in arms about the official national dictionary being polluted with popular culture that lacks time depth. Or to put it in Wiki terms, they think it's fancruft and want it AfD'd. =) (Unfortunately, the above summary qualifies as WP:OR, so I can't put it in the article) ... cheers, cab 07:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and think of a better name. Notable controversy due to non-trivial coverage in many reliable sources [18], including at least one non-local one (Ta Kung Pao). cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded beyond sub-stub and further sources added. cab 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done! I still wonder, though, whether it's going to be easier for uses of the English language Wikipedia to find this if it's merged at the Three Little Pigs article, as opposed to appearing under the current title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe a title like "Three Little Pigs chengyu controversy" or something. So far, the only coverage in English is from Eastsouthwestnorth [19], so it's hard to say what the English name should be. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per cab. If it's notable in itself as a controversy, it's worthy of an article. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above FirefoxMan 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguments to keep based on the news story are ill-founded: news coverage does not equal notability. Notability other than newsworthiness is not proven. Sorry. WMMartin 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that if we were talking about one or two newspaper articles in the Podunk Times on a slow news day, but there's now 131 Google News hits on this. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to four-character idiom (chengyu redirects there). This controversy, at its heart, is not about the Three Little Pigs. It is about what defines the limits of a linguistics term. Its inclusion in the term's article seems appropriate to me. Serpent's Choice 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the prior merge arguments were made when the article was a substub; given the length of the article now, merging to four-character idiom would unbalance that page (though a link from there seems appropriate). Also it isn't purely a linguistic controversy, but also a political one (the dictionary was put online over a year ago, but only started getting news coverage recently, tied in with a scandal with the Ministry of Education head Tu Sheng-cheng's son). cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandford green[edit]

No assertion of notability and appears to be written by a couple of kids about their local neighborhood. Even goes so far as to refer to a couple of people only by their first names (no last names are ever provided for little Adam and Ryan unfortunately). Decent prose though. Quadzilla99 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The street is non-notable. The rest of the article is clearly non-encylopedic and unverifiable. CiaranG 12:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Could become a nice essay about the lifes of some youngsters in a non-notable street though. Kai A. Simon 14:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the title. Not even worth redirect to Banbury. -- RHaworth 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It These two would still be at War. Google search for either Sandford Green Olympics or the trinity war and it brings up hundreds of results. Kizy 28/01/2007

The result was deleting and salting Megameeting.com, Megameetings, and Megameeting. Let me know if I missed any. Luna Santin 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megameeting.com[edit]

Blatant Advertising - creator is under suspicion of being a sockpuppet Andymarczak 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion, obvious spam. Oh, and this is the third time. Salt, anybody? yandman 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s[edit]

Delete, ~~though merge useable content into other articles where appropriate~~. This article is clearly a fork from Culture of California, which is clearly revealed by looking at the edit history of the two articles. This article has no main subject, its connection to the subject stated in the title is tenuous, nor is there a valid reason for forking this article off from the main Culture of California article. (Amazingly, this article was submitted to peer review with the goal of making it a Feature Article!) Peter G Werner 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and deletion are mutualy incompatible. Either you want the content merged, in which case you want it retained, not deleted; or you want the content deleted, in which case you don't want it retained in any article. Please pick one. Uncle G 13:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then. Basically, the article uses as its starting point material that was deleted out of Culture of California for good reason. However, if somebody can make the case that an AfM is a better move than an AfD, I wouldn't necessarily be against the former. Peter G Werner 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much covers what is in Culture of California, or History of California, although I find it hard to beleive that none of the content of this article can be merged into another more suitable article. Agent 86 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well if you don't want something that's already been said in Cultur of Cailifornia to be merged only one thing to do with it Johntomlin 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge please can you merge the articles. I worked very hard on the article, so thy delete. I agree that much of the ninfo is in other articles. Please! at least merge edit? Showmanship is the key 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know, you could always save the latest copy this article to your userspace so you don't lose your work. You can then put some of the material back in to Culture of California. However, I don't think most of it should be merged back in, because much of it simply doesn't have anything to do with that topic. "Culture of California" does not mean "Every random thing I can think of about California". Peter G Werner 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both articles are disorganized messes that require major weed-whacking and reorganization before they can become good encyclopedia overview articles. Use the recent major cleanup of the California article done mostly by user:NorCalHistory as an example. ^Blank ^Verse 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response When or if the article is deleted I will merge informatiion. It just caught me some weeks ago that too much of the information in this article was unneccessary or disorganized I plan this to be a longer article on California culture, but I did not know what exactly to write. All of you are write, alot of ibformation has nothing to do with the title or California culture. Ninety percent of the article is stated in other articles and there's no plot for the article. Some of the information can be merged again, but the article is a mish-mesh of facts, that explains almost nothing or nothing new so this can't be featured. One thing is that some sections in the article I think belong but their are probably other California articles for them. This article pretty much does not belong in wikipedia. Showmanship is the key 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I find myself doing when I want to reorganize something on the Wikipedia, is that I look for something similar that was done well. British African-Caribbean community is a Featured article, and about a third of the article is devoted to "African-Caribbean culture in the United Kingdom". You might use that as a guideline for rewriting the Culture of California article.

Just as one example of problems: The abysmal coverage of California literture in both articles. Where is the mention of Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Mark Twain, and John Muir, for a random selection of early writers about California, and then Kim Stanley Robinson, Philip K. Dick, and Walter Mosley, for another haphazard list of later California writers. ^Blank ^Verse 03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, Delete. This is one of those times when starting fresh is going to be much easier that trying to fix. I could see someone starting a new article with a few pieces of this. NorCalHistory 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is hard to see how content from this article could be merged into the parent article. It might be better to start Culture of California from scratch, based on a good model if there is one, and mine archived versions of both for the usable bits. Since none of the problems with either article seem to result from bad faith, perhaps this could be moved to Talk:Culture of California/1800s to mid 1900s archive, with an invitation to look at it as a resource.--Hjal 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mess. The first paragraph starts at the annexation of California to the United States. Which does not fit the article title makings its start in the 1800s (1800 - 1809). Still within the introduction the subject jumps from the California Gold Rush to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? Only then makes a reference to the "galleons of Spain" and then moves immediately to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, followed in the text by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Not to mention Hollywood, Los Angeles, California and the film industry mentioned it the same paragraph. User:Dimadick

Delete (And this from a hardcore inclusionist.) To me, the article seems a complete pig's breakfast. Take it from public view quickly, before it harms some innocent. Any useful bits in it can be saved in editors' sandboxes and then reintegrated into other articles—preferably articles to which the bits have some actual relationship. For what it's worth, I'm sure that Alfred Hilcock would agree with me. Whyaduck 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is very little salvageable in this article, and I've been concerned about the extensive content taken from single sources since I first encountered this article at WP:LoCE. Starting over is better than attempting a merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfonicron[edit]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS, no reason why a bunch of students performing Gilbert and Sullivan once a year should be intrinsically notable. WP:NFT, remember? Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student and community theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. The university or city's article can, of course, mention such theatre groups. -- Ssilvers 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can show that they have been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. There are many tens of thousands of societies who mount one or more similar productions annually. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Folantin 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthy organisation but not a notable one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no apparent reliable third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly Dog Productions[edit]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS. There are zillions of these small theatre companies, they aren't all notable insofar as most of them do not have non-trivial published references to them from multiple reputable sources, and no reason is given as to why this one is notable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. -- Ssilvers 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among the 17 unique Google hits outside Wikipedia I could only find one reliable source and that was a trivial mention (an arts listing). They are probably very good, but we can't document them because there are no substantive reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Folantin 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthy organisation but not a notable one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Singers[edit]

Previously deleted after a PROD nomination, there is no reason given why a bunch of students who perform Gilbert and Sullivan a couple of times per year should be notable, and no reliable sources provided to support notability. The article is completely unverified. As it stands, it would seem as though their only claim to notability is contributing to the cultural standards of Philadelphia in a minor way, which is no way good enough for inclusion in a reputable encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student and community theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. The university or city's article can, of course, mention such theatre groups. -- Ssilvers 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keepor if the consensus is not to keep, Merge to an article on the University. The group has been the primary subject of over 20 articles since 1990 in the campus newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, per [20]. TheDaily Pennsylvanian is a respected, award winning, independent campus newspaper, published since 1885, with an editorial review board and a policy of edittorial review of stories, which are written by identified reporters. As such, it is not excluded as a reliable source. (See ongoing discussion of campus newspapers at WP:RS.) This establishes verification if any of these articles were added to the article, and shows that they are notable at least within their local community, the university, as much as a town arts group would have verification and local attestation of notability with 20 stories in the noncampus town paper or the local TV station. For a campus arts group (there are 45 at Penn, and I certainly do not advocate articles for every one of them) I would like in addition to see 1 or 2 noncampus reliable, independent and verifiable sources showing that they have more than a local notability. the same as if they were off-campus. If they have only local notability, then per WP:LOCAL the key facts in the article could be greatly condensed and included in the University's article. Saying "delete because it's just a bunch of students" completely fails as an argument for deletion, because it's just the "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. Edison 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - deleting articles because they fail WP:V and WP:RS, however, is completely valid. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Contrary to what Sslivers claims, there is absolutely no statement in WP:MUS orWP:ORG that campus groups are inherently non-notable. They must be judged on their own merits the same as an off-campus musical group. Argue on the merits of the case, not by appeals to nonexistant stipulations in guidelines or proposed guidelines. WP:MUS just expresses the views of several editors, and just a guideline. WP:ORG has less authority, and is just a proposal. WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied, in my view, by the 20 articles listed above. To satisfy WP:N, I would like to see sources in addition to the campus paper, as I said. Edison 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - while I would accept the use of the campus newspaper to verify facts, it seems ridiculous to use that campus newspaper to assert notability on an encyclopedic level. However, I would have no objections to a merge to the article on the University. If there is no other coverage the article should either be deleted or merged. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ssilvers. Seems to be a student club that is no different and no more notable than any other student club. As for a college club being written up numerous times in the college newspaper, I hardly find that surprising. One would expect the student paper to write about student events. While it may verify the existence of the club, I hardly think it makes the club notable. Agent 86 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being surprising isn't a requirement for notability. The guidelines for notability don't exclude college publications. Is our intent here to enforce guidelines or merely opinion about who and what we do and don't consider notable? I am a notability hard-ass, but per guidelines, not per my own opinions. Shaundakulbara 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generic amateur company. Arts listings and local newspaper reviews are not non-trivial reliable sources (trust me, I've written them, even for my own choir). Interesting repertoire, but in the end I see nothing that distinguishes them from tens of thousands of similar groups and no non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not agree that a lengthy story about a group or a review of a performance is somehow more inherently trivial, unreliable, or dependent because it is in a campus paper than if it were in a comparable small town paper, or if it were on an online site devoted to TV shows, rock music, videogames, porn, or other subjects of articles in Wikipedia. It is very fair to argue that the reliable, verifiable and independent coverage still does not show that their notability rises to the level of encyclopedic importance to meet WP:N, but it is not necessary to go the the extent of casting aspersions on or mischaracterizing the source. We have thousands of articles about rock/pop/rap bands which lack even that, and rely on only online coverage and their own websites, and editors seem comfortable keeping those. I just look for the fair treatment of campus papers as a source, howbeit a local one, and a fair judgnment of the notability of campus or community performing arts groups vis a vis teen bands, videogame "athletes," videogame characters, or other entities more appealing to editors of Wikipedia. Edison 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is perfectly fair to use high-class, high-circulation campus papers as sources to confirm information. It would even perhaps be fair to use these campus papers as notability-supporters for matters unrelated to the university. What is not acceptable is to use these campus papers as notability-supporters for matters related to the university, for patently obvious reasons. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Guy "wrote it for my own choir" it was not very independent. There is no evidence that the campus reporters (at least one of whom went on to write for the New York Times) were writing up a choir of which they were a member. I selected articles which did not appear to be reprinted press releases, but independent coverage. A campus paper with an independent editorial board is as about as independent a source for matters on campus as a town newspaper (subject to withdrawal of ad revenue by merchants or to withdrawal of city hall and police dept sources by the Mayor) is for town affairs. I see them exactly as "notability-supporters" for things on a campus, although as I said I like to see non-campus sources to confirm notability as being more than local. Edison 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not doubt that Penn Singers is a good student group and that the campus paper and its reporters are pleased to report on its activities, which are fun for the campus and community to watch. But, as Guy says, there are tens of thousands of student and community theatre groups in the English-speaking world, and, while that is a great thing, they should not each have articles in Wikipedia. However, it would be a great idea to add information about the group to the U. of P. article. Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. Topic appears to meet the primary notability criterion, which is "subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I have yet to see anything in WP:N or other notability guidelines that says college newspapers are unsuitable for determining notability. This is brought up all the time at the WP:N talk page and I haven't seen a consensus that school newspapers should be discounted for notability; note Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_7#School_newspapers, for example. schi ^talk 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the information in Wikipedia, either as a standalone article or by merging or renaming as an article for campus activities. Even if a single group isn't noteworthy, campus activities collectively are, and this article would make a good start for a collection of information on them. Fg2 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. No policy guideline excludes college periodicals such as The Daily Pennsylvanian from establishing notability. Entire articles about various subjects have been based on information from such sources (usually The Harvard Crimson or some such other ivy-league publication, but it is not our role to rate publications within a category). There may be "tens of thousands" of such student groups, just as there have been tens of thousands of ambassadors and generals and battles and movies and so on; this is irrelevant to notability. Shaundakulbara 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability. Fram 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Longstanding and worthy organisation but not a notable one. For comparison the Arbroath Amateur Operatic Society has been performing G&S (as well as other operettas and musicals) since 1903 and it still wouldn't make the cut for the same reasons as the Penn Singers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As usual for these kinds of student societies, no evidence of notability is provided. Existence is not notability. WMMartin 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Existence is not notability. That's true; being, as the Penn Singers are, the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" is notability. schi ^talk 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal West Operatic Society[edit]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS, no sources provided to support notability. No reason why what seems like a very minor Gilbert-and-Sullivan-performing company should be intrinsically notable per se. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke!

Delete per nom Madmedea 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Community theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. -- Ssilvers 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources or evidence that such sources would ever appear. Generic community operatic company. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the information in Wikipedia, either as a standalone article or by merging or renaming as an article for community activities. Even if a single group isn't noteworthy, community activities collectively in a major city can be, and this article would make a good start for a collection of information on them. Fg2 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor, non-notable society. --Folantin 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Longstanding and worthy organisation but not a notable one. For comparison the Arbroath Amateur Operatic Society has been performing G&S (as well as other operettas and musicals) since 1903 and it still wouldn't make the cut for the same reasons as the Montreal West Operatic Society. The only interesting point is that it claims to be the oldest specialist G&S Soc in Canada. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Derek Ross. GreenJoe 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizzo Sports Weekly[edit]

Sports-talk TV show from "Family Life TV", which turns out to be a local cable channel claiming an viewership of "30,000 people in middle Armstrong County" -- not even the entire county, I notice. Another vanity product of longtime self-promoter Mrizzo31 (talk · contribs) (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rizzo), this was PROD tagged in November and deleted, but it's back again and rules demand an explicit thumbs up or thumbs down. Creator has a history of creating speedy-deleted articles and parking the text on his Talk page. Calton | Talk 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:V and WP:RS, and I smell promotion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Despite well-knowing Wikipedia guidelines regarding Civility, I must say that Mrizzo31 (talk · contribs) is an asshole for wasting our time with his disruptive attempts at using our encyclopedia for self-promotion. Shaundakulbara
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Lyric Players[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond the fact that they get funding. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Only 137 Ghits, and if google knows something I don't about multiple non-trivial references to this lot from multiple reputable sources, it's not telling me. No reason why what seems like a minor Gilbert-and-Sullivan-performing troupe should be intrinsically notable: there are plenty of those around. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Community theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. The city's article can, of course, mention such theatre groups. -- Ssilvers 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete endorsing Moreschi's search results. There are a very large number of amateur operatic companies. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information in Wikipedia, either as a standalone article or by merging or renaming as an article for community activities. Even if a single group isn't noteworthy, community activities collectively in a major city can be, and this article would make a good start for a collection of information on them. Fg2 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Folantin 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. However, someone has spent time on this article, and it not just worthless spam. If a short newspaper review or three could be quoted or at least references, I would advise applying very liberal standards regarding notability.Shaundakulbara 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did much websurfing to see if I could find a theatre review or anything about them. They appear in various directories of theater groups but I couldn't find anything else. I don't know how the hell they could be in business for 50 years and stay under the radar. I am amazed at their un-noability. Shaundakulbara 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Longstanding organisation but not a notable one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this organisation is more notable than any of its peers. WMMartin 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic School Etten-Leur[edit]

Pointless spam article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab.popp (talk • contribs)

Delete - Article as is and a quick Google search indicates lack of notabilty. Luke! 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Reads like spam; fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not spam. I think some little Dutch boy may have written it. Unfortunately, this article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and inadequately referenced. WMMartin 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer/Kira Sakuya[edit]

long essay on fictional characters from the Angel Sanctuary manga. It's a long, unsourced, unverifiable version of what's already on Angel Sanctuary#Characters filled with original research and fancruft. Two other Angel Sanctuary character articles have also been nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons, see this and this --`/aksha 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- `/aksha 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally in universe, does not meet WP:FICT. Madmedea 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not enough info or real world relevance to warrant a separate article. Lots of OR, too. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. As this article provides no references, there is nothing here that should be merged. Shaundakulbara 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiel[edit]

unsourced essay about some fictional character from Angel Sanctuary. Slightly longer version of what's already on the Angel Sanctuary#Characters article, but with more fancruft and more original research. Two other Angel Sanctuary character articles have also been nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons, see this and this --`/aksha 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- `/aksha 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally in universe, does not meet WP:FICT. Madmedea 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the work it is part of; according to WP:FICT characters in fiction do not need their own article until they become notable in their own right. Tarinth 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not have significant real world relevance to warrant a whole article to this character. -- Ned Scott 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that Ai Orikasa played that role. I love Ai. Just redirect duplicate of a section in the main article, no afd needed. I wish I still had the "Encyclopedia of Angels". I think this one's just a made-up name for this series, though I'm not 100% positive. The series was very popular around the millenium and there are a lot of vestitigal pages from them still hanging around. --Kunzite 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. As this article provides no references, there is nothing here that should be merged. Shaundakulbara 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been subsequently restored now that sources were found for the article (as that was the issue that was judged on this AFD). This AFD does not make the article qualify for speedy G4 deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take new arguements to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), not reopen this one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Social Dynamics[edit]

Fails to establish notability according to WP:CORP. Luke! 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. The links it provides are either owned owned by the company or have nothing to do with it. This a blatant advertisement and these rats linked to their own website twice in the intro. Shaundakulbara 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, rats?! Do remember WP:CIVIL, also there is not a link to the RSD website twice in the intro. There is only one, at the same time while it is being mentioned. Which is completely valid to be used there in that manner, even adds to the article as opposed to being without it. So far as notability and verifiable sources go, did you read the whole article before proposing it for deletion? Or is the The Times not good enough for you? Here is one quote from a Times article, "Tyler Durden (according to Strauss and several hundred websites) is one of the most polished PUAs in the world, with routines for every occasion. No woman, allegedly, can resist him."Mathmo ^Talk 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Shaundakulbara. THE KING 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, one of the most famous companies in this area. I'd agree it does need to be improved somewhat, but I won't just say that. I'm going to start tidying it up a little bit right now. Mathmo ^Talk 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Comment, it isn't quite as bad as I thought it might be now I've read through the article again. Mainly just isn't written in the style you would want of a FA. But the actual content in the article isn't so bad. I'm adding the article to my watchlist now, I think if a watch isn't kept over it the quality of the article would fall. Or so it would seem from the history of it perhaps. Mathmo ^Talk 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Those defending this are also hard at work defending PickUp 101, which is only slightly more notable. I haven't nominated it for deletion yet, but it might be best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked, what is this that I see... not stalking I'll pressume?!?! Mathmo ^Talk 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The actions elsewhere of those defending this page have no bearing on whether this page should be deleted or not. --SecondSight 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself contains verifiable citations of "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". As mentioned earlier, there is the citation from The Times (a national newspaper), which mentions 'Tyler Durden' and 'Papa' by name. [21] They are also notorious and frequently-mentioned in the former Thundercat's Seduction Lair blog, which is also well-known within the community [22] [23] [24] [25]. If you are unhappy with the quality of the article, rewrite it or flag it for rewriting. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 13:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those reasons Sasuke Sarutobi puts forth are all good reasons why it should be kept, and shows just one aspect of why I'm so surprised this is on AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One newspaper reference and a set of blog references don't constitute evidence of notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When that newspaper reference is The Times and in it The Times are even mentioning themself that he is claimed to be one of the great in the world then it certainly has done well in establishing notability. This is not Eketahuna's local rag that we are talking about here.... Mathmo ^Talk 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One refernce is one reference; the identity of the newspaper is irrelevant (even if the Times weren't just a disguised tabloid nowadays). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only reference, and the standard of the newpaper is not "irrelevant". Imagine for a moment an article which only had an article from Waikikamukau's paper as a reference and nothing else could be found. Then I'd have a chuckle over it, and then delete it. I wouldn't be so hasty and on automatic if it was based on an article in The Economist for instance. Besides, there is more to refences than what is just under the sub heading "references". There are references contained inside the main text of the article, and the references themselves contain references. Such as The Times article itself mentioning how there are literally (in their words) "hundreds" of websites to do with Tyler Durden. Mathmo ^Talk 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a frivolous AFD. The article has three sources, one of which is linked to for easy access, and one of which is a New York Times bestselling book. The book establishes notability (though it may not be the best source for verifiable information on this subject), and the Times article provides verifiability (notwithstanding the personal opinion of some editors on the quality of the Times). All this being said, the article is currently not written from a neutral point of view and needs to be rewritten; it sounds too promotional. The article should have been flagged with a POV tag, not an AFD. Part of the problem is that people affiliated with the company have often engaged in vanity-type whitewashing of the article. --SecondSight 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is difficult to establish notability of entities within the seduction community, as its existence within the World Wide Web is mainly blogs, commercial sites and discussion boards. It is perfectly feasible that entities are notable within their community, but little-known outside. What is more, the youth and nature of the seduction community itself, as well as the aims of its members, mean that there are few independent written publications in the same way that there are for many other such communities.

Nonetheless, there will be ways to measure notability. I will accept that Real Social Dynamics and its founders, Tyler Durden and Papa, are not the direct subject of The Times article cited. However, they are well-known in the seduction community, so I think this debate should have to come to some other criteria for notability in the seduction community. Do not think that I'm trying to change the rules just so that what should be a non-notable article can stay; I believe that the rules do not adequately support as distinct a sub-culture as the seduction community, and that subjects that are notable enough within this sub-culture that they should have a presence here are being knocked aside.

My first proposition would be the mention of a person or entity within Neil Strauss' book The Game. I've not yet read the book myself, but from what I know of it, it appears to be an authoritative work on the English-speaking seduction community. I shall purchase a copy at my first opportunity.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neil Strauss' book is a work of fiction. Some of the characters are "composite characters" and timelines are crunched down to make the book more readable. It is listed as "Fiction", as opposed to "Biography" for those reasons, and is not a useable source for a wiki entry beyond than to say "Tyler and Papa were characters of the actual book." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.209.184.127 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The beginning of the book states that:

“

In order to protect the identity of some women and members of the community, the nicknames and identifying characteristics of a small number of incidental characters in this book have been changed, and three minor characters are composites.

”

The number 'some' you were talking about is three. Identities have of course been changed, as this is a controversial work. As for you noting that 'it is listed as "Fiction", as opposed to "Biography"'; I direct you to the Amazon.com entry and Amazon.co.uk entry for the book. Scrolling to near the bottom of the page will find the book listed, not under fiction, but 'biographies & memoirs', 'nonfiction', even 'social studies'. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting. I found the book in the Fiction section. I suppose I'm somewhat skeptical of Strauss' perspective as shortly after releasing his book he proceeded to start a competing business (www.only375.com) charging $3,750 for his DVD set. When I participate in the editing of a wiki, my intentions are to keep it as neutral and accurate as possible. If one business decides to write a slander piece against another, even if in a "legitimate book", it's not really what I'm looking for as far as a base for the article. If this article is to be re-written it should be based on RSD's ideas and philosophies.

Wouldn't go so far as to call it a work of slander. I believe the critical aspects of them has been dealt by putting it into a seperate sub section called "Criticism". On the flip side, another point to consider is that Mystery wasn't exactly portrayed overly favourably in the book by Neil Strauss. Yet Mystery has done very well from the publishing of the book and they both still remain good friends of each other. Likewise I'd suggest that everybody who was mentioned did better of than if they hadn't been mentioned regardless of if they were portrayed favourably or not. Mathmo ^Talk 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4, unformatted portion of content deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Memento of The Beatles. GRBerry 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Road Memento[edit]

This is a substantial recreation of a previously deleted page: The Last Memento of The Beatles. It is created to support authenticity claims for a piece of Beatles merchandise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidFarmbrough (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely devoid of WP:RS cites, especially of its claim of notability and that it exists at all. DMacks 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a straight up repost of legitimately AfDd material, it may be "shot on sight", see ((db-repost)). 68.39.174.238 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previously-delete page did indeed go as a result of AfD...need an admin to check if the current one is indeed close enough for speedy per 68.39.174.238. DMacks 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It not even unwikified and might even be part of a hoax to sell something on eBay or something. I hate articles like this. Shaundakulbara 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus, per references. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasani Turkish language[edit]

The correct term for this entry is Quchani Dialect – this term is absolutely imaginary (including the map and Flag!) even the citation from late Gerhard Doerfer, confirms as Quchani Dailect – the article's other source is Sultan Tulu, who is not recognised as a scholar by Western standards, due to his ultra-Pan Turkist and provocative articles. Surena 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator --Rayis 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for examination by independent experts. This looks like a content dispute inappropriate for AfD. The nominator apparently contests the reliability of the two cited sources; WorldCat confirms that, at minimum, they exist. [26][27] -Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to Bad Faith Nomination - Nominator appears to be attempting to end a content dispute via AfD, which is wholly inappropriate. I'd also like to mention that this appears to be happening somewhat frequently with Middle East-related (particularly Turkish) articles, such as Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Perhaps we need WikiMiddleEast peace talks or something. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tack on a 1 week user ban for Surena as well - Upon further examination, I realize that the two bad-faith AfDs I linked to were nominated by Surena as well. To top it off, the user is arguing for deletion of a Wikimedia Commons image because "There is no such a flag exists in UN list of Flags". The user has been warned, clearly, that AfD is not for content disputes. This is clear POV-pushing and should not be humored or even tolerated. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Yukichigai -- I'm sure you can find relevant pages to nominate me for execution, or to be banned for 1 week, 1 month or forever; or report me, for placing the request for deletion wrongly, which still I don’t know what is the fuss about AfD – I am not a bureaucrat but an educator! Anyhow, the purpose of this specific page is to vote whether the article should be deleted or otherwise; - thus try to come up with an intellectual reasoning, as to why this article should be kept, rather than bombarding us with abbreviations. Surena 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly include discussion as to language's status as a dialect. It has its own entry in the Ethnologue [28]. The map was created using the descriptions in the Ethnologue and in Doerfer. I have no idea where the flag is from, though. If this article is to be deleted, then the material ought to be associated with some other article. Straughn 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nomination. It has an entry in the ethnologue. Baristarim 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. The source "Ethnologue" is a private and commercial company website with no academic credentials. I have been accused of targeting Turkish oriented articles, that is not true. I am against Turkey-ish propaganda machine -- Unfortunately these articles are fictitious and propagated by some individuals who are in quest for a false identity, by preying on other nations’ historical achievements as theirs – It seems this has become a habit of nationalist myth-making, like Himmler's Tibetan Aryans, French Gauls or King Fuad's Pharaonism; Ataturk’ government first laid claim over Hittite Empire as the ancient Turks, and when Germans point out to him, about their Indo-European race, they laid claim over Macedonians, Sumerians, then Scythians, Parthians, Germans, Etruscans … and now these fictitious entries. Be happy with what you are – what is the point of creating a false identity, when the truth will eventually prevail? The concept of this article is equivalent in creating an article called Los-Angeles -Turkish Language, since immigrant Turks live in Los-Angeles -- The entry therefore is POVs, and politically motivated. Surena 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your statement above carries much more POV and confused notions than what you are blaming the others for, I am sorry to say. "by preying on other nations’ historical achievements as theirs"? Please.. Besides, you seem to be confused with your research as well: Ataturk never said that Hitites were ancient Turks (as "Turks" of Central Asia) - he said that the "Turks" of today are the descendants of all those peoples that have lived in and migrated to Anatolia since the Hitites. In fact, that's perfectly in line with the academic studies. I know that there is a lot of half-truths and character assassinations going around all over the Internet, but please do your research better. Baristarim 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not so confusing for an educated person; However, read Ataturk’s speech at the opening of Parliament in 1936 regarding Hittites! You don’t even known your own history? Surena 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Read Geoffrey Lewis's The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success, Oxford University Press (2000). It is enlightening. Surena 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This user nominated two articles for deletion, and those AfDs were closed as speedy keep because they were bad-faith nominations as User:Yukichigai pointed out above. In those AfDs, he had spammed more than thirty users with AfD notices. He nominated an image at the Commons just because he feels that it is "provocative". After the first two AfDs, he was warned by many users, but he is continuing to spam the talk pages of users who he feels will be sympathetic to his "cause" [29]. I suggest strongly that this AfD be closed as speedy keep for being a bad-faith nomination. Baristarim 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informing one person is being considered as Spam? Please consult an English dictionary for meaning of Spam. Surena 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do you one better: consult Wikipedia for the definition of spam. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did – but have you? Who am I dealing with -- Bunch of school kids? Is this the extent of your intellectual reasoning, that I’ve asked you to come up with? Surena 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really, really isn't helping your case. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole by attacking other Wikipedians, myself or otherwise. The fact is, soliciting input on other articles (or directly from users) on an AfD is considered "vote spamming", is wrong, and clearly prohibited. You have been warned about it before, and you're doing it again. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, internal spamming/canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians, which is not the case with this particular AfD. Asking for input from one or two Wikipedians who are familiar with the subject matter, without telling them how to vote, is not prohibited. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Mardavich 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still falls well into the bounds of WP:CANVASS, especially given that the user has been explicitly and clearly directed not to do that. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichigai -- As I told you before, this page is dedicated to gain votes regarding "Khorasani Turkish language" article. If you have something intelligent to contribute, please do so – otherwise - Wikipedia is not a forum or discussion group – If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Surena 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch for civility. Baristarim 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?,there are indeed people that in Iran that are known as "Khorasani turks" (they are very respectable gentlemen and have done lots of contributions to they society and have strong patriotic feelings towards Iran) and I heard that Mr. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is a Khorasani Turk. but I don't think they speak something very different than Azeri. The question is whether it is a dialect or language. and by the way the map and figures is totally imaginative and without source and must be deleted.--Pejman47 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pejman -- Thanks for the vote and inputs. With regard to Qalibaf, actually his father (Hossein) was a Khorasani-Kurd and his mother is a Persian from Mashhad. Surena 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge The content should be merged into Azeri language, this is a dialect not a separate language. --Mardavich 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable [30], [31].--Solent 08:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has already been established that the "Ethnologue" website, amnd this new source “Ataturk.com”, are both private and commercially based websites. Scholarly sources required (Such as UCLA Language Materials Project, etc)

Comment - Actually, no. Wikipedia has no requirement for sources to be "scholarly". It does have a requirement that they be reliable, but both the above sources meet the reliability requirements easily. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have your ever read RS, before quoting it to me, and shooting yourself in the leg? Thanks for proving my point :) -- Surena 21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichigai, I'm afraid you're wrong again. You should familiarize yourself with WP:RS, websites like ataturk.com are not considered reliable sources. --Mardavich 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have provided evidence to back that claim. So far the two sites check out fine. Ethnologue is simply the web version of a published textbook, which is considered notable and (reasonably) reliable, evidenced by the Wikipedia article on it. Ataturk is a non-profit organization which has been in existence for 10 years, which (from what I can find on it) exists merely to provide information on Turkey and Turkish-related topics. I fail to see how either fails WP:RS, as I can find plenty of qualifying reasons, but none to disqualify either as a source. Unless you can provide some clear reason why they should be excluded your "arguments" (such as they are) would seem null and void. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources, ataturk.com does not qualify as a reliable source. None-profit or not, the webiste has no declared editorial policy or any recognition by other reliable sources, the material on the website is neither signed nor written by academic experts or anyone notable, and the website's name and fan dedication to Atatürk suggests some sort of pan-Turk bias. --Mardavich 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA's online library lists ataturk.com as a useful source of information, and the BBC has linked to the site for readers to get more information on Kemal Atatürk. That's not one but two reliable sources which recognize the source. Sounds plenty reliable to me. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, ataturk.com is not a reliable source pr all the other reasons I already outlined, it's just a fan website of Atatürk as notable and reliable as any other random fan website of a former king or president that could be set up by anyone from anywhere in the world, the website doesn't even have a declared editorial policy or a listed author, let alone an academic expert. It's pretty obvious that ataturk.com is not a reliable source, you seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing. --Mardavich 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without an academically published paper validity question can not be solved. The author of the page has the responsibility to bring that forward. I'm not an expert, but none have found a peer review literature on the subject? One paper, that is all it takes. Thanks. OttomanReference 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very wisely said -- Thank you. Surena 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We've been over this; Ethnologue, an academic reference book, has an entry for the language. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Do you know what the word "academic" means? Do you ever read the pages that you quote from -- or you just have the habit of going around and shooting yourself in the leg? Ethnologue is not an academic establishment. However few entries from that page that you have kindly equipped us with:

The neutrality of Ethnologue as a scientific institution is sometimes disputed.
Ethnologue contains its fair share of errors.
SIL, the foundation behind Ethnologue has been accused of being involved in politics.

Finally, this is my last reply to your comments, as I have no more time to waste with you on this subject – believe what you want to believe, as “You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink”. Surena 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a remarkable talent for attempting to change the rules you yourself set forth in the middle of the discussion. You ask for a scholarly source, and despite the fact that WP:RS and WP:V do not have such a requirement (merely an option to meet the inherant requirements set forth) you are provided with one. Then you declare it invalid because "it isn't an academic institution". It is an academic reference book, used by many schools and learning institutions, created by an organization that when it first published the book was a school. I don't know what you call "academic", but that fits the term just fine by me. Incidentally, the phrase you're looking for is, "shooting yourself in the foot," not leg. Also, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The nominator has given no argument for deletion. Even if this article were incorrectly named, the remedy would be renaming, not deletion. As for sources, we have Doerfer's 1993 book and Tulu's doctoral thesis, both cited in the article, and the Ethnologue entry. Spacepotato 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to BAD-FAITH NOMINATION User:Surena's contribution summary reveals this clearly. He had already done this kind of bad faith nominations twice [32][33]. I support User:Yukichigai's comment that Surena should be banned until he promises to stop these kind of bad-faith nominations. Regards. E104421 16:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move, I have not heard the people that speak this language, but I highly doubt that it is an independent language (not a dialect or even accent of common Azeri). It needs more source, without that I suggest moving it to "Khorasani Azeri Dialect" --Pejman47 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional left-handed characters[edit]

I'm doing this again after trying it last year. I'd sort of given up last year as I thought it might be significant to some characters and was going to improve. The first is still possible, but I'm skeptical it's improved enough in the last years. BTW: I'm left-handed myself with some ambidextrous tendencies.--T. Anthony 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the AfD at the page is not linking to here, but is instead pointing to the previous AfD. I hope someone can fix that.--T. Anthony 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the formatting issues. Sam Blacketer 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about deleting every character without an explanation of the significance of their left-handedness, and hence not notable even to the work of fiction itself? As pointed out on the Talk page, it may just happen that the actors themselves are left-handed. I'm not sure how to go about verifying each one though. Pomte 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to see the point of this, and the notion is vague (far vaguer than the handedness of real people, which is itelf imprecise). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. First, based upon AFD precedent for similarly formatted articles such as the former list of "alleged continuity issues" with Star Trek: Enterprise, this list is considered original research and unsourced as it currently stands (yes, I know the films/TV shows are primary sources, but that doesn't seem to meet criteria for such lists). Second, and more important for me, a quick glance reveals that the vast majority of the items listed here are simply anecdotal based upon the fact a left-handed actor happened to be playing the role, not that there is actual point raised that the character is left handed. (A good example being Dr. Doolittle; was the character specifically written as a left-handed character? Is there actual reference in dialogue to his left-handedness being an issue?) 23skidoo 12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did not see any real reason for deletion stated in the nomination. According to WP:LIST, a list is good if it is organized and provides helpful annotation; this list is easily verifiable. Tarinth 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LIST and the like. No reason for nomination given - I can't seem to conjure any up either. WilyD 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), as this is a stand-alone. "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Left-handedness is a fairly common trait. In addition on including names in lists it says "If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" What characters here would be less famous or significant if they were right-handed? Maybe there are a few, but is it enough to justify the list?--T. Anthony 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from WP:LIST Information

The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

Navigation

Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Delete because it's a list is not a valid criterion. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. WilyD 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, and 23skidoo's argument about actor/character confusion is also persuasive. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's non-encyclopedic trivia. WP:LIST is a style guide, not a content policy. Agent 86 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, WP:LIST is not a style guide, but that aside, non-encyclopaedic trivia is a pretty bizzare statement. Care to explain how you arrived at such an unfathomable conclusion? WilyD 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that he meant that it's trivia and thus not encyclopædic. That's only a guess based on the words that he used, of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but comment As it stands, the article appears to be completely unreferenced, which on its own is reason for deletion if that isn't corrected. Assuming references can be found, the list should be limited to characters whose articles make notable mention of the fact they are left handed. In fact, such fictional characters probably do exist; there are cases, I think, where authors intentionally make a character left-handed to make some sort of statement or to provide a physical juxtaposition against right-handed characters. Left-handedness also has a historical stigma that might be referenced by some authors.

So basically if the article can be referenced and eliminates characters who aren't mentioned as being notably left-handed in their article, then I'd be more inclined to keep at that point. Dugwiki 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is possible and doable I might consider withdrawing. I would've just placed "verify", or something, if I felt that was likely. Still anything is possible I guess.--T. Anthony 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration I think an article on left-handedness in fiction would be a better way to go than even a different kind of list on the topic. I don't think this is an area where there is a systemic bias needing the kind of help a list can provide. It's also not a situation where there already is an article Left-handedness in fiction and this list is a supplement to it.--T. Anthony 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article with an arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Edison 07:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would develop Dugwiki's point: only a few characters are left-handed for some reason related to the plot of the story they appear in; most are left-handed because the actor playing them is left-handed. This makes it a mere list of coincidences and not truly encyclopædic. If a character's left-handedness is intrinsic to a plot, then that can be noted elsewhere, but not in a list such as this. Sam Blacketer 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're pretty much in agreement, Sam. I think in theory you could maybe construct an interesting article about characters who their author made left-handed for artistic or philosophical reasons. The topic might make a good sub-topic of Left-handed. But as written the current list article pretty much needs a complete redo to cull characters who are coincidentally lefthanded and to provide references for any notable ones worth keeping and for analysis. Dugwiki 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may need an overhaul, but this is one of the more interesting articles and part of what I like about Wikipedia. I recognize that that might not stand as a valid argument in some people's eyes, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete it.--GlitchBob dbug 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with GlitchBob. It could use an overhaul and some sources, but it shouldn't be outright deleted. I don't see how the page being "trivial" is a good reason to delete it. There are plenty of trivial articles on Wikipedia, and that's what makes the site cool. Strummer42 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [Note User's fourth edit.][reply]
Keep. I agree with the two above sentiments. --209.193.46.114 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the entries are sourced, and there are far too many entries saying "(insert character) was seen using their left hand once" or "uses their left hand in some scenes, and their right hand in others", which don't really make the character left-handed. Lots of original research abounds as well. WarpstarRider 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Strummer and GlitchBob. The list hurts no one, and as a left handed person it is interesting to read about left handed characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BtVSFan (talk • contribs). [Note User's first and only edit.]

The main issue isn't whether or not the topic is interesting. It's that the article needs to be sourced, and unverifiable information needs to be deleted. Lacking sources, the article should be deleted and later recreated if and when those problems can be addressed. Dugwiki 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and arbitary list. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per BtVSFan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedius Zanarukando (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I am willing to work with others on overhauling and cleaning up the article, which I've spent much time helping to create already, but I feel that much of the content is still valuable and doesn't need to be deleted outright. ShadowHare 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was since re-listing, article does not exist for discussion to take place. Luke! 13:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Denton[edit]

Ross Denton Have a look at the article and you decide what to do with it :S Gab.popp 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article does not exist. Luke! 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Edens (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. No explanation of notability, deprodded twice with no explanation, google hasn't heard of the band members[34]. Weregerbil 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that they meet WP:BAND. Google doesn't seem to have heard of the band either, discounting the Wikipedia article. CiaranG 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Also conflict of interest, as creator of the article is a band member. Prolog 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non notable articles should be tagged for speedy deletion. Instead of going through a debate like this one. Retiono Virginian 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article contains two (very weak) assertions of notability; performances and one member's other band. Prolog 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND; playing at one club and a mention of another band that has no assertion of its own notability make this as close to speediable as it gets. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad Mouse[edit]

I'm just not sure about the notability of this play and whether it deserves an entry. I've dug around on google and found very little reference to the play (other than the fact it exists) and no further information on it. For this reason, the information given in the article looks like original research and the plot summary is directly copied from the website that is linked to. To me this warrants deletion Madmedea 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 14:32, 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, Daniel.Bryant 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If sourced, keep. Otherwise, redirect to Eric Sykes without deleteing history. This Telegraph article describes it as "Sykes finest hour", and he is clearly a notable comedian. GRBerry 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see much evidence of notability, and a line in the article also claims much of the text is "taken from a website listing", raising likely copyvio issues. Seraphimblade 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yesenia Foundation[edit]

Mediocre information. The high school the foundation is supposedly in is not even named. Sources are lacking and information on the foundation cannot even be found. Furthermore, Yesenia is not even given a last name. This is a nonsense article and does not deserve to be kept. LethalAmbition 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N.--155.144.251.120 02:37, 19 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, ST47Talk 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. A quick Google and LexisNexis turned up nothing. -SpuriousQ 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and inadequately referenced. WMMartin 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Huntington[edit]

Autobiography by a wrestler who is not well known enough to have their own wikipedia profile Hiptossrana 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Weak Delete: i would like to see this article merged into the United Kingdom Wrestling Alliance. Though Huntington on his own isnt notable, he was a major part in the development of the promotion, that would become part of Revolution British Wrestling's nationwide territory system, and now has owns all the names and likeness under his AndiMedia. But your right he wasnt a notable enough independent star to deserve his own article (note:the article was created by himself) --- Paulley 10:55, 19 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, ST47Talk 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article that indicates notability. Unless we are to have articles on all pro wrestlers (which I think we should not), we shouldn't have this one - he's done nothing special, no championship or stardom or anything like that. Herostratus 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be unreferenced and unverified. Myspace pages are unfortunately not valid references - it needs to be an independent, published source. If such references can be provided to verify the info, then I'll be more inclined to keep. Dugwiki 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete and redirect. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual series[edit]

From the article, A virtual series is an unproduced series of teleplays, TV scripts, stories, which a screenwriter, or a group of screenwriters, post onto the internet, either as an unauthorized continuation of an ended, existing series, as fanfiction for an existing series which may still be in production, or in some cases, as a completely original creation of the writer(s) that simply hasn't found a network audience. In other words, they are unproduced scripts made by screenwriters, posted onto the internet as fanfiction for a niche market. This article tries to demonstrate the notability of the term, yet fails to provide examples of famous virtual series. The most famous one appears to be Buffy, however the series already have an article at Buffyverse (fan films). The article mentions a site that hosts a lot of scripts, but an article about it and related topics was deleted due Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Zero Productions. The article has had a section of "How to do it yourself" since a month ago. I suggest deleting this article due lack of notability. At worst, redirect it to Fan fiction. ReyBrujo 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then Redirect to Fan fiction to discourage re-creation. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, with language like "Have you ever come up with an idea that you think is just as good or better than anything you've seen on television?" Ugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above, as this really is nothing more than a visual form of fanfic. If it's not discussed in the Fan fiction article, perhaps something could be added there on this topic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is apparently a distinction between fan fiction and a virtual series (according to the entry anyway) which is that a virtual series can be an entirely original creation. That distinction may warrant a separate entry. Of course, it still needs a major edit to Wikify it any get rid of the painfully bad language. JCO312

I tried to do a quick edit to remove the worst parts of it, but of course, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be deleted. JCO312 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, but I would not oppose a merge with fan fiction, as that's really all it is, outside of creative labelling. TheRealFennShysa 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It seems to be an interesting variation on a topic there with a great deal of WP material, and well written.DGG 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 18:27, 23 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, ST47Talk 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fanfiction, I'm seeing nothing to merge. Despite the list of links at the bottom I didn't see any that could be used as references for the subject. QuagmireDog 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect as per above. Madmedea 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Re-Write. Virtual series exist, they're popular on YouTube and such, they don't have to be fan-made, and can be of any genre. Such as lonelygirl15. Pink moon 1287 ^{(email • talk • user)} 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was REDIRECT to KCET. TigerShark 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA Stories[edit]

This article is a description of a sub-section of a television station's website - the topic is unencyclopeadic WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO Madmedea 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KCET. Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB on its own, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any useful information, and redirect per Andrew Lenahan. Trebor 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. EdJohnston 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced, no objection to redirect. Addhoc 14:41, 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, ST47Talk 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notbale. if all sub-sections of news programs were on wikipedia it would just be a mess. --Tainter 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Avenue, Melbourne[edit]

A non-notable avenue in Malvern East, Victoria, Australia. The only saving grace is the unverified claim that it has the "highest-placed street sign in Victoria after several signs were stolen, presumably by fans of the band Nirvana". Might be worth a minor mention in the main article on Malvern East if the information can be verified, but this article as it stands isn't likely to expand much beyond its' current Stub status. -- Longhair\^talk 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Grahamec 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Kyriakos 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not like this is ACDC Lane, Melbourne. --Nick Dowling 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ire & Sentiment[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC I removed prod thinking the band had toured nation on the Warped Tour but further investigation revealed the article was misleading and they played only one date on that tour. I don't see any other criteria for notablilty hence the nomination Ccscott 12:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news coverage, it seems. Fails WP:MUSIC, as far as I can tell. -SpuriousQ 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. 135 Google hits is very unimpressive too. Prolog 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like band is a noteable New Jersey band.. such as Hidden In Plain View etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.49.224 (talk • contribs)
- Hidden plain view is signed to drive thru-records a notable punk label,and has played 24 dates on the warped tour, as well as done some internetional touring. This band is unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.160.205 (talk • contribs)

The result was redirect to Seeker Wireless. If someone finds any of the infomation that they think can be merged, just take a look through the history. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grill[edit]

Vanity bio of a not-particularly notable salesman. Loaded with references quoting him, not about him. A product of Andrewgrill (talk · contribs). PROD tag added, but removed by user. Calton | Talk 12:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Merge per below absolutely no notability shown Glen 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am claiming notability via the alternate test by the "search engine test" method.

Wiki Search Engine Test for notability

Please feel free to try this should you then argue this test fails then I'm happy to move the page to the user page but my 1st experience of Wikipedia has not been very nice - thanks for the warm welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewgrill (talk • contribs) 24 January 2007.

Please see my comments on your talk Glen 12:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Seeker Wireless, if there is anything remotely useful to merge, or just delete. The sources relied on, excluding those created by the subject himself, are not about the subject but about companies or products he is connected to: he has been mentioned in the mass media but only as the particular person the reporter happens to be taking the statement from. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Re-Direct to Seeker Wireless - per Thebainer. All the media he has on the media section of his website is mostly about technologies arising from this companies and not his accomplishments. Luke! 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:N, WP:Bio, WP:Auto. BTW, I couldn't find too much notability when searching the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the discussion and suggestions - much more constructive than just saying it's all about vanity. Please help me with the merge and redirect command.

Delete Only 692 hits on Google when doing a phrase search --East1234 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. Addhoc 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing property in France[edit]

This is either thinly disguised spam or a copyright violation, see http://www.est8net.com Jvhertum 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - an exemplary candidate for db-speedy. Marasmusine 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nominator. Lifted from http://www.est8net.com/rehowto.htm. Luke! 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls tours[edit]

Is Wikipedia a gig guide now? The encyclopaedic content of this article is: The Cheetah Girls went on tour. A link to the tour on their website will fulfill the desire of those who wish to look at the list of tour dates. Status Quo have been touring since the mid 19th Century and we don't have an article on their tours, this is a level of detail which is entirely inappropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most definitely non-encylopaedic. Madmedea 13:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete this appears to be an indiscriminate collection of (trivial) information about a notable band.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the actual information about the tours to the band's main article, recounting the tours the band has done does make a certain amount of sense, I think. Recounting a band's history is something many such articles do. A general "history" section may be preferable, but that's a matter to work out on the article's talk page. Delete the dates /locations for the tour, though, that's not needed.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia; it is a de facto collection of specialized encyclopedias (biographical, geographical, historical, music, film, television, etc.) where in each of these areas the articles typically go into far more detail than those in any general encyclopedia would. Referring to music, we already have articles on every album and often every single that recent artists have put out, so this ship has sailed. Concert tours articles are already an established practice on Wikipedia; as Category:Concert tours shows, there are some 350 of them currently. They describe the notable characteristics of particular tours, in the same manner that album and singles articles do of particular recordings. See Zoo TV Tour or Music Box Tour or Phish tours for some examples. Could the Cheetah Girls tours article be improved? Sure, but that by itself is no reason for deleting it. Wasted Time R 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Wastsed Time. I mean, it is encylopedic. And yes, it could be improved, but hey, look at the tag at the top. The artivle is in progress. It was onced merged with The Cheetah Girls (girl group) but was then made into its own article, when the first article became to crowded. People may want to know this information, and it needs to stay. Jtervin 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't expect to vote this way until I read the article. It isn't just list of concerts, there is considerable info that is specific to the tour rather being just general Cheetah Girls info. I am very bothered by the complete lack of verifiable sources, but that isn't grounds for deletion as the Cheetah Girls' notability is far beyond doubt. A merger is out of the question given the size of the articles in question. Shaundakulbara 08:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more info the better when it comes to notable musical configurations. The lack of sources is a problem, but not sufficient to delete - otherwise we could just have a bot that excises every article without references (roughly half the encyclopedia). We have hundreds of articles on concert tours. In fact, certain bands, such as the Rolling Stones, have their own cats with multiple articles on their tours. See Category:The Rolling Stones tours. Perhaps the nom was not familiar with our coverage in that area. The nom complains that we lack an article on Status Quo tours since the "mid 19th century". I fail to see the connection with the Cheetah Girls, but my response to that type of argument is: (i) unfortunately our coverage is far from complete. This is an ongoing project; (ii) suggest that someone create a Staus Quo Tour article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Festivals and concerts (although since the band apparently formed in 1962, it may not be necessary to look much further than the 20th century). --JJay 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napster architecture[edit]

WP:NOR violation, non notable, if anything info merged into Napster → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, NN technical info. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This info is notable, but not worthy of its own article. Merge info into Napster article. Also not clear why nom says "NOR vio". Yes, it could use references, but I'm sure they exist. Matchups 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing here is sourced and there is nothing here that should be merged. Having not even wikified it, its author hasn't earned this article a rescue attempt from fellow editors. Shaundakulbara 08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete all, merge could be done but wouldn't need afd. W.marsh 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Wars contestants[edit]

101 (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beast of Bodmin (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behemoth (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bigger Brother (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bulldog Breed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chaos 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crushtacean (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dantomkia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Derek (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Díotóir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil Weevil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Firestorm Robot Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gemini (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gravity (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hypno-Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Killertron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
King Buxton Robot Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milly Ann Bug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mortis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Napalm (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nemesis (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Panic Attack (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plunderbird Robot Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Psychosprout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Razer (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recyclops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roadblock (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roger Plant Robot Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spikasaurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Storm II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Steel Avenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tornado (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tough as Nails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Typhoon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wedge flipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite being threatened with a previous deletion nomination last year (which failed to reach consensus), most of these articles still have longstanding ((stub)), ((wikify)), ((verify)), ((sources)), and other cleanup templates. The prospect of any of these articles being updated grows increasingly dim. More seriously, though, none of these meet Wikipedia's principal criterion for notability—namely, multiple, independent published sources; for this reason alone they should be deleted. —Psychonaut 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete individual articles as they do not meet WP:N or WP:V. Any "interesting" information could be added (i.e. main types of robots etc.) into the main Robot Wars articles. Madmedea 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article, 20 articles is too many, and that article will probably need a cleanup tag, but i think it can be pulled off. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete all, do not merge. Merging information that fails to meet WP:N or WP:V will just result in one worthless, unencyclopaedic article instead of 20. Proto::► 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We should definatley merge them. I agree with Poorleno. Daniel10 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the principle ground that this is the entire section that is trying to be deleted. If individual robots were up such as the very minor ones then fine delete them but surly you cannot delete article on the champions and world champions such as chaos 2, razer and panic attack.--Lucy-marie 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as poorly thought out mass nomination. Some of these robots are champions, others are mere also-rans. Given the wildly differing levels of notability, a productive discussion is unlikely. --Nydas^(Talk) 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that there is no differing level of notability - none of them are notable. Not one of these contains any proof of the notability of the subject that meets our criteria for verifiability (multiple, non-trivial independant mentions) or notability. Proto::► 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what a given robot accomplished or which championship titles it may hold; if the accomplishments and titles aren't documented in multiple, independent sources, then the robot doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. To all appearances, these robots have no documented existence outside Robot Wars itself. —Psychonaut 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three of the robots (Razer, Hypno-Disc and Chaos 2) have had DVDs released about them. That's only a single non-trivial mention, but it's a fairly hefty one. This discussion was a fudge before, it will be a fudge again, with lots of 'Keep some, merge some, delete some' comments. It'll be a nightmare for any admin to close with anything other than 'no consensus'. Re-list them seperately.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-trivial, but also not independent. A Robot Wars DVD is still Robot Wars. We need multiple independent sources. —Psychonaut 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Of less notability than (human) contestants in reality TV shows, and we don't normally keep those without outside notability. - fchd 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Even the champions aren't notable outside the context of Robot Wars. Doczilla 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately; failing that, keep per Nydas. -Toptomcat 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into an article for the show. Very cool technology, but appears to be lacking any sources, and to be original research. Edison 07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and try harder. I don't know the first thing about Robot Wars, but a TV show such as that certainly has plenty of information about it in various publications and it shouldn't be difficult for someone who knows about the subject to fix the problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now since at least some of them are notable, although the articles could do a much better job asserting this. Take e.g. one of the better-known and cooler ones, Hypno-Disc: apart from appearing very regularly in the TV series and having apparently a DVD, it is also part of the Robot Wars XBox / Game Boy Advance game[35], and a construction (destruction?) toy[36] [37]. There has been some media attention as well, but I don't know if the BBC can count as independent in this case [38]. Perhaps the Oxford Times is a better choice? [39]. Now, I doubt that this kind of coverage can be found for all these articles, but since at least some of them are not delete-worthy, and I'mnot going to do this kind of research for all these articles in four days, I think we best keep them all for now, and renominate individual minor robots after a Google seearch (or other means) have shown that for that individual robot, not enough sources are available. Fram 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete for the sources to count, there has to be independent media attention to each individual one of them. there is nothing here that a bunch of redirects wouldnt take care of. DGG 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of them are fairly well known. The Proffesor 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until relisted separately. I don't like the idea of giving a carte blanche for deleting all contestants. Henrik 15:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This show has just begun being brodcasted in Sweden and there is definetly some interest being sparked here for the whole project. Seeing that we have a pretty healthy bot-building community here, there is a great chance that someone with enough knowledge will come across an article here and share his or hers knowledge. Since I´ve been involved with many of the robots listed in this deletion section I probably can supply some information, but that seems kind of obsolete if the article is going to be deleted.213.64.140.91 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Holt[edit]

Non notable. A video of someone on youtube does not make them notable PocklingtonDan 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web junk, really. not article worthy.--Tainter 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I get this straight, he returned to the office at the end of a long day only to find it full of baloons. His frustrated reaction then made him notable in the net? Wow his audience must have been easily amused. If there is a point to this article, I frankly don't see it. User:Dimadick
Delete — utter nonsense. Rosenkreuz 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by user:ChrisO (who should have closed this AfD). -- RHaworth 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LifeCycle of Telecommunication[edit]

Just an advert for seonix. At least one other contri by this editor has already been deleted as spam. -- RHaworth 13:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blantant advertisement without verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExAmour[edit]

Notability has been questioned, but not been demonstrated Tikiwont 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This article provides verifiable sources, is not spam, is Wikified, and presents information that might be useful or interesting to someone (certainly not me though). Based on that, and the fact that this is an esoteric subject, I suggest we give some benefit of the doubt regarding notability Shaundakulbara 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No Vote - Given the comment below, I'll just bow out of this discussion as the tech-talk is over my head. Shaundakulbara 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As results now from Talk:ExAmour, the inserted sources are not about ExAmour at all, but about and copied from the underlying Exokernel which is notable, while ExAmour as a young project in my opinion is not. Tikiwont 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, g1, repeatedly reposted nonsense/nonnotable bio. NawlinWiki 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Josh Jolsen[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO. How is this guy "fairly well heard of" when his name gets about 7 hits on Google? [40] Flyingtoaster1337 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to notable for anything. sources seem to be bogus. --Tainter 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Claims of notability totally unsupported. Does anybody actually do schoolwork in sixth-form colleges? Seems they're awfully busy creating stuff like this. Fan-1967 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless at least one verifiable source i.a. with WP:BIO is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although claims are dubious, I have checked said cited newspapers at library archive and articles are genuine. I would recommend that a reliable online source is found ASAP for users without this facility Molotov146202148 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — Molotov146202148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and non-notable per WP:BIO. I'm not convinced by the current references. Prolog 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like an attack page, to me, to be honest, and fails WP:BIO by a long shot. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Nothing in the article confirmable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly many of the claims appear spurious - no doubt this article could at the very least do with a clean up - but Mr Jolsen and the Roses for the Dead have appeared on stage at the Bridgewater Hall, leading me to suspect that there is at least a kernel of truth in this article worth keeping. The gang rape thing seems over the top though. --Nev1 | Talk 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claims to notability is largely based on spurious, and spurious, claims. Anyway, there is no indication taht Roses for the Dead satisfy WP:MUSIC. Thus, without assurance that this information is verifiable, this article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP.-- danntm ^T _C 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Creator should be banned for vandalism as he also vandalized St. Ambrose College article. Shaundakulbara 08:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If better sources for citation can be recommended, please do so. It is the determination of the creator to strive for accurecy and confirm notability 217.180.78.33 12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unregistered users may not participate in AfD discussions. Shaundakulbara 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are mistaken. Unregistered users may certainly participate. However, their comments may be disregarded if they do not conform with Wikipedia standards. Fan-1967 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read the claims made under the controversies section of the article. These references are fake, the article is vandalistic bullshit, User:Molotov146202148 is lying and any claims to the contrary come from co-conspirators. Shaundakulbara 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep – Pea ceNT 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Three Questions That Count[edit]

Recreation of content originally speedied by Admin Glen [41]. This was recreated and subsequent Prod and Speedy tags removed. Before deciding, editors may wish to look at the original version of the article which is a spam linkfarm for Ken Fisher who attracts a lot of spam. There is a consistent pattern among many Finance-related articles whereby a hit and run editor creates a Spammish article and leaves, this is then stumbled upon by another new editor and worked on. It appears to me that is is being done for advertizing purposes. Editors may wish to consider whether this article falls into that category. Pleclech 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable spam. Nardman1 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd be amenable to persuasion otherwise. This would appear to be a book that was published by a reputable publisher (John Wiley & Sons) that has received some reviews in important publications like Forbes. But financial and investment advice books tend to be somewhat ephemeral and faddish, and as such I'd want evidence of enduring interest or long runs on bestseller lists before taking them in. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book by major publisher. Faddish though the subject matter may be, the book deserves a place on Wikipedia. Fg2 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly rewrite) - This article could definitely use some work, but it's published by a major publisher as stated above. It also has several external news articles about it, so it's notable enough. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewed in notable publications as detailed in article. Shaundakulbara 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Written by a nationally prominent figure, published by John Wiley & Sons. Top selling over at Amazon at the moment, number 26 overall, number 2 in investing, ahead of Jim Cramer's books (for you Jim Cramer fans, or nonfans, as the case may be).

Caliwiki123 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject matter if not much of an article. User:Dimadick
Keep It has received reviews from legit US, UK and Canadian national news organs including Forbes, Financial Times, National Post, and Smart Money among others. The author meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability based on his Forbes columns, and academic and professional achievments. I've recently been editing it a bit (not the creator, just a wiki-contributor), but could definitely spend more time on it. Per Caliwiki - its now the number one business book at Amazon. Notable. - Netsumdisc 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPURA[edit]

"SPURA" (the "Seward Park Urban Renewal Area") - a neologism, not used much in the context of the area it refers to other than by realtors, smacking of advertising and conflict of interest. No valid references for the name being used. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo for a recent similar deletion involving the same editor. Delete. Proto::► 13:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Proto is just being naive or mean to me personally. SPURA is not an advertisement, but a bona fide NY City issue (New York Times New York Times again) that is being weighed heavily and debated. There is no gain for any individual here, but a City debate on whether or not the City needs more low income housing, more commercial, more upscale, etc. It has been undeveloped in 35 years, that is nit normal for NYC - so something must be going on here other than your simplistic read.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[42]
[43]
Downtown Express on SPURA
Downtown Express on SPURA again
Keep per references supplied by Juda S. Engelmayer. The New York Times reference [44] on this subject is also strong indication of notability. --Oakshade 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename~~ Delete SPURA, keep and rename the article 2 NY Times articles about the program establishes notability, but take out the acronym from the main article title. And I wouldn't use the http://www.anothrecupdevelopment.org (POV) or the Curbed.com (RS, as much as I love the guys behind the site). Ytny 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I understood the term use issue, so I already moved it to Seward Park Urban Renewal Area (SPURA). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- Petri Krohn 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-Road.net[edit]

NN-fansite delete Cornell Rockey 13:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability.Navou ^banter 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site does not appear to be notable, and it is not currently written like an encyclopedia article. It is mostly a description of the site's features and argot. -SpuriousQ 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Lewis 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely NN, this article serves as promotion for the website. janejellyroll 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Winterborn 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete What's wrong with this article? It is simply about a web page. jbl1975 23:41, 24 January 2007

CommentSee WP:WEB for more details on what constitutes notability for a website. janejellyroll 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This shameless advertisement provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about a Price Is Right fansite. I'd like to see some assertion of notability: external sources that have discussed this site. An alleged mention one time on the show isn't enough. US 30 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete -- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE! The website has episode details and people would like to know what Golden-Road.net is all about. This article is useful to people who want to know how Golden-Road.net was created and what to expect when they visit the site. Please, DO NOT delete this article!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.229.68 (talk • contribs)

Comment That should be handled by a FAQ on the site, not by Wikipedia. ThunderE6 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tu and Nigel Tu - A Journey Across Korea[edit]

bio fails Google test CobaltBlueTony 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: no references/resources, either. - CobaltBlueTony 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits came up with nothing at all. not notable. --Tainter 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the other as well--Tainter 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no Google hits, probable hoax/joke. -SpuriousQ 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added related hoax article Nigel Tu - A Journey Across Korea to this AFD. It's a nonexistent DVD of this alleged person's activities. Fan-1967 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as hoax. Based on some vandalism history yesterday, it appears everyone involved is a high school student. Fan-1967 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not knowing how to spell Burmese is a dead giveaway for a hoax or for a half-hearted attempt to create an article. Both have no place in an encyclopedia. Alf photoman 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both As mentioned previously, searches reveal nothing. Both articles read like a high school prank/hoax, which it obviously is. --Stangbat 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first article had trivia that was obviously false and the subject seems to be fake as well. Douglasr007 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Wareing[edit]

Recently prodded by an anon, deprodded without comment by another. A Google search turns up forum discussions, Wikipedia mirrors and podcasts apparently produced by subject's own radio station, so his notability is in question. The article can't be verified or rewritten using reliable sources. Pan Dan 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Alabamaboy 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above above. --Tyson Moore 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not at this point demonstrably meet the standards of notability. Of course, reserve the right to change my opinion if such proof of notability is presented. Badbilltucker 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Note that like many other articles that should never have been created, this one hasn't even been Wikified by its lazy author. Shaundakulbara 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you notice the article on the station which employs him? It is run by the Swansea University Students' Union. I assume we are talking about a non-proffessional presenter? User:Dimadick

The result was Keep per consensus – Pea ceNT 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McDade[edit]

Non-notable IRA terrorist, no verifable information can be obtained about him, and he has done nothing of note other than killing himself Astrotrain 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of a very small number of IRA terrorists killed during attacks on mainland Britain (ie Notable). The sources given in the article include the BBC and the Guardian (ie verifiable in reliable sources). C'mon. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - firslty calling him a terrorist gives an insight into the POV of the editor who has nominated this article. Notable person and was also a key figure in the Birmingham Six saga - however more details of this should be added to the article.--Vintagekits 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article is short it is refrenced and this person has had some importance in the timeline of "the troubles". no need to delete.--Tainter 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squiddy. Seventypercent 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squiddy but expand to avoid another nomination Alf photoman 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Squiddy.--Rudjek 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- he was a minor terrorist, who accidently killed himself. This is not a terrorist memorial site. Astrotrain 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis man is very interesting, especially as he was friends with at least one of the Birmingham 6. Should be expanded.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the references tell more than the article, he does meet WP:BIO (and some POV does need to be cleaned up a bit). SkierRMH 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Shaundakulbara 07:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasons given. GiollaUidir 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per all. Airwave 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and suggest that the snowball clause be exercised. Sam Blacketer 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IRA member killed while "taking the war to England". Terrorist or not he seems notable and we could stand to have a better coverage of the campaign. User:Dimadick

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shovemedia[edit]

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; all the external links are to the author's own site. Walton monarchist89 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shovemedia 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Absence of additional links has been remedied[reply]

Delete adding external links still does not make this product nor it's creators notable. --Tainter 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Walks like an advert, talks like an advert, smells like an advert. It's probably an advert. At the very least it's a distinct WP:COI issue, as evidenced by the user with the same name as the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Notability issues. Tomstdenis 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unwikified advertisement and an insult to our intelligence. Shovemedia can shove it. Shaundakulbara 07:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shovemedia 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I commented last night (it was removed?) to pls go ahead and remove -- that I didn't thouroughly read the Notability etc rules. n00b mistake. Sorry.[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia: The Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State[edit]

Entirely non-notable book. Impossible for the article to be NPOV as there are only sources which attack it. There are no impartial reviews of the book. The profile of the author is effectively an attempt at character assassination (whether he deserves it or not). - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The nomination is misguided. There do exist sources that praise it. Character assassination is easily deletable, being irrelevant to the book. "Impartial reviews" are not the prerequisite of encyclopedicity. Verifiable facts about the book exist. The article must not necessarily be an in-depth analysis of the book. It did cause quite a stir, hence notable. `'mikka 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amazon.com suggests that this book, which they have as out of print, was printed by a vanity publisher, St. John's Press. This article seems devoted entirely to attacking the credibility of this vanity publication. This could possibly be speedily deleted as an attack page. (WP:CSD G10) - Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete initially skeptical but per Smerdis of Tlön's kind amazon link there is no way this is a notable book. And is indded an attack page. libel suit anyone?--Tainter 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who prevented you from deleting the libel and seeing whether the rest is verifiable and encyclopedis? Mukadderat 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I think every published book deserves an audience and trying to purge it from Wiki seems more like an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech, this particular page turned into character assassination and pure propaganda, with some administrators rv'ing back only to Armenian edits. Atabek 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all the WP:AGF in the world, I can't see how your original vote, justifies your last edit summary: "Do not modify other's votes. If it says "Delete", don't make it "Keep" or be reported to administrator". You're free to change your mind, but just in case you hadn't noticed... NikoSilver 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both the book and its author gained a certain notoriety. I deleted a huge chunk of original reseacrh which tried to "prove" that the book has correct statements, as well as character assassination irrelevant to the book. `'mikka 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more than just certain notoriety per this [45]. Are there any other sources? Baristarim 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grandmaster 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and neutral information about the book can be found. In the current state the article has chances to become neutral and well-referenced. Mukadderat 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is notable in the same way the Turner Diaries is notable.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, silly you :). Your comparaison is ingenious you've read my mind. Damn, I could cry for not having made that analogy before you. Fad (ix) 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally don't know what to make of it really. At the end of the day, it has never been a big book. I just took a look at the notability guidelines for books [46] (note that it is still a policy in development), and I don't see it fitting into any of those criteria, even if we compensated for systemic bias.
- Sorry, I was vague in my explanation. There are a number of comments on the book published, clearly satisfying the first criterion. `'mikka 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets 96 hits in Google (practically all of them from Wiki redirects) [47] and it is rated as 1,224,644th on Amazon [48].
If the keep voters explained in which way it fits the Wiki notability guidelines, I will vote for keep - but otherwise I think it must be deleted. I am hesitant since keep votes seem to be coming from both Turkish and Armenian editors (I kinda guess the reasons :)). I am generally pro-content, but the more I check it does seem a bit of a stretch Baristarim 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) by having published discussions about it and its author. Also, it is re-published in 2006 (see recent version of the article). Even if it is a propaganda ploy of Turkey, all the more it is a fact of note. `'mikka 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the Turkish side wishes to keep it because they think that the book is accurate and provides another "aspect" on Armenia and Armenians. I guess the Armenian side wishes to keep it because the book is such an ill-produced, unscholarly vanity-press joke it makes the Turkish side look like muppets. - Francis Tyers · 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had guessed as much :) Listen people, such an outlook is not cool, really. There is the Wikipedia guidelines on notability, and the only thing we have to decide is if it fits the criteria. I am not familiar with the subject, it can be notable, or not be notable per guidelines. That's why I didn't vote. However, let's not use dry "not-notable", "notable" as arguments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, if the notability is established either way, it can override votes no matter what. Baristarim 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Candy-Panda 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviewed it, it is notable. --TigranTheGreat 11:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Eupetor. Although I do not agree with the information inside the book, if it does indeed exist and it is a published work that has gained some noteriaty due to the controversy it has generated, I say this article be stripped down per WP:NPOV and kept. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally wish it to remain, but I guess my fun is over. The reason why the book was reedited was because it was first published with a very limited number of copy. It is a self-published work, he registered the editor to publish the book(first allegedly of a series he wanted to publish, the second work was supposed to cover about an Armenian active participating in the destruction of the European Jews in WWII), he used the equipment of his Babtist Church community if my memory doesn't fail me, Turkishforum having financed him. The book itself has not a single critic written in any peer-reviewed publication. I trully like the man, not because I suspect he threatned the hoster of the page I had on him and his book, the oage removed as a result, and this soon after I emailed him the link requesting him to report any error on my page. Anyway, if this page has to remain there, I will have to include some relevations about him which I really don't want to. :) Fad (ix) 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC) do. :)[reply]
Keep. The book has been mentioned by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations [49], the Turkish Times [50], the Turkish Press Review [51], and the Armenian Assembly of America [52]. -- Augustgrahl 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Augustgrahl provides a relevent argument. Fad (ix) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nareklm 05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fran, I really didn't feel the author was being 'character asassinated', but that's beside the point. I think the article does a very good job at pointing out both sides of the coin, and the presence of both Turkish and Armenian users in both sides of this poll is quite a strong indication. Furthermore, the notability comments right above, made me vote for keep. I was 50-50 before seeing them. NikoSilver 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its improved somewhat (regarding the author), but still a pretty non-notable book. This was the original 'bio':

"Samuel A. Weems was a disbarred Arkansas lawyer. In 1974, Samuel Weems was disbarred as a lawyer for mixing his clients' money with his own. A year later he was convicted of arson and conspiring to defraud an insurance firm [3]. He unsuccessfully ran for the position of mayor of Hazen county in 1994 and 1998. Local courts dismissed his appeals, questioning the legality of the election outcomes. [4] [5] He died from a heart attack on January 25, 2003. He is survived by his Turkish wife."

- Francis Tyers · 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was definitely a 'character asassination'. In any case, notable or not, and to this process's complement, I really can't make if this article serves pro-Armenian or pro-Turkish POV. I suppose it doesn't hurt just being there, so if there were other reasons for this AfD, I think they're away now. The links for the Assembly of Turkish American Associations [53], the Turkish Times [54], the Turkish Press Review [55], and the Armenian Assembly of America [56], along with Eupator's and Fadix's [[parallel were really helpful. NikoSilver 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable book with partizan views on the subject of the Armenian Genocide and Armenians in general. Controversial author and praises by Turks.Us. Why wouldn't the article be notable. User:Dimadick

- I would like to contribute more here but I have to do so many other things, however I have to reply to this. I am a Turk, and why would I want to praise a book whose title is "the secrets of a Christian terrorist state"? I am all for inclusiveness and I can read any thesis as long as it follows the scientific method and is academic in its layout, but the title of any written work says a lot of what we should be expecting before we have even read one page. I am not a historian and I have no idea about the contents of this book, but I would be very hesitant to buy a book whose title is "The Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State", no matter what country it is talking about, let alone say "yeah, that's the stuff". "praises by Turks" is really stretching to the point of stereotyping you know - as I said before the only thing that matters as far as we are concerned is the Wikipedia guidelines on notability for books [57], unfortunately I have no time to make research about it however. If it meets the criteria, it stays; if it doesn't it is bye-bye :)Baristarim 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't deny that this book is a prime example of anti-Armenianism, but I disagree with keeping it because by doing so we're basically giving a platform for those who espouse hatred against Armenians. In fact, I never even knew that this book existed before this article was created, so why make a big deal out of it now? -- Aivazovsky 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aivzaovsky. Chaldean 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book satisfies the primary notability requirement by having multiple mentions in a variety of places. It obviously caused controversy; perhaps that is the reason people want it to go. But covering the topic isn't against Wikipedia's standards; in fact, it is quite in line with the encyclopedia's principles. The article shouldn't be deleted just because some people don't like the book and its views, which appears to be the reasoning behind some of the deletes here. Perhaps a "(book)" sort of mention could be added to the title so people don't freak out when they see a such a POV article title. If there is a problem with gang-like enforcement of a certain POV to the article, this can addressed in ways other than deletion. The Behnam 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, for those making the research, a "review" is an in-depth analysis of the book - not just mentions of it. There should be more than one to meet the notability. Baristarim 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm, we do have a problem with the inclusion of such work, this is widespread on Wikipedia, unfortunitly the work does pass the test. I have witnessed many similar AfD and indeed it is a problem. You are a intellectual and sure know that in university level professors have for the most part published and that many are cited and reviewed and that an insignificant number have their article here. But Weems work is indeed talked about in Turkish newspapers, by Turkish organisations, the same for Armenians, so according to the guidelines and policies here, it pass the test. I am all for a change. Fad (ix) 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy `'mikka 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbanism[edit]

Fails WP:V; lacks content and explanation; possibly a hoax. Walton monarchist89 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G1 and A7. --Sable232 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and nonsense of "non-believers" persay.--Tainter 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Sable232. Seventypercent 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Cores Inc.[edit]

Delete The user dimawik has been putting up wiki pages all over, they all have links to products that IPcores sells. First off, the company is not notable enough to have it's own page. Second, it's products aren't either. Third, they're not the only vendor of crypto hardware. But unless they become notable (re: famous beyond just their own press releases) they don't deserve an entry in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstdenis (talk • contribs) 2007-01-24 16:19:19

Cautioned Delete - No clear assertion of notability, and kinda smells like spam. I'm hesitant to actually call it spam though, because the user who created it (Dimawiki (talk · contribs)) appears to contribute significant amounts of useful and appropriate information to Wikipedia regularly. There may be more to this than its face value. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of his contributions include stub articles with a link to a specific IPCores product. I also work for a hardware firm. Should I place links to are products all over Wikipedia too? No. So if I can't [nor shouldn't] do it, neither should Dimawik. Unless someone can provide some proof the company is notable (above the myriad of other hardware crypto firms) the page should be deleted. Tomstdenis 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - No argument there. No notability, no article. I'm just confused as to why someone who does actually contribute useful information would also spam; it isn't the typical M.O. of a spammer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not suggesting a ban on the user, though perhaps an eye should be paid to future contributions. He/she is the one posting all of the IPCores links. Most likely doesn't really even realize it's spam. I doubt there is any malicious behaviour going on here. Tomstdenis 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. I agree there seems to be no un-Wikipedoc motives behind this article's creation, but we can't have it. Shaundakulbara 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like just to note that the initiator of the debate Tomstdenis apparently forgot to mention that he works for Elliptic Semiconductor, one of the competitors of IP Cores. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2647 Dimawik 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what. The moment you see me putting up vanity pages for my employer you can turn around and AfD them too. This isn't about competition, it's about removing vanity pages and link-spam (hint: ipcores links in AES, GCM, Diskencryption, etc...). Given that I personally set out to have a vanity page about myself (that I did not put up myself) removed, I think I've proven my Wikiobjectivity. Tomstdenis 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I just thought that an obvious conflict of interest in this case should be visible to the participants of the discussion. My remark would be extraneous if you would have stated the existence of the conflict upfront. And no, I would not argue for taking your company page down. As you might have noticed from my profile, I have added few articles to Wikipedia. Dimawik 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Flamebait My AfD debate has merits regardless of who I work for. An article about my employer would be JUST AS inappropriate (for now I don't speak to possible future events) as an article about IP Cores. The fact that I voted to delete a vanity page about myself should be proof enough that I'm objective. By bringing up a non-existent conflict of interest argument you're just proving that there isn't anything notable about the company worth saving the page over. I suggest you read the Wiki guidelines for notability. Tomstdenis 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the author of the article) I think that the company is notable. If one looks, for example, into the latest market report issued by the professional publication in the intellectual property field, Design and Reuse (http://www.us.design-reuse.com/), (s)he can find that IP Cores is rated the third company in its specialty (the security cores area). Being third worldwide in one's area of expertise is notable, in my opinion. The interesting detail is that the top spot is occupied by Tomstdenis' employer, Elliptic Semiconductor - so his company is certainly notable. I can volunteer to put up an article about Elliptic, if this will help to resolve the dispute. I cannot link to the report (as most market research, it is actually sold by D&R), but feel free to contact me if you want to verify the ranking facts. Dimawik 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Convinced First off, I'm not authorized to speak for my company. I did a google for my company and I found mostly press releases by us and our partner companies. I failed to see any in depth third party reviews of the company that were not part of a commissioned work (e.g. financial survey). I also only found 16,000 hits with Google. While I think my company is doing great things and is a player in our respective field, I have trouble finding the level of notability required to interest the readers of Wikipedia. Our company has not published any academic results, nor been cited in published reports (though we do spend quite a bit of time in algorithm research phases), therefore fails the longevity requirements for notability. By that same token, I think IP Cores is also non-notable. I think you're making the classic mistake of thinking that "non-notable == bad." IP Cores is most likely staffed by very smart people (so is my company), but so are thousands of other hardware design labs. So just because I said IP Cores is not notable (within the context of Wikipedia) doesn't mean I think the company should be shunned or held in contempt. Tomstdenis 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Does that mean you support monopoly? Because if a company is new, it might not be notable, and if it is big it is, therefore benefiting the bigger company. Granted the articles shouldn't be just spread over like myspace accounts. but if what the other guy said is true, that the company is third in it's field and has only been around three years compared to your companies six years don't they deserve a chance? i could be wrong, but I'm just pushing out this idea.
  - Repeating... Wikipedia is not geocities. It's not a place to list any company, group, person, or thing just because you feel like it. It has to actually be encyclopedic and notable. If IP Cores wants to get attention for themselves they'll have to go about it another way then posting articles about themselves [hint: Look at the name of the CTO of IP Cores and then look at the author of this article]. Suggestions: Go to conferences, give talks, write articles, do interviews in the press, get customers to do writeups, etc. Tomstdenis 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question But again i ask if it is a new company mabye they don't have the time to do press interviews, not enough people possibly?
  - Repeating ... again... Wikipedia is not geocities. If they're too small/new to be notable that's MORE reason to delete the page, not to keep it. I won't reply again along these lines. See notability for more information on notability requirements for Wikipedia. Tomstdenis 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced per Shaundakulbara... Addhoc 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K Chu[edit]

Article on a professor. The article claims enough to meet WP:PROF, but this is the third time the article has been created by User:Pkchu, and the notability rests on claims like "Prof. Chu is one of the world experts in plasma surface modification of materials." for which there are no sources and for which, personally, I don't think we can take the subject's word (no offense). ~~Delete~~ as a WP:VANITY article. Mango juice^talk 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The claims are not backed up, nor is any notability claims made/proven. Tomstdenis 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to ~~weak keep~~. I don't like to encourage vanity articles, but, I verified that Chu is an IEEE Fellow, which is a pretty big honor and may be enough to meet WP:PROF. Mango juice^talk 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep City U Hong Kong is a major univ, ,and he's department chair. IEEE Tran. Polymer Science is a decent journal, and he's ed. in chief. People do not get such positions without impressive lists of publications, so I checked quickly in google scholar and found 366 hits, which normally means at least 150 papers when you sort them out. I found his publication list on the university website. Look at the article to see what I found. I just summarized the numbers, because I havent't the energy to copy and paste all of them and get them lined up properly. Pkchu is apparently a modest man indeed. world expert is probably exactly the right term, but I changed it to what could be objectively documented: internationally known' . Now I shouldn't have had to do this. Someone who knows him should have. But how did he get deleted 2X and almost a 3rd time? DGG 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish academic notability. As this is apparently a vanity article created not once but three times in violation of Wikipedia guidelines about creating articles about yourself, this article should be judged by the harshest standards and Chu should be cut absolutely no slack. Shaundakulbara 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment who may have created the article before or what it may have been like before is irrelevant.. We're looking at it now. We don't have harsh standards and relaxed standards, we have one set of standards that we try to apply fairly to every article. I have reedited it and removed anything that looked like puffery, and if you find any I missed, just remove it. That he is considered N is proven by the honors. The one item of opinion, "internationally known" is established by the multiple visiting positions. The published articles, and patents are RS and V: the list of articles is from his official site, which is a RS for the purpose, and supplemented by Google Scholar, as a 3rd party The patents link to the government site. For an academic to list his publications is not advertising, it is generally a university requirement. I am a little curious just what part you find objectionable? DGG 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that DGG has improved the article, I no longer consider Vanity an issue. I now think we should keep. Mango juice^talk 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in his field at least. I assume we would have better luck at finding information if we could read Chinese scripts. User:Dimadick

The result was merge. W.marsh 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration (CA)[edit]

A game of cellular automaton, somewhat similar to Conway's Game of Life. I do not think it is notable enough to warrant it's own article (per WP:N, WP:PROG), although a brief mention of alternate cellular automaton games should be - and is - included in Conway's Game of Life. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the description of this game to Conway's Game of Life. If we get enough of these, a variants of... article can be forked. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete the redirect. Not notable independent of the game of life. Nobody is likely to search using this term, so there is no need for a redirect once the merge is done. CMummert · talk 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW – Pea ceNT 12:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Germany[edit]

It's simply a list of newspapers, with no information about them at all. Umalee 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lists for most countries [58]... As far as I can tell, it's a list of an encyclopedic nature. If you think you can make it better, with more info, you should edit it, rather than nominate it for deletion. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason why this one should be singled out among the dozens of other lists (as cited by Leebo86), unless the nominator is creating a test case. This list is just as encyclopedic as any of the others. And it does provide information - the circulation. Anything else can be handled by the articles on the different papers, and I don't see that many redlinks. 23skidoo 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably organized and scoped. Lists have advantages over categories, including redlinks, annotations, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A perfectly valid list like all the others, no reason to single out Germany. Keep. --Hurax 09:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists usualy leave most of the information of an individual subject in its own article. Because the list doesm't work as a full article is no reason to delete it. User:Dimadick
Keep - I find encyclopedic. It is also useful to find the relevant article, especially for foreign language (frequent type and mind error), advantages from categories as Dhartung, with an addition: change of newspaper name can not be shown in categories. --Cate |_Talk 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norm. Killroy4 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, but as this is a copyvio someone will need to take the initiative to start anew. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siglap Secondary School[edit]

Questionably notable, but fails on OR, no sources, probably WP:AUTO and promotional as well. I prodded it but author removed tag only adding link to school website. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all public schools. `'mikka 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly) - As it is, most secondary schools have a Wikipedia article. I think a policy is needed defining which schools are notable and which aren't; however, as it stands it would be unfair to delete this article. Walton monarchist89 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy, hmmm. Too bad no one's ever thought of that before. JChap2007 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, hope you don't mind me repeating what I said at the other school AfD, but it would not be "unfair" to delete this article. Looking at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive, a number of school articles have been deleted due to failure of WP:N. Also, I have prodded a number of school articles whose deletions went through uncontested. If this school article is deleted, it won't be alone at all. Pan Dan 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing consensus regarding secondary level educational institutions. Yamaguchi先生 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per existing consensus that there must be evidence of non-trivial external sources. As far as I know there is no consensus that all secondary schools are notable. In Siglap's case, as there is what some might consider a claim to notability (being the first coed secondary school in Singapore) I checked some databases. Nothing non-trivial appears in Lexis-Nexis, Proquest, Infotrac. I can't even find independent verification for the claim to notability[59][60]. I suppose there's no reason to doubt the school's website on that point, but it's not a convincing claim to notability if no reliable source outside of the school have, er, taken note of it. Pan Dan 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a quick g-news archive search brings up some non-trival pieces on this school -[61] [62] and Southeast Asian Games multiple gold medalist Lee Wung Yew is alumni.[63] --Oakshade 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough source material to write a Wikipedia article. The first article you link to may give us "In 2005 Siglap began employing career planning consultants." The second article doesn't mention this school at all. And the athlete's connection to Siglap is trivial (because the sources don't discuss this connection, they only mention it in passing). Pan Dan 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norm. Killroy4 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is certainly no consensus that all secondary schools are notable. This one, sadly, isn't. What makes a school notable is if it does something more than just exist and teach students. This one, sadly, doesn't. WMMartin 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there are multiple google news stories for this school and meets verifiability yuckfoo 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Tagged as copyvio, http://www.siglapsec.moe.edu.sg/school_infos.htm --Vsion 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameShadow[edit]

Fails the proposed WP:PROG and WP:N in general. And WP:CORP, too. Prodded by me, prodding endorsed by Drat, prod tag removed by article's creator and primary author Londonboy1972. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Drat (Talk) 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has verifiable references. As a component of 10 different games that have Wikipedia articles, notability is established (although I would like to see a footnote listing the source, presumpably PC Gamer issue 164, for this product's inclusion in those games). I don't vote "keep" very often, but as this article is well-written, Wikified, and so forth, I think the principle of giving the benefit of doubt applies here. Shaundakulbara 07:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatware[edit]

Unsourced article on a SourceForge rpoject but claims notability in being "known as the engine that started PHP-Nuke". This claim is uncited. Created by the software's author, David Kent Norman, as User:Deekayen, clear conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only just gets over the hurdle to avoid being a speedy. Notability claimed but supported by references and only contributor has a conflict of interest. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get a clearer consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS for its claim of WP:N. DMacks 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear abuse of Wikipedia. There is a term for supposed "articles" about companies and products that provide no verifiable sources to establish notability other than their own websites. The term is advertisement. - Shaundakulbara 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwell (Second Life)[edit]

No longer notable (if it ever was to begin with), Fails WP:WEB, most information no longer up to date or even applicable to second life. Suggesting Delete or Merge into Real estate (Second Life)--Mewchu11 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This is the most fundamentally obvious policy on Wikipedia and yet...Shaundakulbara 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flinders Wharf[edit]

Delete Notability not established despite google presence. TonyTheTiger 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand This complex appears to have been the subject of at least 2 non-trivial published works (in The Age newspaper) due to its development controversy. [64] [65]. This history should be included in the article. --Oakshade 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Delete~~' - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Putting the above links in the article in appropriate manner will re-frame the discussion. If an article doesn't meet standards change it rather than saying it should be kept because it can be changed. Shaundakulbara 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References provided. They need to be Wikified but that can come later. Remember, Wikipedia is about showing how something is notable and how. What is said here is dwarved by whatever is shown in the article. Shaundakulbara 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a correct way to decide if a subject is notable or not. WP:CORP states the criteria of notability and this passes that criteria due to it being, as WP:CORP states, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Deleting an article simply because the formality of inserting those published works in the article hasn't happened is a misunderstanding of notability criteria and discounting the extremely valuable discussion in an AfD. --Oakshade 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've now included references to the above newspaper articles, along with another article, and reference to a Victorian State Government article. I've framed the article inclusions in terms of controversy about the site and local area. I believe this should stay as it of relevance to Melbourne, Australia, the growing area and importance of the Docklands, the redevelopment of both Flinders Street and Spencer Street, and the new convention centre area being developed. It is also supported by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. Thank you to Oakshade for your valuable support and encouragement here. Curmi 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soth Polin[edit]

Non-notable Cambodian writer. Tagged for notability since Dec without improvement. Slight Google hits and nothing useful on Amazon either. Mereda 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Change of mind: keep I've looked a bit harder now and found more evidence that I've added to the article. Whoops, sorry guys. --Mereda 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep give it a break. Looking for google hits on a cambodian author of 1970s, come on! The available ones show he existed and published books. Enough for notability. `'mikka 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. There is a reason for such policies. How do we known this article isn't totally inaccurate or even a hoax? Without sources, we don't. Shaundakulbara 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give it a break per mikka. Kappa 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Love Day[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced movement claiming 500 members, started in January 2007. No remote indications of Notability, or any coverage by anyone. They have a myspace page. Fan-1967 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete nonnotable. nonverifiable. `'mikka 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. (They didn't even link to their MySpace. Heh.) Flyingtoaster1337 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Its unwikified crap about something that is supposedly going to happen in Summer 2008. Shaundakulbara 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glurge[edit]

del a really new neologoism nonnotable `'mikka 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be a way to speedy delete neologoism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Snopes. As a protologism it gets some hits but I wouldn't say it's seen much beyond references to the site. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If anywhere, but not Snopes: originated elsewhere. `'mikka 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the first words say... it's a neologism! SkierRMH 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mention it in Snopes. This was a great idea for an article, but until verifiable sources are provided to establish notability, we really can't have it. Glurge may have been the subject of newspaper articles by now. Anyone interested in saving this article should investigate that possibility. Shaundakulbara 06:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge Just because it's a neologism isn't a reason to delete it, but...well, there's no sources. While I'm sure the word has gotten around, as Shaundakulbara said, until someone can find some sources, deleting it is really the only real option (shame, too, I like this article). --UsaSatsui 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rescue (band)[edit]

Delete Notability not established. Fails WP:MUSIC TonyTheTiger 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It's a worthless, un-Wikified weed in our garden. Shaundakulbara 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, but move. W.marsh 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podpolianske strojárne Detva[edit]

Delete Notability not established. TonyTheTiger 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, without prejudice. This is apparently a Soviet-era weapons factory in Slovakia that went on to make bulldozers and heavy machinery. From the information given this may be a non-notable business, though I would be open to persuasion either that the factory is notable or that WP:CORP shouldn't apply. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to Dhartung, with the understanding that the article should be moved and changed to reflect the fact that it is about the business rather than the plant itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move to Cestné a Stavebné Mechanizmy Tisovec (or CSM Tisovec), thousands of results, at least one in English[66]. In addition to co-manufacturing with Western European companies they have a significant presence in Russia.[67] --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Cestné a Stavebné Mechanizmy Tisovec (with a redirect from this and CSM Tisovec) per Dhartung's findings. --Oakshade 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article isn't Wikified, doesn't have sources, and is apparently misnamed. If this article has generated in some editor and interest and desire to create a proper article about this subject, that's fine. But this article shows no indication that much work into it and I vote delete with a clear conscience. Shaundakulbara 06:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because an article isn't Wikified and it being misnamed aren't a reasons to delete, they're reasons to Wikify and rename. And sources establishing notability were found above. --Oakshade 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. Luke! 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Norris College Fund[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced, unverifiable, not notable Fan-1967 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khanbehbin[edit]

Delete Unfinished rambling thoughts. With a regular editor I would have tagged with ((prod)). Since this is the editors only edit in wikipedia, I feel such a tag might be overlooked. In order to offer the page its best chance at a defense, I am allowing other editors to render opinions on its viability. TonyTheTiger 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Its also an un-Wikified mess that shows no respect for thousands of editors who are trying to make Wikipedia not suck. - Shaundakulbara 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep – Pea ceNT 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konami code games[edit]

properbly copied from some game cheating sites. wikipedia is not an instruction manual. KaiFei 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Konami Code is almost certainly the most famous example of a cheat code in videogame history, to the extent that it's been included in dozens (over thirty are listed on this page) of non-Konami games as the method to unlock a cheat code or easter egg. A brief description of what the code does in the myriad games that respond to it seems only appropriate for something that's had such a broad impact on gaming. Yes, the current article is lacking sources, but they shouldn't be hard too hard to find, assuming sites like IGN count as reliable sources for this subject. Pinball22 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22. -Toptomcat 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if there's sources it doesn't change the fact that wikipedia is not an instruction manual. KaiFei 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no reason for deletion (above comment completely ignores Pinball22's well-reasoned !vote). JuJube 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, this article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This is either original research or it comes from a site that can be linked. An editor saying that something is famous is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor is saying that sources "shouldn't be hard to find". Do you know what is grounds for inclusion? Sources. Shaundakulbara 06:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, of course sources are needed, and simply saying they're out there isn't enough. I didn't have time to hunt for them right then... [68] has a lot of these listed. More research is needed to find sources for games not listed there, and to verify what the code does for those games where detail isn't provided, of course. Just needing sources isn't a reason for deletion in an article like this, though; it's a reason to tag the article for cleanup and work on it. In my earlier comment I was trying to address the nominator's point, which is that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual -- to clarify, I don't think this violates that rule. It's not trying to inform the reader on how to play the games, it's listing the games that use the code and its effect in those games as information about the history of the code. Pinball22 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page so I could remove these codes permanently from the Konami Code article. It has served its purpose very well so far. ~~If needed, I can site dozens of lists on the wiki less important than this one that we can delete first.~~ --Measure 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a poor argument to use. Just because there are other "less important" lists, that doesn't establish this one's importance (in fact, it implies that -this- article is unimportant too). --UsaSatsui 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct. The other part of my argument still stands, however.--Measure 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, the less important lists do serve as a precedent to justify this list, particularly if those lists have survived an AfD. But Still, I phrased my argument wrong, so I struck through that bit. --Measure 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the list is cluttered and needs to be pared down a bit (and, of course, sourced). I would remove the descriptions of what the code does, plus the instances where the code is just referenced and not used (such as DDR and Goemon). --UsaSatsui 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, but article should be sourced. W.marsh 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit (online gaming)[edit]

whole article is orignal research. delete or redirect to Exploit (computer security) KaiFei 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Exploit" in online games has a fairly well defined meaning, and that is different enough from exploit (computer security) to warrant an article. This stub is a reasonable beginning to an article that has potential to grow. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The online game definition has become different enough from the computer security definition to warrant its own article. Exarion 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of it is not really hacking. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It seems to be original research. The info in this article could be included in any of several other articles if it can be sourced. Shaundakulbara 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while it may seem that it's OR, a lot of the exploits are well-documented. For one particular example, there are programs for Final Fantasy XI that used to allow players to warp around because the code in the game was not very well done. (obviously it was fixed, but...) It's just something to think about. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Cougar[edit]

Spinoff band? Only sources are a MySpace page, an album they had ONE song on, and a forum - this all looks like OR. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced; I see nothing other than a bit of chatter on a forum about these guys, so it's hard to say if they meet WP:MUSIC. Merge to Beck if it's deemed important enough. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article can be recreated if they ever "make it". Plymouths 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Given their connection to Beck, I'd cut them slack on notability if even a brief mention from a source like Rolling Stone or Spin were included. Wounded Cougar could be a mention in the Beck article. Shaundakulbara 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. –mysid ☎ 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid-electric bicycle[edit]

There is no such thing as a hybrid-electric bicycle. The article made this clear until some text from the deleted Series Hybrid Cycles was merged in. There is essentially no such thing as a series hybrid cycle, either, outside of the research of Andreas Fuchs, the author of that article, which is why it is deleted. There almost certainly never will be a series hybrid cycle before room temperature superconductivity comes down to consumer prices, because it would be ruinously inefficient. Shaft drives are very low maintenance, cheap, and upwards of 80% efficient and they have still made little headway against the chain because the human body puts out liimted power and efficiency is everything in human powered vehicles. There is nothing here which is not either outright speculation, substantially unverifiable, or redundant to motorized bicycle. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Recreation of deleted material. That's enough for me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to this article being considered for deletion I disagree with all statements above:

Whether a "hybrid-electric bicycle" exists is a matter of definition. In the strict sense every electric bicycle which includes pedals is a hybrid. In a wider sense only those using a third source of power would be hybrids, e.g. solar power, wind power or fuel cells. These all exist as prototypes but not to my knowlege as manufactured items.

In the meantime I've seen that other editors also regard ordinary electric bicycles as hybrid vehicles, and those with additional input from other energy sources such as solar cells even as tribrid vehicles. --Theosch 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence from the original stub "A hybrid-electric bicycle is a theoretical non-existent bicycle that might allow its rider to build up charge in battery or supercapacitor when going downhill or waiting at a red light, and then add the stored power to his or her immediate power at start or for hill-climbing." is wrong because the prototypes of Andreas Fuchs and collegues do exactly that and they do exist. I've ridden on them myself and they work well. The other French vehicles also exist.
Superconductivity is not an issue here, but whether highly efficient generators - which do exist - can be procured at a price which customers will pay. Currently the best electric technology is about as efficient as a poor mechanical transmission, but the gains lie elsewhere, in particular the high configurability without mechanical means (meaning you can have a tailor-made load curve and don't need to change gears) leading to ideal on-road training devices, and the suitability for larger vehicles, even marine vehicles.
Nothing here is speculation and it is all verifiable in the literature give.
I did not recreate the deleted material but rather included those bits from the deleted "Series hybrid cycles" (about 30%) which I felt were up to Wikipedia standards and also improved the wording. I am a former editor of the publication "Human Power" and a current editor an author at Human Power eJournal so feel qualified to do this.
I do agree that there is a hodgepodge of articles all revolving around similar topics and several of these should perhaps be merged into a suitable new article. I'm not sure that Motorized bicycles should be the container for all these subjects as it is quite large already. I don't think that Guy's method of going and deleting all these - like recently someone did Pedelec - is the optimal method. I would be happy to work in a group of us to try to bring order to this unwieldy field.

In the meantime I've seen that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be too long: somebody suggested 32kB was OK whereas 72kB was too long. Maybe this would be a criterium to decide whether an article should be split into two different articles.

I do agree that the name of this article (previous existing stub) isn't all that good, also because often the vehicles involved are actually tricycles or quadricycles.
In a nutshell: I disagree with deleting this article at this moment but might agree with a deletion in the future if we can find a suitable structure for the components in this field which might be too much for Motorized bicycles. --Theosch 11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've since come to the conclusion that the name of this article is poor, as it really should be "Human-electric hybrid bicycle" but this is cumbersome. Also, I saw that Hybrid vehicles already had a section on two-wheeled vehicles saying much the same. Therefore I have expanded this section and now recommend Hybrid-electric_bicycle to be deleted as it is redundant. OK with everybody? --Theosch 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. Also not convincingly sourced. Addhoc 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with motorized bicycle and create redirect. The claim that they don't exist appears to be false, but they don't seem to exist in large enough numbers to merit their own article. However, a mention under general motorized bicycles (which I believe they qualify as). Plymouths 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 05:06, 20 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, ST47Talk 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, judging by Theosch's comments, it's not talking about a hybrid bicycle but a gas-electric hybrid Moped or Motorized bicycle. You'd be better off including such information one of those articles. This one, though, should be Deleted. -- Kesh 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It also gave me a headache behind my eyeballs. Shaundakulbara 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Human-battery powered bicycle conversions are for sale today, so the article covers an efficient transport mode. The article is clearly of encyclopedic notability, and has sources, so keep it. I am considering purchasing a human-battery powered bike, at [69]. Problems with what the article says? That's an issue for editing, not deleting. Edison 07:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We really should be looking at this in a wider context. I've started a user subpage User:Theosch/Coordination_of_alternative_vehicle_articles in order to attempt this. Feel free to go there and contribute. However for this article, I'll comment on the new responses below the "new notice line". Hybrid-electric bicycle is about parallel hybrids and series hybrids. The former includes almost every manufactured moped, electric bicycle, pedelec, powerbike, power-assisted cycle, electric power-assisted tricycle and quadricycle and so on. Except for the relatively few multitrack vehicles, these are all motorized bicycle and this article is in turn in the category hybrid vehicles. But because they are so widespread, nobody thinks of these vehicles as hybrids and so it is OK to have them in motorized bicycles. However series hybrid bicycles, tricycles, quadricycles and even marine vehicles exist only as prototypes built by a handful of researchers and hobbyists. They are all electric and most have more than two wheels. Therefore they don't fit very well in motorized bicycles and also not in Hybrid-electric bicycle. I think that hybrid vehicles is presently the best place for this information and it is there already. Therefore Hybrid-electric bicycle should be deleted, but not for the reasons most people here have given, but because it is redundant and because the name doesn't fit the content properly. Therefore I would ask Edison to reconsider his "keep" request and let us delete this article, even if for the wrong reasons (the info is verifiably sourced and notable), and move on to help out in motorized bicycles. --Theosch 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Interiot 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a crystal ball, unless better sources are added. --Interiot 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stamina mc[edit]

Non-notable MC, decided he is probably too notable to speedy. J Milburn 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating MC Stamina, (This nomination was added during the discussion) who appears to be the same person. Neither article appears to be correctly named, and neither article asserts notability. J Milburn 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bio article for a non-notable mc. Soltak | Talk 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MC Stamina. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If they are the same person, niether article appears to be correctly named. On the other hand, neither article seems to suggest that the person is notable. I am going to nominate MC Stamina for deletion, but use this discussion. J Milburn 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other article (MC Stamina) has been floting around since 2003. I know that doesn't make him notable per say, but it's something. The article currently under discussion (Stamina mc) appears to have been created as a response to this message] from one of the many vandal-fighting bots. I'm not sure why VoABot II thought that was vandalism; it seems to be a good faith attempt to expand the article, but whatever. Hence my earlier reccomendation to merge. As for them not being correctly named; what's wrong with the way they are named? It appears that many DJs are known as DJ whomever, and it seems that their articles are often named that way (DJ Head DJ GT just for example); so what's wrong with the article name? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, seems to have some connections to notable people but can't entirely see how he is notable himself. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 'MC_Stamina' page to this page as he is credited on songs under this name (Stamina MC). The page should definitely remain, he is a well known, international d&b artist - being a singer and MC who has worked with some of the most well-known drum&bass producers. The page will hopefully get a lot better and should have more info on it. (real name? etc) tactik 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & stub Quick google search reveals a variety of sources. Just need to sort out the name, redirect from one to the other once its decided which should be the main article. Madmedea 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no two people agree, we'll give it a few more days

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. That's all that matters. Shaundakulbara 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it isn't mentioned in the article, according to the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and www.everyhit.com, he appeared on (and received "featuring...." credits) on two top twenty hits, namely "Barcelona" by D Kay and Epsilon (number 14 in the charts in August 2003) and "LK (Carolina Carol Bella)" by DJ Marky & XRS (number 17 in the charts in July 2002) - not sure if that is deemed sufficient achievement to keep him here, though.... ChrisTheDude 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouer[edit]

After a Google search for these people, their movies, so on and not finding anything on them at all, and not to mention the author has been on a vandalization spree lately, there is little doubt in my mind that this article is little more than a hoax Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my search turned up nothing in support of the article. Luke! 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. If it's not a hoax, the burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep. But it doesn't seem likely that there are any. Trebor 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Hoax? I don't know. I don't care. Shaundakulbara 06:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aura of Goodness[edit]

zero ghits, not encyclopediac, unsubstantiated Magichands 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I am added to the list. (Mahatma Gandhi, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett have an aura that indicates that they are spiritually and mentally advanced. This strikes me as close to the heart of original research.) - Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term 'aura of goodness' seems to be thrown around a lot, but this article does not appear to be the definitive word on it. It does look like plain old garden-variety original research. -- Donald Albury 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced (which seems unlikely). This seems to be original research. Trebor 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all speed and haste as per nom. Madmedea 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. With all due respect to civility, this article is also bullshit. Shaundakulbara 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going along with the verifiability issue, unless a scientific test for auras (of goodness or otherwise) is developed, any entries would be either a consensus of individuals who happen to like the person, or the editors' personal opinions. I don't see any way it can be maintained with reasonable neutrality. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, and non-verifiable. -- Pastordavid 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and move to List of Tetris variants. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris variants[edit]

It's an unencyclopedic list. Most of the stuff that links to it should probably be deleted also, like Aqua Rush --⁪froth^T 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as the list is restricted to games made/sold under the Tetris brand (so games like Columns, Dr. Mario and so on should not be eligible). Could use a little tidying to remove spammy links to ten-a-penny online Tetris clones and tangential information like easter eggs and other cruftiness, but otherwise pretty useful as lists go. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As lists go, this one is neither better nor worse. It is usefull information, but probably too large to be merged into the Tetris article. However, it does need cleanup. --Frodet 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to List of Tetris variants (or at least "List of [something]"). As Matticus said, if this is limited to games released officially related to Tetris, then it could become definitive and useful. At the moment, it's not either. Trebor 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A cleanup is needed, in example, removing the Clones and unofficial variants completely, and leaving only the ones that can demonstrate notability (in example, awarded something or given an article in a notable media). -- ReyBrujo 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Tetris, depending on article length after cleanup. There is already a "Variations" section in Tetris detailing differences between variants, so I don't understand why there is a "Tetris variants" section as well. There do exist notable unofficial variants such as TetriNET that should be included. Pomte 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article resulted from everybody plugging their own version in the main Tetris article. People still plug their version on that page though. I believe the best solution would be to shave it down to the most interesting and important games (like the Game Boy version, TGM, and The New Tetris; then merge that into a concise section within the main page with an external link to a full list. Then, supplement that with only the absolute most notable fan interpretations like Bedter and Quinn, both of which had a run-in with TTC. 68.222.23.140 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article with links to a number of interesting variants of Tetris. It is not excessively long. 24.210.85.2 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deletion per BLP. This article contained very serious allegations. In order to make such allegations in wikipedia verification must be rock solid. It is quite obvious that this is not the case. A reference in one tabloid newspaper is not sufficient. Because the allegations were also repeated in this AfD past versions have also been deleted. Editors are advised to exercise extreme caution if approaching this subject again. Tyrenius 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Montgomery[edit]

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Fexism[edit]

Neologism, original research, soapboxing, unverifiable, vanity (note that author's username matches one of the "theorists." PROD tag removed without addressing concerns. FreplySpang 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what seems to be the problem with the page, any help and tips are welcome, cheers.

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Donald Albury 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, unless independent sources can be found to show that the word is used in an academic context. Walton monarchist89 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and abov. Madmedea 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who to the what now? OR, made up in school, no references, no verifiable sources... pick any two. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Hsssssss. - Shaundakulbara 05:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave For Observation This article provides an alternative in-depth perspective of society from a sociologists view point. I urge that you leave this page for observation and discussion into the Fexist idea. Fexism is an idea yet to be brought to the media spotlight, as it has only just entered the sociology underworld. Lilleypower 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sociology underworld? Is that like extreme ironing? JuJube 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Leave For Observation~~ yes!! but much more interesting and less dangerous! A lot of the things people discuss come from uni lecturers mentioning things and students expanding on them, it is rumoured thatwhen Ralph Miliband taught at Leeds University, he first mentioned a sociology underworld!! but that is only a rumour! Lilleypower 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See previous reasons from other members.--Kung Fu Man 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave For ObservationThe whole point of sociology is that it's peoples thoughts and views on society!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijferguson (talk • contribs)
Delete. I'm not qualified to immediately judge this "junk", but what I can see is that the article is inadequately referenced, and with no clear evidence that this theory is any more notable than any of the thousands of other theories that sociologists invent each year. WMMartin 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave For Observation What harm is it doing here anyway? Dont make stupid suggestions that thousands of sociological theories are made up each year, thats rubbish. This theory IS supported by many people! Reseach is taking place as we speak which is VERIFIABLE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.230.230 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Leave for Observation Why not? There should be a descriptive word for this. Just like men use their fists to get their own way, women may use their feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiethatcher (talk • contribs) (22:36, 28 January 2007) - first contribution to WP is this AfD comment

Delete, unable to find any verifiable use of this term in sources other than blogs, and few even there. Gimmetrow 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be simple, really: Either it is verifiable in which case sources and verification should be displayed on the article page; or it is not verifiable in which case it shouldn't be here. Several people have tried to find independent verification and not succeeded. This has nothing to do with your attitude towards feminism or sexism -- it is a matter of independent sources and verifiable fact.--Bonadea 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon cobb[edit]

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.

Very little apparent notability; played for a youth team only; fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Google search for "Simon Cobb" football returns just 30 unique hits, almost none relevant.[70] Contested prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to establishing notability. Scottmsg 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Scottmsg, a long way from professional status at the moment. - fchd 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - NN player. On a random note, an IP tried to change all the votes to Keep. I reverted the changes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the speedy tag as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep i know Simon Cobb he's a quality keeper and he is a model as well, the relevance will go up if he gets the contract he is negotiating at Kings Lynn FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.167.105 (talk • contribs)
- Comment and if he signs on with Lynn, he's still two levels away from being considered notable enough for an article. - fchd 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what a keeper!!!!!!!!!!! he is well-known around Bournemouth i tell you that!!!!!!! haha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Podcast37 (talk • contribs)
Keep i think i know Simon Cobb!!!??? he used to be called Simon Escott though when he played for Bournemouth!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary O'Keith01 (talk • contribs)
Very Strong Keep please keep my page i made, he is a very highly rated keeper, and yes he used to be called Simon Escott, my mistake!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel sawyer01 (talk • contribs)

Google search for "Simon Escott" football returns even fewer results. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep i cant believe i have a page!!!!!!!! oh yeah!!!!!! cheers nigel hant seen ya for years, hows Bournemouth?? anyway please keep my profile i love it and im looking at joining Kings Lynn FC— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scobb27 (talk • contribs)
Keep!! he is a quality keeper at a high recognition in Norfolk!!!! User:podcast37 -- Jamie Palmer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.167.105 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:SNOW, and so tagged, before this descends any futher into farcical sockpuppetry. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete before every teenager he knows shows up here to add more farcical comments. Fan-1967 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Subject does not even come close to meeting WP:BIO, and signing a contract with non-league Kings Lynn certainly won't change that. Note that none of the "Keep" ~~puppets~~ !voters (I'm being charitable) have offered any argument other than WP:ILIKEIT ChrisTheDude 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Speedy as they come. Bubba hotep 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavellism (song)[edit]

Song is not a single, article content is redundant in regard of related articles, no information to suggest sufficient notability has been provided. Cyrus XIII 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. Madmedea 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A live video doesn't make it notable, and neither does the lack of reliable third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 08:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 result was delete. W.marsh 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bender[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, Google search for "Steven Bender" finds a dozen other Steven Benders before this person (excluding Wikipedia page). Adding the company name finds press releases but nothing from reliable sources. ju66l3r 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete as per nom. Any decent content should be merged into the company page and then the article should be either deleted or redirect. Madmedea
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Junk like this might slip past us if it was Wikified, but like other articles of its type it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for and disinterest in learning what Wikipedia is.- Shaundakulbara 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Luke! 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [71], [72], Gizmodo called one of the flagship blogs of Gawker media (with substantial info on Gizmodo itself): [73]. Note that all the blog links I posted are non-self-published blogs with editorial oversight, which should qualify as a reliable source. hateless 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm sorry, 1179 results in Google News, 1800 in Google News Ar.google.com/books?q=gizmodo 13 in Google Books. I strongly suggest the use of a search engine before making a nomination, no matter that the article is a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination For whatever reason my Google search did not yield these results, it now appears clear that this blog satisfies WP:WEB.--RWR8189 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, Gizmodo is pretty well known and recognizable adavidw 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad pancake[edit]

Contested PROD; self-declared 4-day-old neologism; no evidence of notability or any usage at all except once in a seemingly-non-notable performance DMacks 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a brand new neologism, by definition, does not meet WP:N Madmedea 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, obviously. Fan-1967 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fg2 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Bltant abuse of Wikipedia and a waste of our time. - Shaundakulbara 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up by comedians for one performance. --UsaSatsui 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only are there no sources, it does not appear that there could be verifiable sources. Matchups 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Saeed Saad Zaghloul[edit]

contested speedy. Non-notable bio/vanity page. Creator seems uninterested in fixing. Be alert to speedy/afd tag removal and potential sock/meat-puppetry. DMacks 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N (and possibly WP:AUTO). Walton monarchist89 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This is a blatant abuse of several Wikipedia policies, including "don't make articles about yourself". - Shaundakulbara 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Invaders[edit]

No independent references per Wikipedia:Notability (software) and no signs that the developer is notable. References provided are all from the developers site. Prod removed today with the comment "this is a notable game; probably the best of its type. many Google hits" without providing any references for notability. Looking at the google hits, it's page after page of download sites without any quality information. Marasmusine 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ (see further down) I've found one review for one of the trilogy on Gamespot [74], though nothing else is forthcoming. There are certainly plenty of google hits [75] (and that's with both 'download' and 'wikipedia' disqualified), but I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial sources, just a lot of download sites. One thing - the first game of the trilogy is free for download on the dev's website, which of course results in a lot of scatter-shot advertising on google - why wouldn't every linkfarm link to 'PHREE GAMES!!'. If someone can come up with another good secondary source I'll reconsider. QuagmireDog 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed, this is a notable game and the best of its type. This is a well written article that now has sources. It now meets WP:V and other Wikipedia policies and should be kept. Bridgeplayer 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm satisfied that this passes WP:WEB now, with respect the article isn't well designed and will need substantial rewriting and collapsing into prose. That's for the future though. Please don't use the V-wotsit review though, all text is "The software publisher's description" and the opinions of a few users who click a button is neither reviewing or reliable info. Its presence detracts-from rather than improves the article. Good work though, changing my position accordingly. QuagmireDog 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article now passes WP:WEB as far as I can see, hopefully the article will develop and continue to gain sources in the future. QuagmireDog 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Does a review by the editors of CNET etsablish notability? I don't think it does but may be wrong. The other sources are either blog/wiki type mentions or the company's own website. - Shaundakulbara 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a shareware game and needs to be assessed in that context. WP:V is met by sources that say the game exists and is popular. The fact that there is a wide range of reviews goes towards notability. Bridgeplayer 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the newly provided references, only the Gamespot link provides anything resembling an unbiased, professional review. The others I have removed because they were of the 'Here's the game blurb, now download it!' variety. Marasmusine 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I know that you are desperate to get this article deleted but removing content only harms your case.~~ The fact that there is a download link is normal with freeware/shareware game reviews and does not distract from them. I have reverted the deletions and added a further review not associated with a download link. Bridgeplayer 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I gave the impression I had a cause, or was desperate. I was just trying to cull what I considered poor quality external links as established by WP:EL and WP:SOFTWARE. Marasmusine 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil Bridgeplayer, removing links which are unsuitable damages nothing, their presence damaged both the article and attempts to argue for its being kept. I have already gone back and removed the VNUNet and Softpedia links, they are blatantly unsuitable and fail WP:EL. I'll look into the others in more detail, my keep vote is based on CNET and Gamespot, not these others which may all fail WP:EL. I'll also be checking CNET in detail. QuagmireDog 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, WP:RS is important here. QuagmireDog 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite right, comment withdrawn. However, I still think he was too vigorous with the rubber:-) Taken together, the remaining references are probably as good as you get for any Freeware package and I think meet WP:WEB. Bridgeplayer 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies for the second change of mind, after examining the CNet/Download.com site and actual reviews I don't accept that it is a reliable source, a couple of paragraphs and a rating out of 5 from an unnamed employee of a download site just doesn't cut it. Download.com is somewhere to download software, not obtain reliable reviews. GameSpot remains a good source, but others added to the article do not hold water. QuagmireDog 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I might change to weak keep with addition of more reliable sources. Otherwise, it's very hard to gauge whether or not this has brod enough exposure to warrant an article. Article also needs cleanup, but that's a different matter. --Alan Au 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It exists, it's a popular online game as far as I'm aware...why not? Porterjoh 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks a useful article that has been sourced enough to meet WP:V. I see no particular reason to delete. BlueValour 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.

While there was some lack of serious deabet, the nomination called into question the notability of the subject, which is a matter of sources and interpretation of those sources. Only two have been provided, which under any circumstances would only satisfy the most stretched-thin definition of "multiple."

Consideration of these sources shows that even this very-low baseline is not satisfied:

The Times article can easily be read as demonstrating the lack of importance of the awards: They are mentioned in a "plucked from the air" manner and the critic refutes most of the awards. This is also one of over four thousand such "Critic's Notebook" entires. It's firmly established that items are not "non-trivial" merely by virtue of being in the times.
The "Attack of the Show" episode is arguably a stronger source than the times article, but again it's a minor item in a minor show: They ran five-ish times a week at that stage, and this is only a minor episode in a minor show.

While it's clear there is vocal support for the inclusion of the web awards, the article was not well served by the perfunctory manner in which this debate was carried out. When it's "so obvious" that something is notable that stating so (and re-stating so) is the method of argumentation rather than than providing solid evidence, it's worth looking again at the assumptions being made.

There have not been made sufficient refutation to the claim that this is not notable (by providing multiple non-trivial sources).

brenneman 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards[edit]

Does not fits our standards for notability and verifiability: not mentioned in any reliable sources, but only in a few forums and blogs (in all, 298 google hits) bogdan 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: AfD is not cleanup. If there is a sourcing issue then mark the page as such. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not able to find *any* reliable sources. bogdan 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you change the google search to WCCA webcomics, you find roughly 40,000 google hits relating to the award. The problem is that it's usually abbreviated to WCCA, but WCCA is also an abbreviation for many other things; google hits are next to useless in measuring the awards notability. That said, just about anybody involved with webcomics knows that the WCCA is notable. I'm searching for print media links establishing this now. Also, if you don't consider the Web Cartoonist Choic Awards to be notable, then what DO you consider to be a notable webcomic award?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
After five minutes of searching, I was able to find it referenced in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200&en=08e3777cc4943486&ei=5090&partner=geartest&emc=rss">This article</a> describing the advances of webcomics as a medium; it was used throughout the article as a way of firmly establishing what the best examples of a given feature were. That firmly establishes its credibility in my opinion. Also, if you google Webcomic Awards, it is quite literally the first hit. If it weren't notable as an award, I doubt that it would be the first hit for its primary purpose.
Delete, fails WP:N as it has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Completely unsourced article, over half of which is labeled as unsourced "Controversy," also fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. A search at my library shows little in the way for the potential for decent sources. I only turned up the NYT article noted above and a brief mention in an article in The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. -- Dragonfiend 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to the Ontario article? In conjunction with the NYT article, I would say that establishes notability. Given the extremely credible and notable reference in the NY Times, that sounds like a good reason for inclusion. As for your other complaints... How on EARTH can you claim WP:NPOV? It's very neutral, with the possible exception of the controversy section. And, in my opinion, the controversy section maintains a neutral tone as well. WP:OR isn't a problem, here; it doesn't make any interpretations in the main section, merely reporting the facts (thus fulfilling the stringent guidelines of primary source work). The controversy section probably constitutes original research, but when it's a subsection of an article, the procedure is to rewrite, not erase. WP:RS is fulfilled; it links to the main site as a primary source, and merely reports the facts, making no interpretations. Again, if the controversy section is the problem, rewrite, don't delete. As for WP:V, what more do you want? Once we include a link to the two news articles, that verifies both the contents of the page, and the notability of the page. To mention one other item as an aside, this award is currently being used to establish the notability of a large number of webcomics on this site. This is because the award is well-respected. A simple search of the webcomic community will reveal that just about everyone who deals with webcomics as a hobby pays attention to it, if only to gripe that it isn't fair. While I realize that this doesn't do much for this debate, it does indicate that it is notable; something with this much attention must have attracted more print sources then a pair of newspaper articles. I found a large number of podcasts referencing the WCCA; is there a policy that would allow those as sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - The Record article only briefly mentioned the award in a profile of a local artist. It's not an article about the award by any stretch. Here on EARTH, my NPOV concerns stem from an article based on things like "Controversy over the procedure" " Common claims" "the awards are said" "It has therefore been argued" etc with no sources. Clearly these arguments and controversies involve somebody's point of view, but they don't seem to be points of view based on reputable sources. What do these arguments and controversies represent? Disagreements on a message board somewhere? Wikipedia is not the place for such things. -- Dragonfiend 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I had rewritten the article to remove the uncited controversy section, but the article has since been reverted. That said, the answer to fixing the NPOV concerns, not deleting the article, especially since it is only applicable to a subsection, not the article as a whole. Sorry for the WI:CIVIL violation, I'm just somewhat shocked that this is up for deletion.
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. In general, fans of webcomics seem to think that their realm of interest lies outside the Wikipedia guidelines that everyone else in the world must follow. It doesn't. - Shaundakulbara 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I just rewrote the article to add sources and remove unverified information. There is no conflict with policy in its new form, and the article will be useful with the many AFDs that reference this award. Another source will be added once the article Dragonfiend referenced is found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- According to the talk page, the WCCA was also featured on G4 TechTV's Attack of the Show. Does anybody know where to find that?
  - and ye shall receive -- Ben (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's one of the major awards in the webcomics world, and there's sourcing to indicate that. --Carnildo 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newly added NYT and G4 sources help establish notability (although it is borderline), and the POV/OR problems look fixed now. -SpuriousQ 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the NY Times and AOTS coverage establishes notability; the article is not terribly well written and would benefit from more references, but I don’t currently see any problems that cannot reasonably be fixed. —xyzzy_n 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability was a bit sketchy there for a bit, but the fact that Attack of the Show had almost an entire episode dedicated to the awards results would seem to confirm notability to a high degree of certainty. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about that. I'd think that 6-year-old annual awards would generate much more than 2 decent sources if it were all that important. -- Dragonfiend 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it is an award for something that is exclusively online... The only people who would care about it all have internet access, and read about it from internet sources that have reported the results. I really can't imagine it being printed in an offline source, in the same way that I can't imagine ANY webcomic award being printed in an offline source. That said, I'm also a bit surprised that there are only two offline mentions of it. Then again, I guess two are all that are needed under Wikipedia guidelines.129.138.44.202 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)girl from before[reply]
    - Indeed. As has been observed repeatedly, this subject - by and large - abhors mainstream media attention. Offline mentions aren't that much of an indication of notability, and anyway the content criteria have been met. --Kizor 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is, as mentioned, not cleanup, and that issue is now moot. The subject is indirectly very important for our coverage of the field. Sourcing requirements have been met. --Kizor 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herzl Camp[edit]

This is a full on advertorial for a summer camp, but even if all the adverty bits were stripped out I still don't think this meets WP:N as I couldn't find any references to it that were from personal webpages. Didn't feel I should just prod it as it is a substantial article, so I thought I'd post it here Madmedea 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as campcruft. Would need cited notability of the camp/programming itself, not just "George Washington slept here" to overcome WP precedent (NFTY/URJ Camps' individual camp pages' AfD, for example). DMacks 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This might be a notable place and there might be an article about it on Wikipedia in the future. But this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a blatant advertisement and as such is a misuse of Wikipedia. - Shaundakulbara 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Campcruft? That's a new -cruft on me... anyway, this is clearly an advert, as stated above.. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to see evidence of notability, and this isn't provided. WMMartin 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Pizza[edit]

Seems to be a classic case of WP:NFT; if this product actually exists then it's fairly obscure. Walton monarchist89 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - link makes my teeth hurt. It exists, but the article appears to be a promotion by the linked company. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About 600 Google matches for "chocolate pizza" (including the quotation marks) Fg2 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This is a misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. - Shaundakulbara 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, the first and last time I heard of this (til today) was in a singalong version of She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain on a kids' album. JuJube 06:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article to advertise a product in the last sentences. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's definitely been around for a while; my family makes it for Christmas. I'm not sure if it's notable, but this article isn't a good one. --NE2 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, given that the rewrite did not have much of an effect on the opinions of those taking part in this AFD. --Core desat 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hutman Artcars[edit]

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Tagged by multiple authors for deletion, author keeps removing tags. Plymouths 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_26#Category:Works_of_Art:_Artcars.

Doczilla 05:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry about tag removal. I am now more experienced and have overcome!Conrad Jay Blade 14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The article is fundamentally flawed, as it is entirely the work of the primary artist behind the subject of the article. This clearly marks it as Self Promotion and Autobiography under Wikipedia guidelines. I agree with Leebo86 that there could potentially be a good article on this topic, but it would have to be written without direct contribution by the artist, in the article. People who are being written about are welcome to come participate in the discussion side of an article, helping to correct facts or provide useful info, but are not supposed to try to control the article itself. No matter how notable you are -- even if you're President of the United States -- it is extraordinarily bad form to edit an article about yourself. Auros 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - please reflect upon the rules of wikipedia as written and not your impression of things. Remember autobiography according to wikipedia is not banned it is simply discouraged. It does not matter if you consider it "bad form or not" If an article were written by someone else the references would be exactly the same. No one person should control the article. The key is how the article is written. Is it factual and based on relyable sources. Are statements made backed up and factual. I will remove any part of the article that is not factual and based on sources cited-no problem. Now....dont tell me that I can't do this (I have already been discouraged thanks,,,,just tell me what to change.***-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point of the rules just fine. You're appealing to the letter of the law to evade its spirit. Why should I, or anyone else, waste time contributing to your vanity project? The choice is to either leave you be, taking up space on the servers and degrading the overall quality of the Wikipedia -- contributing to the reputation that Colbert likes to make fun of, when in fact on a lot of topics (especially scientific and technical) it's actually quite good -- or to just delete, and let somebody who doesn't have their ego invested come and create a better article later. Auros 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COI. The poorly written article is a form of self-promotion. Notability is questionable at best. Article does not follow Wikipedia guidelines for how articles should be written, including the appropriate way in which to cite sources. Doczilla 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - accusation of self-promotion should be based on examples of how the author has embellished or strayed from the facts as supported by reputable sources. I do not want to self promote. I am simply stating facts which can be supported by reputable sources. If you find statements not backed up by facts/sources let me know broad unsupported critique is not helpful. As for the quality of writing and form- this can be corrected and is being corrected daily as specific comment is received. ***-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. A very messy abuse of Wikipedia. - Shaundakulbara 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Obviously Shaundakulbara has not read the article recently where the editor will find many verifiable references, not only references but direct citations which support every statement fully and are suitable to address notibility issues. Again broad unsubstantiated critique is not helpful-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Author response
1. Tags were removed only when re-write was major or totally re-done in other words it was deemed a new document by the author. No trouble re-tagging after major edits but when edits are of such a magnitude a re assessment is in order.
2. Recently tags were added without explanation on the discussion page. At times those responsible for the tags have done so without any comment- this may be vandalism but I am not an expert.
3. Comments placed in the discussion area have not been sufficiently in depth to enable the author to make corrections. A reference to a very complex reference page is not helpful. When a tag is added imho the editor should be responsible for defining the problem completely and citing that portion of the reference page that applies.
4. This article is in no way self promotion. That is to say a factual statement that someone did something, made something etc....has nothing to do with promotion of that individual. In the case of promotion aspect one would have to see some form of promotion- that is ...I did this so you should hire me. Statement of fact or opinion identified as such is not promotion it is history and notable as history.
5. The author has provided extensive citations of formal as well as informal, local as well as national and international references to demonstrate notability. These are written by others and include researched feature news articles, Chapters in Books, Entries in books,Television documentaries, citations of national awards. Description of the role of the works described in relation to the development of national and local art scenes and art history.
Essentially the article is a material description of notable fact devoid of self promotion and backed up by significent, in depth and accurate citations. Note that Wikipedia only objects to a high level of self promotion and that autobiographical content is not banned simply discouraged. I have provided citations from Wikipedia pages to support these statements on the page discussion page.
While I appreciate constructive critique, the essence is "Constructive" I am fortunate to have been working closely with at least one editor who has tried to come close to being constructive. I thank all for their generous donation of time and effort. Conrad Jay Blade 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you are not making money off of this article does not automatically mean it is free of self-promotion. As far as I can tell you're seeking recognition and fame, which is in fact a form of self-promotion.Plymouths 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all correct. I am not seeking recognition and fame. I am seeking but to recognize the recognition provided by third parties-not myself. This is a big difference. I present only the actions of others- to select me for inclusion in non-trivial as well as other works. Actually creating a wiki page will open me up to critical review by many parties. Quite the opposite of self promotion. Volunteering to put the article up makes it a free forum for the factual discussion of all sides of my work so I am actually creating more of an opportunity for criticism than for self promotion. Actually to be technical this article is intended to be more about material artworks and that which was written about them by others not myself but it has gotten bogged down with response to tags and critique.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Someone needs to sit down and break everything down and rewrite it. It's possible there's a satisfactory article in there somewhere, but I have not taken it upon myself to do so yet. The question is, should it remain until someone chooses to do that, or should it go and return only when it has been approved? Leebo.⁸⁶ 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that you're defining "self-promotion" a little too narrowly, Cbladey. Although something may simply be a "statement of fact," it still remains that you are here writing your own article to preserve your information that no one else has yet felt the need to preserve. You're "promoting yourself and your works" even if you don't stand to gain any tangible benefit. There are other ways to preserve the information other than writing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to do that if it hasn't yet been recorded. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually as above I am not interested in preserving "information" which has been written by myself. I concentrate in the article on the work of others and that which has been recorded has been recorded.

If I have written poorly in the article I can make further corrrections but the article is for the most part the writing of others, recorded elsewhere, from many sources both trivial and non trivial-now that has been accomplished and is clearly the stated goal I welcome any advice as to how to present it more convincingly and still have it read tolerably- that is not just a list of quotes and sources.

I could just include the words of others which seems an option but it would not be as readable. Again most of the information will be images and facts about the cars- no commentary but have not had time for that yet. I believe that the sources are speaking for themselves. I do not need to self promote-Conrad Jay Blade

Objective history is present and notable-I am giving it to you and allowing you to share it for the future and preserve it when I am no longer here-it just so happens that I alone possess much of the information-still history. Shall we loose it because I am the sole possessor of it? Even if I qualify the type of information I am providing and refrain from self promotion? I do not need self promotion! Just look at the sources....and there are more....far more exposure than anyone needs. The needs of history are however important. I have many many web pages covering this and other topics.
History is in the article and will be in the artwork descriptions when I get the time from all this discussion to accomplish it. The point is that if there are problems other than formatting present I can not see them as major or damaging to the conveyance of fact. Nothing is provided other than fact or qualified fact. One must acknowledge that many many facts are based on qualification such as "to the best of my knowledge" The question is will the reader be miss led? References are indeed provided if the reader wishes to get closer to absolutes. Academic practice which is widespread and universal is to deal with facts by the way they are presented. In essence very few facts are absolutes when you really look at it. Third party sources are not always the best the fact is that the first news report of my work came out several years after I had first begun my first artwork.
Facts are as close as the recorder of the fact can come. "as far as I can tell" may be as close as one can ever get-but it is better than nothing and is qualified. I am trying to be very adaptable to the process here at Wikipedia-I respect it. I could easily be more devious and find someone who knows nothing about the subject to write as I dictate. I would never do this. I find it problematic that when a primary source comes forward to record significant notable history (I have provided many back up sources for this) that they are discounted and discouraged from providing the facts without embelishment or self promotion. IMHO there should perhaps be a process for vetting primary sources. Maybe we should submit a copy of drivers license or copy of an image from a book or newspaper- see...thats me doing that on whatever date...and you could compare that with the ID. I welcome anyone to run around the end of all this,legally, and re-write the short piece. To date the comments have added up to much more than a correction would be. I thank user Leebo86 for his hard work and dedication. Others have been more hostile than helpful. Tolerance of new users is the key to success. Wikipedia is relativly easy to use and there are many conventions to master but helping new users collect and preserve information is a great reward. Conrad Jay Blade 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it just so happens that I alone possess much of the information-still history. Shall we loose it because I am the sole possessor of it? — Per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies: Yes. If you want to record history that has not been recorded before, and history based upon your own firsthand knowledge, Wikipedia is not the place. If you don't record it elsewhere, in the proper places, such as academic journals of history, then yes we shall lose it.
  I find it problematic that when a primary source comes forward to record significant notable history that they are discounted and discouraged from providing the facts — That is because you are not aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a publisher of first instance. Here is not the place for primary sources to write primary source material. It is not a cheap shortcut around the process of getting primary source material published properly. Please look elsewhere. Uncle G 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree with Leebo in that theoretically, an article could be made form this. However, its clearly a WP:COI which is one of my particular peeves. Based on some of the talk page comments I have read by the author "I am a visionary artist", it is pure vanity and shameless self-promotion. I can only conclude that pending a complete re-write by a neutral party, the article is not something that I can endorse. Montco 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very strange that with a good number of sources listed on the page for the issue of noteriety as well as for other purposes there is a complaint about this issue-there are lots of souces cited and enough to comply with the noteriety definition. Additionally remember that writing an article about one's self is discouraged it is not banned- it may be hard to do but it is still permitted. At this time the language used is "discouraged". In this case you can not tell me that it can not done you can only tell me that errors have been made, point them out and provide me with the way to correct them. Empty critique attempting to ban something that is merely "discouraged" can only be perceived from this point of view as personal attack. WhatI need to see here is a specifc problem and this is how to fix it. I mean specific problems. I see one way to improve the article is to not simply list sources that editors seem not to have the courtesy of looking up but to cite brief statements from them. I shall do that. Then I will have the words of others and from the type of sources which fulfill the noteriety definition. One problem is with video. I have one article based on a script but that is all. Two videos I have on tape. I suppose I could transcribe short exerpts and include them. That will take a while so I shall concentrate on citations from books and news article studies.Hope this helps. Now....if there is objection to a legal article pinpoint mistakes specifically and I will address them. Note. Due to the wording it is very clear that I do not have to have a third party do it. Note that I have already responded to the vanity charges and made corrections. If you are to provide critique be sure that it is based on the way the article looks at the time of writing. Writing about something that has clearly been addressed and changed may be perceived as less than constructive critique. Conrad Jay Blade 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best, Userfication into Cbladey. The author has not clearly established notability.
This quote:
Ten years ago, Conrad Bladey's '78 yellow Dodge Omni needed a new transmission. He didn't have the cash, so he just let it sit for a while in front of his house. When some kids defaced the car with an Andover High School sticker, Bladey didn't let it bother him. Instead he put a couple of bumper stickers of his own on it. By the time Bladey got the transmission fixed, about a year later, the car was covered in stickers. "Sticker Car" was his first art car. Now, after transforming three more cars into artistic expressions, Bladey is known as a car artist-Source:"Cars With Attitude Gear Up for First Night. "Nicole M. Miller. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 28, 2000. p. C.01
Only establishes that Bladey is a car artist, not that he is one of any particular distinction. Speaking as someone who has been featured along with their art car in the newspaper on a couple occasions, newspaper articles do not automatically prove notability. Particularly when the article in question is about an event in general (in this case a First Night celebration), and the person in question is mentioned in, apparently, one paragraph of it.
As for this quote:
The noted artcar movie maker and well known author Harrod Blank noted: It is this tactile element that attracts many people to work with different materials to break up the stereotypically smooth and shiny surface most cars have...Finished textures vary from the smooth bumnper stickers on Conrad Bladey's Sticker Car (photo included) to the rough and rugged craters of the Marsmobile....-Harrod Blank, Art Cars: The Cars, the Artists, the Obsession, the Craft, Lark Books,2002, p.28.
I own a copy of the book referenced here. It is 144 pages long, and consists mainly of two-page spreads featuring artcars of distinction (as determined by the author). These articles have one or more large photos of the artcars, descriptions of the vehicle and artist and other relevant information. I believe (do not have the book in front of me) that Mr. Bladey's car is mentioned once in the book, in the line quoted above. If his vehicles were notable as he asserts, would they not get a full layout and writeup in the book, rather than one passing mention as an example of a surface texture? Furthermore, the mentioning of this book under the in depth study of the page is grossly misleading. A one line mention is far from an in depth study.
The Articles Referring to Local Significance section does not in any way make clear how these articles note the local significance of his vehicles. Several of them are clearly about a general event rather than his vehicles in particular. As for the others, mention in a newspaper may mean the subject is of particular importance, however it does not guarantee such.
This collection of artcars also represents the largest known number of artcars created by a single artist in Baltimore, and for Baltimore, Maryland the Hutman "School" or "Studio" represents a part of historical development of the Baltimore Art Scene as it has in-fact operated for a period of time in the region of Baltimore for at least 20 years when the first artcar produced "Sticker" was begun.(source:personal communication of fact from the Artist)
This statement is a perfect example of the gross flaws throughout this article. It contains a falsely reasoned statement of importance(see #1 below), incredibly convoluted and confusing grammar, and an invalid source (personal conversation).
#1: Ignoring the potential for a quantity vs. quality debate, being the largest producer of an artcar in the Baltimore area is not inherently notable. As is fairly clear in the Art_car article, artcar artists are rare, and as such in most areas there are only a few. I personally have produced at least three artcars, and have plans for a fourth, This may well make me tone of the most prolific artcar creators in Connecticut, that does not however make me notable as I would guess the total number of artcar artists in CT as being in the dozens.
These reasons, along with the lack of any authors aside from the autobiographical one, the need for a massive re-write for both wikification and basic coherency, the author's repeated deleting of tags all make, to me, a strong case for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improbcat (talk • contribs) 2007-01-25 16:23:06Improbcat 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for not signing this, by the time I got to the end of editing this so it would show up like I wanted it to I simply forgot to add a signature)Improbcat 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The comment above does not reflect recent changes which have inserted the works of others which are now the principal content of the article. The comment fails to consider all of the sourced evidence provided which contains all manner of information both trivial and non trivial with numerous sources for each. There is nothing wrong with including all manner of information written by others. I believe that there is enough non trivial (as in multiple) information composed by others to sadisfy the notability requirement. One must look at all of the information together, actually follow up the sources etc....Repeated selection as worthy of inclusion in non trivial sources is significant.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please, you people who are debating this back and forth, sign your comments. It's getting confusing trying to keep track of who's saying what to whom while reading this. No matter which position you're taking, you don't want your remarks to get overlooked because readers get confused. Doczilla 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the history page prior source was (cur) (last) 16:23, 25 January 2007 Improbcat (Talk | contribs) (→Hutman Artcars - arguements for deletion added)
The sources cited adequately define the following-

1. I am an artcar artist (I can not say so myself I have used local news media sources which should accomplish this with out being guilty of self reporting)
2. My work (all of the cars) has been recognized as "Art Cars" by a jurried major respectable municipal event over many years. As well as a juried national event where I have appeared with three of the cars. (again I cited local media of trusted respectable sources)
3. I am part of the history of the art scene in Baltimore and to date a major player. If in an area one person has done more than others that is information of significence. Not any reflection on quality but I have evidenced my participation in the art scene and as such part of its history and until someone does more than I I currently hold a position of significance in that history etc....My work is part of the history of the art car in Baltimore and this is sourced.
  Essentially editors have asked me to prove my existence as artist, as creators of works acknowledged as art cars and having a particular standing in the art car world which is not "ordinary" I had to do so using the reporting and documentation of others. It has been accomplished. Moving on.
4. When work is included in major respectable publications that is a degree of notability. There is a differnce in magnitude between those who are not selected to be included in important and reputable publications as examples (Blank) or as focus for chapters (Lake) and those who are not. If one is included in such works one has a certain level of notability.
  I cite the following notable inclusions and documentaries and feature (these are not news articles) ] Notable Sources Illustrating the Significance of Hutman Artcars Locally and Nationally [edit] In-Depth Studies "The Passions of Conrad Jay Bladey" Carl Schoettler; The Sun; Sep 6, 2003; 1.D; A detailed study of the work of Conrad Bladey in the area of Artcars "Conrad Bladey", "Hometown Portraits." Series, Channel 2,WMAR, Baltimore. This video documentary visits the studio studies the art cars and interviews the artist. Here in the Baltimore The videographer, Peter Kulsziski, comments on the program. "Among the subjects of Kulsziski's profiles -- he's done about 35 so far -and Conrad Bladey, who drives a car literally covered with bumper stickers." -"Delightful `Portraits' make debut; TV: Cameraman Pete Kulsziski talks to everyday people with extraordinary results.; Radio and Television; [FINAL Edition] Chris Kaltenbach. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.: Oct 28, 1998. pg. 2.E " The documentary is an in-depth study of Conrad Bladey, the Studio and the Hutman Artcars. The documentary evidences the vehicles and the art, and the artist selected as a notable aspect of the Baltimore Art Scene. "Monster Nation", Part 11, The Learning Channel. This in-depth documentary focuses on the significance of the Art Cars, Visits the Studio and discusses artistic techniques via an interview with the artist. Weird Maryland (Matt Lake, Sterling Publishing, 2006, p.117-119) Chapter and photos documenting the cars and the artist as a notable aspect of the state of Maryland selected by the authors. The Sticker Car featured in a photo documentary book of Baltimore sights by Dan Rodricks (Baltimore, Charm City, Towerly, 1997, p.123) Photo in a collection of what are considered important landmarks of the City of Baltimore. The photo of Conrad Bladey and Sticker Car I is included on a page of other notable artcars of Baltimore indicating the place of the artist and his works in the history of the Art Scene in Baltimore. Harrod Blank, Art Cars: The Cars, the Artists, the Obsession, the Craft, Lark Books,2002, p.28. Sticker Car selected in a collection of Art Cars from across the nation by a notable author and film documenter of the Art Car community. Voice of America Television ("Art on Wheels"\Craig Fitzpatrick, 01 Apr 2004, http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/voahut.html) Detailed study of the studio, Art Cars and the Artist broadcast internationally.
  Once again there are artists and then there are artists who multiple times have been included in what one might call upper level or significant or researched documentaries. This inclusion changes the status of the individual.
  Then I can go on to national recognition. There are people who take part in national events and then there are people who win prizes in those events. There is a notability difference. Winning first prize in one's category-Daily Driver in what is acknowledged to be the most important event for art cars in the world Houston Art Car Parade-a juried event. and one who simply has an artcar or several.
  The editor above has not utilized all of the sources which appear in the article. It is important to do so. The local articles establish my existence and role as a part of the history of artcars in Baltimore- for example the distinction of the first person to have designed and created 5 artcars if you will....not concerned about the national importance of this but it is none the less a milestone in history....not looking at significance here as much as the fact that I am a player of note at least now in the history of the art scene in baltimore.....
  The several documentaries, selection for coverage in important books of note, and national and worldwide distribution of these (see voice of america) indicate notability which has been bestowed upon me by important writers. Again this is much more notable than someone who has just created an artcar or several. I would believe that these authors and documentary filmers did not create their work at random. Selection for these is a sign of notability.
  For example of all the art car artists in the country few were selected to be featured and researched for an episode of Monster Nation-cable television series on the Learning Channel. I was selected. The research was in depth and production took place over a month with research and filming. The production covered all my artworks, studio. I have traveled out of state to places I have never been.....people recongnize my notability and come up to me and mention my inclusion on the program.....
  If the total number of citations is considered I believe I have overcome criticism. As for writing and style that is being worked out as soon as possible and will be complete certainly when the major criticisms are dealt with and those tags removed.
  That the artcar world is small is immaterial. There remain important artists of varying degrees and unimportant artists. Wikipedia determines this based upon inclusion in important, selective works of note. Sorry that some do not consider me as important as others-that happens with all communities and I don't aim to please anyone. However I can cite the proper sources required and have done so adequately. Not after vanity or self promotion. I have been very much factual in this very short article. I state facts, back them with citation. I am only promoting the preservation of history which is notable. Conrad Jay Blade 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carthedral won first place at Houston and doesn't have a wiki article. Holy Mercatoyd won first place for the same category you did - daily driver - and doesn't have a wiki article. In fact about 8 cars a year get first place in some category or other and don't have wiki articles. You AGREED with me on the artcars page that we can't include every car that has won a prize because there would be HUNDREDS. Harrod Blank CREATED the book you're citing as your source and doesn't have a wiki article. What makes you more special than all of them? Also, I would disagree that Houston is the most important event for art cars in the world - it happens to be the BIGGEST but that doesn't make it most important. It's also one of the few that happens to offer prizes - ArtCarFest doesn't, Artscape doesn't.Plymouths 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Plymouths's perspective on this from another art car hobbyist is important. I don't know a thing about art cars (nor had ever heard of them before this article), so it's hard for me to argue notability within the field. The more and more we get into this, the less and less it feels as though notability has actually been established. At the very least, Cbladey's efforts would be better spent writing articles about other notable art car people and events, rather than himself. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other important cars do not have articles is immaterial. Both of those cars are notable beyond a doubt. The fact that they dont have articles is that the artists or others have not taken the time to write them. (I can see why as it is a lot of trouble, time and effort). On the Art Car page one is dealing with a representative sample of a whole. I stated that a rotation of featured cars would be best.

Harrod is worthy of a page but it would be hard to write it himself and he has not been documented much more than I have. A few more articles but of the same type and if you dont like the notable publications written about me you won't accept the publications written about Harrod....more of them perhaps he as as notable as a president and I am only as notable as a congressman for example... but I am certainly more notable than either of the ordinary cartists taking part in this debate. Far more articles about me, far more documentaries far more worthy books.And a much longer time in the field....So what is the answer....I think it is to consult the wiki instructions in regard to notability. I shall paste them here soon and we can check them off.

Ok I will qualify- houston is the biggest event in the world not my favorite either. My favorite event is when I pull in to the I 95 rest stop in laurel. However it is probably either equal to artcar fest or more important but importantly they have a serious juried show which is important (I know of no other serious juried shows as in juried shows in the art world with experts and rules) .

Independent decision I thought that is what the wiki system wanted to see. I have also won prizes and been selected for honoraria (which were limited to a few-one year an early one I was the only one selected out of a large field at artscape to receive the only one...) in other competitions. The point is what constitutes notability? At least I have put my record out in an objective way independent of my own voice. The wiki rules should be able to overcome diverse opinion.

Specifically was I mentioned in the type of sources mentioned in the wiki guidelines independent of myself (non-trivial) simple...It does not matter if you like one artist or another it matters what has been written about them of what type of source.

While editors of an artcar background are interesting it is important that concerns about deletion be addressed by a broader audience as artcar artists both of whom writing here I know are far from any unbiased sources. I respect and appreciate their time and effort however, we have had differences in the past that I fear are getting in the way of an objective consideration of the sources which I have used to back up my claims of notability which are material facts. Not Opinions!Conrad Jay Blade 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My notability is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT since I'm not a self-aggrandizing narcicist who is trying to create a page for herself. Plymouths 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if Plymouths and myself can not be considered unbiased sources in regards to your notability, than there is absolutely no way that YOU can be considered an unbiased source regarding YOUR notability. And as such this means the article is biased and thus valid for deletion. Improbcat 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, bias isn't a criterion for deletion. Non-notability is though, so if you can prove extensively one way or the other, the closing admin will probably look at that. It's hard right now given the state of the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - note that I carefully avoid using my own words to develop notability. Everything is carefully sourced and the actions of others-movie makers, authors, events fully documented make the case for notability-I am just the writer I have avoided opinions I point only to the facts-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Available Non-Trivial Sources for Notability in The Artcar World/Genre[edit]

- Perhaps it will be helpful to document how, in the Art Car World notability is obtained.(as best as I can tell) Unlike many Genres of art which have many dedicated academic joiurnals devoted to them and a long established series of tests which artists have to undergo to obtain notability the artcar world is a recent development. Therefore we do not yet have journals or a large range of scholarly writing available. The artcar world does however have milestones of a sort that can be used to rank individual artists and their works. Even though we are a new genre there are ways that noteriety can be assessed. As with any other genre some artists are ordinary while others are notable while still others are the most notable. Wikipedia does not deny notability to all but the most notable (example being congressmen are notable presidents and world leaders may be most notable-both are included...)

So what do we have in the artcar world with which to measure notability-

1. Has the artist created an art car (admission to the process)

2. Has the artist been recognized by juried shows and awarded prizes (this is a convention in other genres whereby a jury is selected to review an entry in a competition and prizes or admission to an event are awarded based upon this independent jury)

3. Has the artist become part of the Local Art Car Scene in an important way-do they hold or have they held for a period of time records- for example have they created more artworks than others and maintained that position over time- have they brought more art works to competition, have they been written about more in he local media. The ordinary artcar artist would be at one end the notable one would be at the other.

4. Has the artist received awards from a major rather than minor local juried events. There are a wide range of art car events. Among those which give prizes the Houston event for example would serve as an example of a National event whereas Artscape in Baltimore although sometimes cars from outside the region attend is primairly a regional event. A notable artist would be one who has won recognition Honoraria, admission to juried events of both types. I suppose if one wants to get picky one could google artscape in baltimore and the houston event and determine which has the most entries but it is most likely that the Houston event is the largest juried show.....

5. Has the artist been selected to be the subject of documentaries or television programs. While one could determine that selection for inclusion as the focus of documentaries may be a random act I doubt that those producing these would agree. If an artist has never been selected for such coveraege I would say that they were not as notable as one that has consistantly been selected over time by several. Of the artists that have been selected for inclusion in documentaries and television programs of a non news nature some will be ordinary in that they are selected once or twice and not consistantly over time, and some will have been only been selected for local documentaries. These would be more ordinary than the notable artist who has been selected for local national and international broadcast.

6. Moving to Books. There are books which are casual and there are books which attempt to be selective. Selection for inclusion in books could be a random process but I believe that if you ask authors they would disagree. I would maintain that those not selected for inclusion were ordinary where those who were included were more notable. If an author wishes for example to illustrate art car surface treatment it is generally assumed by the reader that the example selected pleases the author more than others even though this is not stated it is implied by the inclusion. No one can really tell but when an artwork is published it has a quality ok maybe only slightly elevated from the ordinary. It is none the less a part of notability.

Other books are defined as works capturing the significant. That is an author studies the city and finds things that are notable. The book has this as its purpose. Monuments, Houses, landmarks and in one case an artcar or several. These could be included randomly but not when the purpose of the book is to capture the notable. An artwork appearing in such a book is more notable therefore than one that was not included.

Notability in books is also defined by the length of the entry. Weird maryland is a book surveying the entire state of maryland. They wanted to include an artcar or two. In their attempt to single out notable places, landmarks and individuals they selected one artist rather than another. The ordinary artist not included the notable artist has been included. Of course one could insist that this process of editing is random I think not.

I hope this survey of notabilitiy in the artcar world will help editors to assess the relative notability of my work. The notability threshold is important. I do not believe that one has to be the "most notable" to be included. One simply has to be "notable".

Another important point is that one article or one entry does not make one notable. Notability is the sum of many parts in many dimensions. Yes the inclusion of one photo is only slightly notable but added with all the other aspects of notability it assists with making the case. Some achievements are more notable than others but all notable achievements should be considered.

If one is judged not notable one must know what is lacking from the case for notability. The question to be asked is what hasn't been achieved.

The artcar world is a bit more difficult to work with because we are not yet covered by a large corpus of academic work and writing. This does not mean that there are not ways to judge the relative notability of an artcar art work or artist.(note I do not wish to assert that there is anything wrong with ordinary art car artists. The artcar community is large and diverseConrad Jay Blade 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding notability criteria

Wikipedia discusses notability as follows:"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic."

It should be quite clear that I have provided "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject". In addition I have included other sources but if you read the direct citations you will find that I have met the standard.See my discussion of the means to obtain notability in the Art Car Community should you believe the sources are trivial. Thanks! -Conrad Jay Blade 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's take a look at these multiple non-trivial sources. You've got a passing mention in a book by harrod (fails non-trivial), you've got a passing mention on monster nation (fails non-trivial), a passing mention in the washington post (fails non-trivial) and about 8 mentions in the baltimore sun (can't be counted as separate sources). What's left that potentially counts as non-trivial and independant? Weird Maryland and the Voice of America video. I don't think that counts as "multiple". And none of the sources are things we can actually check on (sorry, no, I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to fly to baltimore to look up newspaper archives)! Not that ALL of your sources are required to be readable online but it would be nice if at least a FEW were. I do a google search for your name and the first couple of pages of results are all your webpages and blogs and other things you wrote on message boards (or pages that compile links that link back to your pages). If I actually do a search for "Hutman ArtCars" there's even less. Why are you SO DESPARATE for fame? You keep asking for specific suggestions - here's a specific suggestion: wait until someone else decides you're notable and writes an article about you. That would solve all of your problems. Meanwhile try to edit things on wikipedia that you don't have a conflict of interest when writing about to try to get a feel for the place. You picked about the most difficult way possible to jump in. You're right that there are a lot of rules and guidelines and it can be a lot to absorb - if you do it while writing about a subject you have less emotional involvement in it will be easier. Plymouths 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninformed Discounting of Non Trivial Sources[edit]

1. Selection by an important author for inclusion no matter how brief is significant.(Blank)

2.Monster Nation- An entire Segment of a program (like a chapter in a book, long not passing and in depth interviews and research and comprehensive coverage-a national television program

3. Weird Maryland- Significant portion of a chapter of a critical overview of significant sites, persons and places in Maryland. Article and picture of Magnet truck spaning two pages. Article something like 3-4 pages..

4.Voice of America- a documentary, not news piece.

5.Chanel 2 video documentary-in depth,non trivial independent-one of a handful of people in baltimore selected for study.

6.The Passions of Conrad Bladey in the Sun- Feature article, well researched not trivial not news.

7.Dan Rodricks- "Baltimore" photo of myself and sticker car as representative of the city alongside all of the most important landmarks, buildings etc.....non trivial independent and selective

Inclusion in non-trivial sources means that someone has decided that I am notable and has selected to include me and my work in a non trivial source.

I could also add in the participation in juried shows, exhibition of my work at the American Visionary Art Museum (I think July 1998-9)......winning local and national honoraria and awards.....

I also wish to point out that Wikipedia does have a Good Faith Rule. This editor- Plymouths has made several statements re. fame etc. which indicate that there may be an absence of good faith.Conrad Jay Blade 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

- - Try this thought. Fame is being written about in an article. Notability is being chosen to be included in a work-documentary,feature article, television story even a photo to represent something.....I have described the monster nation piece. It is not passing mention. It is a chapter in a program as in a book. When you look at television scripts these are chapters or segments. It is a whole mini documentary. A tour of all the cars, of the studio, interviews with me, family others.

The Voice of America Piece- I dont think anyone would doubt that the VOA is not a trivial source. The VOA produces news stories- brief pieces. The piece cited is not a news item. The Editor/writer looked around and decided what to write about. He made a selection. He chose me.

(VOA is just one of several media outlets that did this- you see there are more than one who out of the available field selected me....) This is also a mini documentary. Two days of interviews, background research and all about my work.

News articles are of two types- basic reporting which I cite for information and feature articles written as "Studies" in my case a study of an artist and his work which I also cite for the purpose of notability. The paper asks who of all the possible people out there shall we take the time to do an in depth reporting on- this involves research, interviews, vetting, as well as writing. Not a passing reference.

I have been selected for in-depth articles- this goes beyond trivial mention or simple news coverage.....now one can assume that inclusion in books etc. is a totally random practice. I dont think this is the case. I believe inclusion in in depth pieces- non trivial sources- involves assessment of the significance of the subject and a reflection on notability. I may not be the Most notable but I am confident that I am not the most ordinary. Hard to figure out when one gets notable I have just used the Wikipedia sources to determine that-looks like it sould work. I would appreciate taking beter care with the sources I cite. I believe that all I have to do is cite them-I have gone further than needed by providing brief exerpts from them. It is the readers job to find the sources and consult them.

I provide a breakdown on the article concerning the nature of sources and why they are included. You can tell which are used to demonstrate notability. The VOA article is linked to the article. (yes I am working on format but articles are evolving things) The Baltimore Sun has an archive on line, I save money by accessing it via my local library branch. If you cant get to a Maryland library branch try a college library.

Wierd maryland is in bookstores at least around here....(actually a very good book I can not count the number of people who have seen me in the book and told me all about it...)Again though about weird maryland like it or not they had the potential to include any other maryland artist and they picked me, dont think it was random. (just for information the Weird NJ book has a section like the one they did for me on Hoop- another notable art car artist.)

Fame? Couldnt care less. But things accumulate. One ask? "could it be that I am notable?" lets see....why not. Right now I am cutting back on travel and festivals. I have been to so many. I get a large number of parade requests now and have to trim that back. I am content with the notability that exists- When I get out of a plane to attend the Houston festival dozens of people come up to me and know who I am and I have never met them, every day someone comes up to me and tells me that they saw me on Monster Nation (seems to have been re-run lately), The association with AVAM is amazing. Many come up to me and tell me hey you are in the AVAM (visionary art car museum which I have distanced myself from years ago) The public response and on such a high level is what counts in the area of fame.....but really at its foundation the therapy created via the artcar creation process is the most helpful. I dont care how people respond - one way or the other making a response happen is enjoyable.

Why did I pick the hardest way to write? Because it is there! Why do I keep at it- because I want to be famous....no....it is because I want to win or at least make my best case!

Remember- Wikipedia does not ban self written pieces they just "strongly discourage" this means either someone tells me how to correct the article in specific terms and I will do so. Or that no one has ever done this before and I am a trail blazer and shall do the best that I can.

Thanks for your comments, always helpful. There are many art car artists who qualify as notable. I believe I have cited multiple non trivial in depth reporting. Some have more multiples than other others are more notable than others. The threshold is crossed when "multiple" exists. Isn't that more than one? I believe art cars should be more represented on Wikipedia. I believe that the artists themselves can make the case for notable and write in such a way that they themselves are not speaking but that the cited facts and sources are speaking for them. I am trying hard to do this and if I have not overcome myself show me how specifically. Conrad Jay Blade 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there are not MANY notable artcar artists going by the wikipedia definition of notability. Being notable within the artcar community (i.e. known by lots of your fellow artists) is not the same as notability in the general sense. I would say that there are an exceedingly SMALL number of notable artcars and artists - and most of them are people who are notable for other reasons and ALSO happened to build an artcar or several - Andy Warhol, for example, made artcars but is notable for his groundbreaking art in other forms, Harrod Blank is notable for his documentary work (to which his artcars are related but are not the main source of notability) (Harrod is on my short list of things to create articles on when I have time). As you said above "The artcar world is a bit more difficult to work with because we are not yet covered by a large corpus of academic work and writing." - you know what that means? It means that artcars have only just made it into the category of notability as an entire genre and as such individual artists and individual vehicles (or collections of vehicles) within that genre are by definition less notable. Why don't you take a breather and go give some input on the folk art article? You said elsewhere that's something you wanted to contribute on. You have experience and knowledge on the topic, NOBODY is going to dispute the notability of it, and the article itself is tagged with needing input from an expert. Plymouths 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I do not dispute that others are more notable than I nor that others are notable for other things-that does not matter. Lots of things I may be more notable for rather than artcars but...the task is demonstrating according to Wikipedia rules that I am notable, my work is notable. One does this by citing the work of others, non-trivial sources and more than one. Now either I have done this or I have not. Documentaries and books are not trivial sources and I have appeared in a good number of them by invitation- selected for coverage. Do not confuse these sources with others which may be trivial and are included to be complete. I did not say artcar artists have not had notable coverage because it exists I just said that artcar artists have not had as much as is available in other fields but it is quite clear that documentaries have been made, serious studies created, books written so that now artcar artist are obtaining enough notability. Again- some are always more notable than others. You dont have to be the greatest you just have to deomonstrate you have crossed a defined threshold.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking... most people take issue with the autobiographical sections, and Cbladey says it's really supposed to be about the cars. So why not just remove the stuff that relates to you, Cbladey, and leave only the info on the cars. What they are and what they look like should be enough. It seems like you're trying to write this massive article about yourself when there's really only a little bit to say. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - actually the article is not that massive. The intent indeed is to focus on the artworks. I categorized the article today as: artworks-artcars. The portion now written is to be a mini intoduction of the artist based on including only the words and references to others. I think I could improve this by removing my summations- would that work? It would read more like a resume but I would clearly be totally out of it-one solution it would work for me. Thanks for the constructive help which moves toward a solution-Conrad Jay Blade 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Second total Re-Write[edit]

I have elminated all of the statements made by the author except introduction (one has to write something general introducing the topic) and definitions of videos and articles briefly such as: Documentary, Feature Article. Significant background of individual artcars that is awards, inclusion in juried shows, events and other achievements will be inserted once the concerns in the tags have been addressed.'Conrad Jay Blade 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply. But now you've turned it into a quote farm. Doczilla 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)a[reply]

- - Remember that this is only part of the article. It is only the part that provides background for the artworks/introduction. There appears to only be this way for me to compose it otherwise people object to my voice. I think as a backgrounder for the cars and their descriptions it should work. Readers are not misslead and through independent notable sources they can get an idea of how the art work came to be. If it is terse and uninteresting well....perhaps someone else can provide in an independent voice transitions that reflect on the meaning of the citations. At some point my work becomes significant in the local community....at some point nationally...at some point more notable....Yes! somenone anyone, can put in the words that I as author, and artist can not voice due to restrictions. That is the wonder of an evolving document. This is just a start. Once this is clear of tags (I have to do one spell check in the morning but that one should go...soon) I can add in the meat of the article which will also be only materially described. In my situation I must count on the community to flesh it out. But...I have eliminated so much.....ego, personal gain etc.....However the sources are now documented as demanded and it is evident that many of them are not trivial and that the not trivial are several....the only thing missing are the awards via national and local jurried shows which will be in the material description of each car. So....for now a bit dry and terse but with community involvement it can evolve and once the tags are gone I will invest more time in adding the cars and their particular information and leave that for the community to flesh out too. Hope all this work helps, but I want to act on all constructive critique for which I am thankful.-Conrad Jay Blade 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - Major Emphasis of this page: Description of the Artcars

The Purpose of this article is to describe the cars. The section will contain exactly this:

1. Year make and model of the car

2. Date car became an Art Car

3. Technologies used-methods, materials

4. Evolution of the art from start to present

5. Awards, Participation in events juried, non juried.

6. Citations of the car specifically.

7. Vision of the car-that which it is supposed to project

As the article evolves it is hoped that independent critique of all kinds can be added in a critique or review section. At the present time there are problems with the introduction to the article which need to be resolved. Constructive criticism or editing of the article will be greatly appreciated. Once concerns about the article introduction are resolved I will insert the material descriptions indicated for the car section. Conrad Jay Blade 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ego[edit]

Well congratulations - you've managed to turn the code for this page into such a mess that I can't find the proper place to reply. Anyway, in regards to your statement that I am not assuming good faith because I said you have an ego I have only this to say - creating a page about yourself is inherently an ego-driven act, no matter what you put in it. Your repeated arguments here and in other talk pages are only further evidence of said ego. Besides - good faith and ego aren't mutually exclusive - you honestly believe you're worthy of inclusion here. The problem comes in when you've got half a dozen authors disagreeing with that and you're not respecting their conclusions. At this point it's up to the admins to sort out (and any other authors that might like to weigh in). I'm done with it. Plymouths 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - sorry for the difficulties of reading. I have just started here on Wikipedia but seems I am learning. I have tried to clean up things as best as time will allow and to carefuly make my responses distinct and to respond to as many comments as possible and to sign my comments. I think it is still readable and like other such discussions has evolved through time.

About the Critics[edit]

I appreciate all criticism and take it in good faith

It is important to note that although testimony from within the artcar community may be helful it may also be less than helpful
- - Two critics who have written here: Plymouths and Improbcat are both artcar artists who I have encountered on several ocasions in a variety of forums. While I must take their critique in good faith I suggest that as artcar artists they may or may not have a conflict of interest derived from the nature of the artcar community as one with competing philosophies and points of view if not one also with competing artists and artworks. I do not wish to state that conflicts are present but it is a possible downside when evaluating fellow artists. Often conflicts are revealed via tone in writing and statements focused on the individual rather than upon the subject matter being discussed. I draw you attention also to the length of time a writer has been a member of the community which somewhere in wikipedia is discussed in relation to discussions concerning deletion.Again I value all constructive critique and as you have seen I have spent a considerable time addressing specifics involved. I note also that it is clearly evident that some of the crtics have voiced opinons and made statements that they have not taken the time to read the article fully nor look up sources. Another concern is that often critique has taken the form of generalized blanket statements rather than specics. It is one thing to point out a problem but another to describe the problem in such a way that the critique can be constructive. It is also not helpful to be pointed to wikipedia's volumes of help material or even a major section of it. With pages of help it is hard to pinpoint the one line or two that is of concern. I wonder about critcs who seem not to be specific in a constructive sense. I am greatly appreciative of all of the assistance prvided here.

Latest almost total re-write addresses concerns[edit]

just finished almost total re-write
Added more introduction text
added material descriptions without opinons concerning each art car
added external links to artists web pages about each car indicating clearly that they were simply available for those who wished to learn of the philosophies etc...of the artist, and find more information, images etc. (still thinking about link format for external links. Must find rule or source of formatting....let me know how it has to be done. Currently if there is a choice I feel that for those printing out an article it is helpufl to have the entire link rather than the link title.....
I am currently working on finding out if I can spell check via my browser but if i can not I will shortly spell check in microsoft word.
If you have any specific concerns let me know what they are on the article talk page please include suggestions on how to correct the problems.
I will soon include my own photos of the cars I have to find out how to do this.
I will also include external links in the reference area to events, media archive sources, and where possible to the television program sites so sources can be found.
I will also assemble a collection of web references independent of myself and place those in as external links.
This article can be edited by others and should accept critique on way or the other of the artcars and the artist. I will include polite critique either in the car or artist section as time and space permits. Or perhaps I should set up a "reviews of the art and artist section" is that appropriate....that way those wishing to edit the page can include their opinions and point of view.

I will experiment by putting in a what do you think or reviews of the art and artist section.

My goal is to try to implement all of the points of view received here. I have done so whereever the pathway has been clear. Thanks for your effortsConrad Jay Blade 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some progress has been made on the article, with regard to the readability and the tone. It appears to take a more encyclopedic view on the cars, featuring facts on the cars and images. The autobiographical sections have been greatly reduced. The sections below are still a bit heavy on quotes, but this is more of a writing concern than a deletion concern. Any other thoughts? Leebo⁸⁶ 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article remains an autobiographical mess unfit for an encyclopedia. Topic is insufficiently notable. Again: Delete. Doczilla 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Thanks for the comment. Notability is spelled out by Wikipedia. There are plenty of Non-Trivial sources, completely cited in the article for you to read and evaluate. Wikipedia contains several references to Art Car and The Houston Art Car Parade and Outsider and Visionary Art-must be a valid topic! As for autobiography well the article is about my artworks and unless you know something more than I -they can not yet write. I have not provided anything more than the material facts and anything about me has been written by others and I would remove that if not for the other issues such as notability. I suppose I can remove all of the quotes leaving only citations but then it would be even harder for folks in your position to read them but that is a possibility.
Thanks again but unfortunately there are too few specifics for me to act on in this comment. Does Wikipedia ban messes? Let me know where to find that bit. Actually one man's mess might be just another man's Artcar but, you see that doesn't matter! In good faith I let you have your beliefs but simply reserve for safe keeping : the facts -Conrad Jay Blade 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reiterate Delete based on the re-write as I have seen nothing to pursuade me to change my opinion. Montco 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Let's see. You were concerned with the Visionary Artist Claim (actualy the term is a bit messy....I started out a visionary but you see when someone calls you an artist and then you slip and call your work art some day it is all over and then once you drive from your house and park in an event you are no longer an outsider....These days I am more an Artist Visionary and an insider outsider-so maybe I need folks to call me those and I will be on to a new reality). If you havent noticed it is no longer there. There is nothing there about me that has been written by me! One of the sources uses the word. Did you know that it is a fact that self written articles are not banned in Wikipedia! That's right. They are just "strongly discouraged". That makes the problem not if but how should the article be written. Any concrete, constructive recommendations would be highly constructive for this debate. I am always glad to consider your comments. Thanks for taking part.

- - - - I wonder why some editors have blanked pages-must be some sort of concern there. I am too new here to know about such things. How would anyone know about a person or their credibility if all their personal pages were blanked....maybe they ran out of computer space...who knows.... Conrad Jay Blade 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed all but 4 short quotations[edit]

Removed almost all of the quotations in a major edit. The remaining quotes sketch the basic history of the art works- basically beginning middle and present day. These will help the readers to understand how the artworks came to be. References to the removed quotes still in the reference section. I also cleaned up sentences which had suffered from the many edit processes.Conrad Jay Blade 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- - This page has totally been re-done and hardly resembles the original article. Those interested can always re-assess and make changes,etc. But it is basically a start over in concept, organization and content as it relates to original document.Conrad Jay Blade 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - Following editorial suggestions I have put double brackets around all important words.

- - - I have inserted internal links to relevant Wikipedia articles.

- - - cleaned up minor grammer and writing errors-continuous process will make any changes suggested.

- - - I appologize for the "messy" formating of this page. The argument has caused me to modify my original philosophy and statements. It may be helpful to read this page topically as well as chronologically. Perhaps in error I responded to editors topically that Is I inserted response after their statements....sorry but it seemed logical....I continue to appreciate the constructive criticism provided. If I am provided with a specific problem it will be addressed in a timely manner. Citing chapter and verse is much more helpful than simply citing the manual. Conrad Jay Blade 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability has vastly improved in the article, and it is now basically coherent. However actual notability has still not been established. Usefulness of article and what it adds to Wikipedia I still don't see. Still a Delete. Improbcat 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - thanks for the positive response. Notability takes a lot of thought. There are lots of articles on wikipedia which are not about truly the most notable people or things. Recently to link my article to related individuals- a local author Dan Rodricks who has written about me in the Baltimore sun and even helped with and narated the channel 2 article about me has an article that is not in "trouble". Dan is a local writer who is employed by a newspaper and radio station. He has written this and that, columns and articles and did a television show, edited a book. Dan is known locally - most if not all of his contributions have been local but he in his field is not one of the most Nationally Significant Journalists of our time- far from it. Yet his article is there. He possesses a degree of notability but it is not defined at the national or international level. It seems it is defined within his own business. I guess-since the article is not in trouble that the level of significance within the field of journalism is significant enough.

Sort of like in football. Teams are just teams- ordinary teams. What makes a sports team important enough to have an article? How is notability awarded in the field of sports? It is awarded by the number of steps on the ladder (in pro football) one has accomplished out of the number possible. I would say that 50% is winning whatever it is that is beneath the play offs. (Notability need not be 100%-back to the congressman and president distinctions) It only need to be on or over the threshold. A first down is a first down on the line and does not have to be yards over the line. Notability need not be a superbowl winner or even a play off winner.Conrad Jay Blade 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The question it seems is that some think that art car artists (a relativly new art form) is not important or useful enough for inclusion generally.(what is useful? Certainly a student wanting to research Artcars would find the inclusion of a profile of an artists work and examples of it useful?) How would one determine if art car artists were worthy? In the art world the highest level of reflection of importance is the dedicated museum- The fine art museum, the modern art museum. For us in the art car world we have the Houston Art Car Museum and to a certain extent the American Visionary Art Museum. A few others. So I guess art car is a significant art category judged important. So I guess if you are at the top of the game being in a museum is the Superbowl. (my artwork was invited to be exhibited (outside of artscape) at specific events sponsored by AVAM and placed on display in the courtyard (fourth of july temporary exibit) I have been written about in their Tabloid exhibition guide for a major exhibit) But I get ahead of myself.

In the artcar world what are the steps to the top? (sort of like elections in politics- there is the nomination process, the primairies the general election the innaguaration.....) I have described what we have in our world to mark notability- making a car, being recognized and included in an exhibit with artcar criteria, winning a jurried artcar event, being selected and included in non trivial publications and video documentaries, being included in exhibits (invited by galleries etc...) Having artwork included in Galleries (in the artcar world the exhibition space is so small that this is truly an honor....)

As I have discussed the point is getting half way or more. So where am I in this? -made artcar- Yes (actually a high level of achievement here I have made the most in the area) -Admitted by application to artcar events with artcar criteria?- Yes many of them,local,regional,national -Winning a juried show?-Yes Orange Show not third,or second but first prize in the category that my car is. (remember one does not have to get the top prize of the entire event just a major one!) -Being selected and being exhibited for exhibition by a museum or Gallery and or being selected to be written about by the gallery- yes! I was requested to place my car on display within the property of the museum for a temporary exhibit and was referred to (validated) by inclusion in a tabloid guide published by the AVAM on the topic of artcars (refered to as "the" Baltimore Art Car Guy (a bit over the top as there were others but they knew there were others so I guess its their call... -Inclusion in non-trivial publications- Yes. A good number. Books, Videos etc....

Now where am I in relation to the first down. Well I think I am over the line which is all that matters. In terms of being the most notable I may be on the way- edging into the museum area which is perhaps the top but not there yet. So I guess I have won a few playoffs but am in line for the superbowl.

One of the questions to ask is what more can be done in the specific artcar field to reach the notable threshold-on or over the line? I think I have done most everyting and to the above add in being commissioned by non trivial organizations to create artworks, teach workshops, create cars with students in workshops and classes, I even was selected by a local college to offer a college course (did not run but they listed the class which is a judgement of my qualifiations to teach it...) There is a lot on the scale. Can't think of much more to add. Thanks for being patient with my evolving thought but this is a "trailblazing" sort of issue. At some point this discussion is necessary- other artcar artists are out there becoming notable every day and significant work should be recorded here at some point. Conrad Jay Blade 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - it is noted that after the re-write tags were added. Very vague reasons were given not indicating what needs to be fixed. It seems that some believe that Wikipedia bans articles written by the subject. It is very very clear that the words used are "strongly discouraged" if therefore a type of article is legal, not banned then it can exist and if it has problems they can be corrected. I will gladly make any corrections needed to fix this legal article. If the tags are placed in good faith the editor placing the tags should indicate with some degree of specificity what corrections should be made. They dont have to but if the goal is progress and improvement that would be most helpful. I don't mind the tags but I have a feeling that those adding them do not seek improvement of the article nor assistance. Again I am glad to have assistance and will do what I can to fix things. It is hard to improve things if all people are saying is that something (legal) should not exist. I invite others to fix the article- I have even done this on the page itself. It is a short article. Let us just fix it and move on or else leave it aloneConrad Jay Blade 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here has stated that autobiographical articles are banned - if they were your article would ALREADY be gone. Instead you get a 5-day review process that gives you a chance to convince people that your article is worthy of keeping. As you quoted about 5 times here - it is "strongly discouraged". Well guess what we're doing? We're discouraging you. STRONGLY. Just like the policy states. Plymouths 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be discouraging but in good faith if an author is working on an article isn't it an obligation for the community to be helpful? You have discouraged, done now how does the community join in to help out as the author goes forward with something that is legal. Thanks for your interest. Now how can we work to fix the article.Conrad Jay Blade 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

from the Wikiopedia on good faith:

:To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing" Ok....I have been told that something is difficult, hard work essentially I have been " discouraged" it is abundantly clear that I can do what I am doing legally It is abundantly clear that I have heard the discouragement and am going to continue. your instruction then from Wikipedia is:"assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" that person is me The only problem is therefore that you sense that there are mistakes Wikipidia then says: "correct it without criticizing" So....if you have a problem what is it specifically, since the article is legal the only thing it can have wrong is problems. Find the problem, find the solution and either fix it or tell me and I will fix it. At this point there is mostly criticizing which I don't don't mind but Wikipedia does not like it and tells you to "coorect". Thanks again for your interest. Trailblazing...never easy but if you use the rules as the baseline it can be accomplished-Conrad Jay Blade 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling from the wording "strongly discouraged" that it's only not banned because that would require actual identification (and that it can theoretically work). I've never heard of one that was actually brought up to standard and existed on its own with only the subject writing it. I think some editors might see it the same way as if someone ran by proclaiming that they were going to run from New York to California without taking a break. It's theoretically possible, but just about everyone is going to tell you not to try it, and they're not going to point out ways you could improve your running form, because that's not the main concern. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Good but no cigar! Let's see...."It has never been done before so we won't help you?" -(not to say that I have not had help!) Wikipedia says "correct it without criticizing". I am acting in good faith- trying to help it not hurt it. It is my point of view that finding a solution will assist more numbers of important and meaningful articles for inclusion added more efficiently. If information is real and documented who cares how it gets here. Why kill messengers if there are no lies, overstatements, or legal violations. Someday someone might Run from New York to California without taking a break but never if we dont let them try and assist them when we can-Conrad Jay Blade 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can ask rhetorical questions about why the random person should help the cross-continental runner, but I'm trying to say it's not absurd for that person to react that way. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes! but Wikipedia is not interesting in your personal reaction. You may discourage but if the page is legal....you are pretty much commanded to "correct it without criticizing" These are two different things. Discourage and correct. The question is not if a legal artical should come or go but since it is legal- how can it be corrected? As in take this sentence and write it this way not that way. Punctuate or format like this. I try to make sure I address recommendations promptly as best as I can. I am always thankful for assistance which goes beyond criticism to correcting the legal page. Thanks again for everyones assistance. Trailblazing can be slow but it will work.Conrad Jay Blade 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - Removed all trace of commentary. Transformed into material facts only chronology. Conrad Jay Blade 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - continued replacement of the quotefarm tag reflects at this point the presence of critique for critque's sake. Clearly removal of any of the four quotes on this page would not benefit the article but harm it. Quotes are the product of the independent parties-the authors. The length of the quote can not be adjusted by the author of this article as the quote is that of the independent party-length is out of the control of the author of the article (proper critique would simply helpfully find a way for the author to trim the quotes down limiting them while still making the point) . There is no better way of conveying history than through independent voices from reputable sources. Stating that a quote farm exists is not an attempt to help the page but to bring it down simply because something about the page content or author is disliked by the editor. Again it is so easy to make constructive criticizm that this editor has become suspect.Conrad Jay Blade 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - Good faith dictates that those who write the truth here do it for positive purposes. If the article is the "truth" verified and not disputable, sourced fully and completely and accurately. Who care who writes the truth? The only dispute here is if the truth has been written. The way to solve that is to cite and research sources and claims. I don't think it really matters who wrote the truth just so it is true. I have seen no one dispute the truth of the article nor its accuracy thus far.Conrad Jay Blade 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Since the subject of "truth" has been brought up by the author I felt obliged to put in a comment. WRT sources, I'm increasingly skepitical of the quality and objectivity of the sources listed and how they are being categorized by the author. In addition to originally overstating the extent of coverage in "Weird Maryland" it appears that the author's description of "In-depth Television Documentary" is overly generous as well. So far I have been unable to find any sort of documentation confirming that the author was the subject of an In-depth Television Documentary in either Monster Nation or VOA. In particular, Monster Nation as a series does not appear anywhere on the Discovery Channel website. I spent some time trying to find references to it and it appears to have been a mini-series (or possibly a series of specials from the Monster Garage series) in which each episode featured several notable vehicles of different types. Within a one hour show (with commercials) you're probably looking at 3-5 minutes per segment and that seems to be a far cry from an "In-depth Television Documentary". It is also worth pointing out the that link provided by the author wrt Monster Nation seems to be for a site that is asking people to volunteer to participate in the project which would seem to be a blatant form of self-promotion. Given that a television series should be the easiest thing to verify, this makes me seriously question the nature and quality of the other sources cited. This skepticism is further increased since the author's response to a question about his sources was "find a library and check the on line archives" which seems to make the task of verifying and working with his sources needlessly difficult (and it places the responsability for producing the sources on an editor's shoulders not the author's, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines).

I think that the author is probably notable and/or noteworthy, but I have serious doubts if his notability meets the Wikipedia standards. In the last several days, I've made a concerted effort to find references to either Mr Bladey or his vehicles online and ALL of the sources I've come across seem to be either directly created by him, or purely promotional (and even references that he's included in the article use quotes from Mr Bladey where he claims to be a "Visionary Artist"). I also took a look at existing articles for automobile figures (e.g. Chip Foose), and did searches for them online and I found a great many sources and independent references to the people and/or their work. If Mr Bladey was as notable as he seems to believe, I would expect to see some chatter from discussion groups, forums, etc... indicating that people were talking about him or his work and that just doesn't seem to be the case. Given the amount of time he's spent defending his article I find it odd that he hasn't thought to produce some of the articles he's mentioned (not for inclusion, just so that other editors can look at them and perhaps find other information to include). It seems odd that there haven't been all that many references to factual details of the vehicles and/or their creation, maintenance, current status etc... Even after numerous edits, each auto's section seems more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia entry. --Dragonvpm 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of positions[edit]

Wading through all of this is difficult. If I followed everything correctly, here is a summary of the votes/positions everyone expressed:

CfD nomination: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Tagged by multiple authors for deletion, author keeps removing tags. User:Plymouths
Delete. User:Auros
Delete. User:Doczilla
Delete. User: Plymouths
Author response. Extensively defended the article. User:Cbladey
Comments from User:Leebo86
Weak delete. User:Montco
Delete or userfication.[76] User:Improbcat (Figuring out who said that took some effort because of how the author of the article in question inserted replies directly into other people's remarks. Don't do that.)
Still delete despite improvement. User:Improbcat.
No vote from User:Uncle G, just a comment: "Here is not the place for primary sources to write primary source material. It is not a cheap shortcut around the process of getting primary source material published properly. Please look elsewhere."
Reaffirmed delete after changes. User:Doczilla
Said delete after changes, having previously said weak delete. User:Montco
Delete. User:Dragonvpm

Doczilla 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an accurate summation of my position. However unless it was done and reverted and I missed it, User:Cbladey didn't actually insert replies into my comments. I inserted comments from the version of this article that was up at the time to support my position. This is in no way a defense of User:Cbladey as he has repeatedly replied in other people's comments elsewhere, just a clarification of the facts in this one instance.Improbcat 15:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheon (Marvel)[edit]

Speedy delete and redirect duplicate article. Redirect to the more complete Pantheon (Marvel Comics). Doczilla 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect - ditto - Shaundakulbara 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect. User:Dimadick

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Zamora[edit]

Article appears to be created by the subject, and raises questions of notability adavidw 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Answer: I am just a friend of Alejandro Zamora introducing him to Wikipedia. He meets several criterias for insertion, so please let me finish my job and dont edit his page again. Thanks.

Alejandro Zamora cannot be deleted from Wikipedia for the following reasons:

He born to be a musician. He is a new age musician now, he does have composed and recorded several albums on his country, and he does have a website on the Internet.

Furthermore, he meets several of the criterias for inclusion.

1. 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).

2. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

3. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show.

4. Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.

5. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC

Please do not remove the deletion notice from the article. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion as per the notice. If I were you, I would continue to improve the article, in style and substance, but leave the notice there. Other users of Wikipedia will then contribute to the debate about whether the article should be kept - the better the article, and the more justification you can find, the more likely it is to be kept. Stephenb (Talk) 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are notable, someone else will write an article about you. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. MKoltnow 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for MKoltnow: I am a fan of Alejandro Zamora, and I am introducing him to Wikipedia, so please do not delete it again. Thanks.

Well this brings up somewhat of a conundrum.

Let us assume that you are, indeed, not Alejandro Zamora. We will also, for the purpose of this discussion, assume that Zamora is notable, per wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, your username is somewhat inappropriate, as it implies that you are someone well-known, when you are not. It will also always give the impression of conflict of interest when people look at the edit history of an article such as the one on Zamora. (We avoid conflict of interest, when possible, since one of the wikipillars is having a neutral point of view, something which is a challenge when you write about yourself or someone you are close to.) As a possible remedy, consider changing your username to Zamorafan or something which makes it clear you are not Zamora himself.

The other possibility is that you are actually Zamora himself. We assume good faith until we have reason not to. At the same time, edits to an article by the subject of it will always seem suspicious. Autobiographical articles tend to have trouble with POV, and sometimes get away from what the author intended. (WP:AUTO states this better.)

Welcome aboard. Happy editing. MKoltnow 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SO, case closed. I am going to remove the deletion tag because I dont get any answer from you. Furthermore, the person that you are trying to erase meets several wikipedia criterias for insertion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrozamora (talk • contribs) — Alejandrozamora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Weak Keep~~ - your arguments for notability are compelling but that does NOT make it CASE CLOSED by any stretch of the imagination. Consensus is required to determine whether the case is indeed closed. See Wikipedia:Consensus Plymouths 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete - the author has failed to convince me that any of the above claims are true. (If they were true it would be notable, but I see no evidence). Plymouths 07:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my entry to what I actually wrote - weak keep crossed out and replaced with delete. And don't change it again! Revising history will not save your wiki page from deletion. Plymouths 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am agree, but trying to erase an artist like him or Yanni from Wikipedia, or from another place, is impossible. He is an new age musician, and he must be included on the list of new age musicians of Wikipedia. Furthermore, he meets several criterias for the insertion on Wikipedia. Now, if you are agree, and all the world here is agree, we can reach a common agree. So, I will be glad if the case is closed, and you can leave me to do my job. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrozamora (talk • contribs) — Alejandrozamora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I hope it's not your JOB - if you're being paid to write this page that's a conflict of interest! Also, please sign your comments from now on. Just put in 4 tildes like this ~~~~. Thanks. Plymouths 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, it's a bannable offense. Considering this is an outright admission of guilt I'd say the article should be Speedy Deleted. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a possibility that the author didn't mean it like that. Based on their gramatical style it appears that the author's primary language is something other than english and they're not fluent, so there's a good chance the author doesn't fully understand the definition of the word "job" (then again that's a pretty good argument for them not editing the english version of wikipedia, though that's probably outside the scope of this discussion as a poorly written article can be cleaned up by a native speaker rather than being deleted). Plymouths 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; subject admits that he is violating WP policy, and blatantly flaunts it. --Mhking 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is an new age musician, and he must be included on the list of new age musicians of Wikipedia.

Apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.

If he is a new age musician, he must be placed where all the artists of this kind are placed, of the same way like you place new fruits on Wikipedia, so apples must be placed where all the fruits are placed.

Furthermore, I remember you that he meets several criterias for the insertion on Wikipedia, and he cannot be deleted, of the same way like stars cannot be deleted from the sky. Zamorafan 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Zamorafan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's very poetic, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether or not Mr. Zamora is notable. Are you the same user as User:Alejandrozamora? --adavidw 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have changed my username to zamorafan to avoid confussions. Zamorafan 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree with you zamorafan. apples are fruits and he must stay in the list. Bbgirl 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Bbgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As it stands this is purely spam; claims to "several albums" is not substantiated or referenced; as are the other claims of notability. It's simply a linkfarm for his personal sites.

Note Would the closing admin check for sockpuppetry here, and take appropriate action(s); suspected are:

Zamorafan

Bbgirl

Alejandrozamora

Muchas gracias! SkierRMH 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On my recommendation (perhaps, see User Talk:Alejandrozamora), the user willingly admits (see above) now to be editing using Zamorafan, so that certainly should not be considered sockpuppetry. The edit history for the second username is entirely subsequent to the edit history for the first. MKoltnow 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, Alejandro Zamora is a NOTABLE artist. He meets several criterias for insertion on Wikipedia. He does have recorded several CDs and furthermore he does have a website on the Internet, so anyone who is saying that he is not NOTABLE is trying to hide the sun with a finger.Zamorafan 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have finished of updating the website of Alejandro_Zamora on Wikipedia. So, please it is time to reach a common agree to place the apples where the apples belongs, and keep this new age musician in the list of new age musicians. Zamorafan 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This is a clear abuse of Wikipedia. - Shaundakulbara 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough proof of notability and he meets several criterias for insertion on Wikipedia. #1 He does have recorded several CDs, #2 he does have won several awards of music on his country, #3 he does have performed public concerts, #4 he does have composed music for radio and tv shows, #5 and he does have a website on the Internet... so, what more you want? an interview with LARRY KING on CNN to get notability? He is not so notable like Yanni, but he already meets several criterial for insertion on Wikipedia, and to be honest, anyone who is unable to see that he is a new star, is a blind person. Perhaps, if we are able to open our eyes and our hearts, we can see that a new star is shining on the sky today. Zamorafan 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, conflict of interest, lack of verification, insufficient notability. Montco 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montco, as was said above, "perhaps, if we are able to open our eyes and our hearts, we can see that a new star is shining on the sky today." I'm joking of course. I already voted to delete. Shaundakulbara 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, but I cant understand your joke, perhaps you have a bad sense of humor or I am unable of laughing of bad jokes. Zamorafan 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep it. Just like apples cant be deleted from Wikipedia, u cant delete this star of the sky. Bbgirl 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks Bbgirl. At least you still have eyes. [User:Zamorafan|Zamorafan]] 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I VOTE TO KEEP IT. I guess that I already voted, but I want to leave public certainty of my votes. Zamorafan 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay. You have made your claims of notability. Please let the discussion run its course. It does not help your case (and may hurt) that you have voted twice and comment frequently. MKoltnow 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was willing to hold off on a decision, but googling the subject's name along with names of several of the albums in the discography produces either no hits or unrelated hits. And yes, I can read Spanish. I can only conclude that the article is original research, even if we were to stipulate notability. MKoltnow 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia or Google is not a reliable source to judge the notability of a person. There are a lot of notable musicians around the world that have recorded hundred of albums and Google does not show nothing or show unrelated hits. Furthermore there are a lot of notable new age artists like MEHDI[77] that are not included inside of Wikipedia, so I suggest you to re-think again your vote.Zamorafan 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not in a position to dictate whether or not something must be included in Wikipedia. Rules and guidelines exist to make that determination. And given that Mr. Zamora does not meet those guidelines, and given that you, by your own admission, flaunt those rules and guidelines, the page should be deleted. And attempts to influence this by way of creating multiple accounts to act as separate people is also a violation of the guidelines of Wikipedia, and is eligible for punitive measures as dictated by WP rules. In short, you have driven a hole in your own boat. Enjoy the sinking. --Mhking 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: #1 I am not dictating if something must be included or not in Wikipedia, or Google. #2 I just have said that Wikipedia and Google are NOT a reliable source of knowing if a person is notable or not #3 I have changed my username from alejandrozamora to zamorafan per suggestion of MKoltnow #4 Your arguments are ambiguous and inconsistent to be considered like a vote to delete the page #5 I suggest you to fix the holes of your own boat before of searching holes in other boats. Zamorafan 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I vote to keep it. I have purchased several albums on his country. I am from Venezuela and this kind of music is hard to find here because salsa, merengue and latin music is predominant. However, you can find his CDs only in selected music shops, or ordering them directly from his website. Zhakira 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Zhakira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete how can this be kept--there is not a single review or other outside mention on the page? ILIKEHISMUSIC would be fine if an established RS said it in print/web in a Verifiable way.DGG 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you using Google to find a review and judge the notability of a person? So, if Google cant find a single review of an artist, should not be included in Wikipedia? Did you know that there are a lot of notable artists around the world that his names produces no results on Google or Wikipedia? Have you tried MEHDI[78] on Wikipedia or Google? Zamorafan 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, DGG is using YOUR ARTICLE - YOU haven't provided a single reference in the article. It is your responsibility to do that if you want to prove notability, not ours. Please find some references to this guy somewhere and post them in the article! And that person MEHDI you linked to has albums for sale at Amazon.com. I search amazon.com for Alejandra Zamora and I don't find anything. Is there anywhere one can actually buy music by this guy? What is his record label and do they have a webpage? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you're not making it easy. Plymouths 06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to ~~Delete~~ - the author has failed to convince me that any of the above claims are true. (If they were true it would be notable, but I see no evidence). Plymouths 07:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are asking 3 questions at 6:59 UTC and 5 minutes later you are changing your vote from Weak Keep to Delete. Its no fair play! Questions are generally answered within hours, but I would be glad to answer your questions now: #1 you can buy his CDs from his website. #2 The record label does not have a website. #3 If you want more references I recommend to travel to Venezuela. So, please keep or change your vote again when you have finished reading this message. I remember you that Alejandro Zamora meets several requirements to qualify in Wikipedia (although only one is needed). Zamorafan 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote AFTER you answered my questions and I found the answers insufficiently convincing. You deleted that part but you can't change history - wikipedia still has a record of the prior version of the page so you won't fool anyone. Plymouths 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet-chewingly annoying article and subsequent debate. As always, we need to see reliable independent references to support claims of notability. These are not provided. Delete. WMMartin 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: If you want to get reliable independent references besides his website, you will need to: #1 buy his CDs, from his website, or from selected music shops of his country, #2 you will need to travel to Venezuela and listen the local radio AM/FM networks to catch his music, or #3 tuning local TV networks to catch his music on the background of ads or TV news, #4 joining his music school, and #5 perhaps if you travel to Venezuela you would have the luck enough to catch him doing a public performance in a national event. I rememeber you that Google or WP is NOT a reliable source to know if a musician is notable or not. There is still a lot of notable musicians that Google or Wikipedia produces no results or unrelated hits like MEHDI[79] or another notable musicians. Zamorafan 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1: There is a lot of musicians on Wikipedia without websites on the Internet or any kind of external links, without album information, and without biographies or with poor or no information about the artist. He at least meets several requirements to qualilify for insertion in Wikipedia (although only one is needed). Furthermore, I remember you that MEHDI began to sell his CDs from his website, of the same way that Alejandro Zamora, before of selling his albums on Amazon.com. The label record printed on his CDs is Z-records, and apparently this company does not have website. However, you can order his CDs directly from his website, or you will need to travel to Venezuela to buy his CDs on selected music shops as said Zhakira. Zamorafan 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: About the differences between notable musicians, the merits of how they reached to be famous is a thing very important when judging the notability of a musician. In my humble opinion (and from a neutral point of view), Yanni had to travel from Greek to the USA to be a notable musician , MEHDI traveled from Iran to USA to be a notable musician. Pedro Eustache the venezuelan flutist traveled from Venezuela to USA and joined to the Yanni orchestra to be a notable musician. Alejandro Zamora has not traveled to USA to be a notable musician, of the same way like Raul Di Blasio was famous from Argentina without traveling to USA, or Kitaro from Japan. So, you can see that too much people think that the easy way is travel to USA to be a notable musician. Perhaps, Alejandro Zamora chose the hard way to be a notable musician from a socialist country where Internet access is really very expensive, latin music is predominant and piano or new age music is very rare, so I believe that he is at least doing his best effort to reach the top of mountain from the bottom, without using a copter to reach the top, or traveling to USA, to be notable. Zamorafan 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #3: However, if you travel to this country you can listen his music on local AM/FM radio networks and like backgroung music on local TV ads and news. He often made public perfomances in some national events, and does have a music school on his country where I had the opportunity to meet him. He knows to play several musical instruments besides of the piano, and he always repeat to his pupils that he himself learnt to play piano "without a teacher" when he was very young with his own computer using a system that is not available today, called the Miracle Piano Teaching System. Zamorafan 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Note: I still guess that we will reach a common agree to keep this musician in Wikipedia because he meets several requirements for insertion (although only one is needed). Furthermore, there are a lot of musicians on Wikipedia without websites, no external links, no album information, and without biographies or with poor or no information about the artist. So, if this musician is deleted from Wikipedia, we would have to delete a lot of musicians or whole categories from Wikipedia too (including a lot of people from The List of Garage Rock Bands or from The List of Punk Bands). Zamorafan 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message to SysOp / Admin: Please, close this debate and KEEP the page of Alejandro Zamora. He already meets several requirements for insertion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Zamorafan 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Delete, non-notable, sockpuppetry by subject of article. —bbatsell ¿? 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non WP:V, apparent COI, insincere article. Blitz fame claim campaign by astroturfing SPA army eases the decision.—MURGH ^disc. 10:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ive bought several cd's from his website and Ive heard his music through national radio and TV too. Vmusic 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) — Vmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non notable, the account of the largest supporter has been deleted, along with several of the other accounts that supported keeping. Looks like blatant puppetry, and when finally called on it they took their toys and went home. Improbcat 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: You are wrong. He is notable and he meets several requirements for insertion on Wikipedia (although only one is needed). Furthermore, nobody was deleted, sock puppetry is totally false, and FRANKLY, all of us should check The List of Garage Rock Bands or The List of Punk Bands) before of posting again another message to delete this page, because we would have to delete a lot of garbage from these pages before of deleting a real musician Zamorafan 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll target those pages next. --adavidw 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You will have a white and long beard like Santa Claus when you have finished of removing all the garbage that you will find on those pages. However, you will need another life if you want to remove more garbage from another lists like the List of rappers, or the List of funk musicians.

Zamorafan 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message to admin adavidw: I guess that we have reached a common agree to keep this page because he meets several requirements for insertion on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seems that you started this AfD debate, so please delete this page from the list of articles for deletion and KEEP the page of Alejandro Zamora. Zamorafan 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we being trolled or is this tragic comedy? Shaundakulbara 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: You should check The List of Garage Rock Bands before of posting jokes here. Zamorafan 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author peggy lee[edit]

Maybe it is her "common last name" that prevents her from the fame that would otherwise be rightfully hers. Or maybe it is the fact that her books are published by LULU and IUniverse (as per other, already speedily deleted, articles for her novels). Fails WP:BIO janejellyroll 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. The maker of this article seems to be either a young child or a person with mental impairment. Shaundakulbara 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Fram 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know enough about this topic to cast an informed vote, so I abstain. However should this article be kept, it needs to be moved to Peggy Lee Johnson. And cleaned up extensively. 23skidoo 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable vanity press author. Fram 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is there to clean-up? This is a sub-stub. Even if she was notable this article would provide no actual information on her. User:Dimadick

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrpottrider[edit]

non-notable. nothing unique or noteworthy about cyclists in this one region - PocklingtonDan (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It's no different than an article about Rio de Janeiro frisbee players or the sunbathers of Beijing would be. - Shaundakulbara 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was effectively delete. This should be a redirect to the main article, really... not an article itself. Doing so also preserves the edit history if anyone wants to merge content. W.marsh 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AllOfMP3.com legality[edit]

Unencyclopedic, original research. The article is a rundown of laws and legal rulings (unencyclopedic), along with commentary discussion by an editor about whether or not these laws and rulings would apply to the site it is discussing (original research). The AllOfMP3.com has information on the site's legal status already. ~~I don't know why the template above is broken or how to fix it, I'm sorry.~~ Brad T. Cordeiro 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the proeblem with the template. You don't need to type in subest when you are crating the template. --70.48.175.99 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to the punch, but yeah, that was the basic problem. I've redone it again to categorize the AfD into the "Web" category. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason for legality to have it's own article, I agree. Plymouths 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Luke! 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AllOfMP3.com originally had a large section on the legality in various countries. This is an important and rather controversial topic as a part of the original AllOfMP3.com article, but it got so large it was moved to a separate article. Discussion of AllOfMP3.com's legality is certainly warranted, however as it stands now the United States section of the article is original research, non-neutral, and written in impenetrable legalese by a single anonymous editor. Suggest trim and merge back into AllOfMP3.com.--TexasDex 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator - Shaundakulbara 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smerge - Main article should discuss this, but not a lot. This company is a legitimate company selling a legitimate product. Speculating too much on legality is borderline libel. Gigs 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably WP:NOR. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list is so long that it should be separated. -Lapinmies 10:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This article is somewhat useful Mountpanorama 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - refer to WP:ATA... Addhoc 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless reliable third party sources are included. At the moment the entire article appears to be original research. Addhoc 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. After reviewing the arguments here as well as the sources presented, WP:N is still not satisfied, as most of the articles are irrelevant, passing mentions, or sources simply stating that it exists, which is not enough (Wikipedia is not a guide to everything). --Core desat 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California[edit]

Non-notable state pageant. This articles is basically an advertisement for the competition (the author has been adding links all over the show) and is not notable in itself - there is a national competition but that in itself is not notable on the scale that Miss USA and Miss America system pageants are notable (is not nationally televised etc). Note that there are two similar but far more important pageants... the most important being Miss California Teen USA, the other being Miss California's Outstanding Teen (in its infancy but a MAO pageant nonetheless) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Miss California Teen USA Pageant is a BEAUTY CONTEST. Miss Teenage California is an extablished scholarship competition for young women, and attractiveness of the contestant's is only a part of the overall young woman the pageant attracts. Candidates are for the most part involved in school and community and maintain at least a 3.0 GPA. The pageant is notable because each year the winner is NOT the only contestant who wins significant awards. The runners up in the 2007 Miss Teenage California Pageant will win college scholarships of $5,000, $4,000, $3,000, and $2,000 respectively. I believe their are no significant scholarships awarded at Miss California USA, and the winner of the California's OUtstanding Teen Pageant last year won a $1,500 college scholarship. Laceydog 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)laceydog[reply]

Esperanza, Apologies. So new to wikipedia.com Learning as I'm going here.24.23.51.248laceydog

Esperanza, please note that the Miss Teenage California Scholarship Pageant is nothing like Miss California Teen USA or California's Outstanding Teen Pageant. There is no swimsuit or talent competition at Miss Teenage California. The competitive categories are Achievements & Activities, Personality, Poise & Appearance in Formal Wear. Miss Teenage California was founded in 1980, Miss California Teen USA in 1983, and California Outstanding Teen in 2005. 24.23.51.248 08:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)laceydog[reply]

If truth be known the Miss Teenage California Scholarship Pageant existed long before either the Miss California Teen USA and California Outstanding Teen Pageant which is relatively new. These are established facts. The rpize package for Miss Teenage California stands alone as being among the top prize packages in the nation for a state pageant. This is the 28th consecutive year for Miss Teenage California. (See list of winners)

There is nothing of an "ad nature" in the article. The address of the production company, phone number are not even mentioned. Everything contained in the article is FACTUAL. "Esperanza" seems to think that simply because one girl goes to a nationally televised pageant it suddenly adds credence to the system. I beg to differ. Look at the website, study the prizes being awarded, the history of the event as the facts do indeed speak for themselves.

Non-notable state pageant? Miss Teenage California annually has over 200 contestants from every corner of the state. By comparison Miss California Teen USA has between 45-75. You also may wish to check out the prize differences. Our program has existed since 1980 and is the largest teen scholarship pageant in the nation.

Comment The Miss California Teen USA pageant has dozens of local feeder pageants. Those 45-75 entrants were all winners of local or county pageants, which totalled many thousands of entrants. The winner of that pageant will go on to the nationally televised Miss Teen USA pageant. Your contestants will go where? There is no comparison between the two. Fan-1967 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check your facts. The Miss California USA Pageant and teen division NOW have very, very few local preliminary pageants. It is almost entirely at-large. If one is to make verbost statements, please back up with fact. Years ago the pageant had several local pageants. The pageant is now almost entirely at-large with few exceptions.

Comment And just a note, "Miss California Teen USA" turns up 4x the ghits of "Miss Teenage California" (and the fact that the Miss CA Teen USA title is often incorrectly termed means that there should be even more). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been redesigned, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thank you.

Delete The remaining difficulty is notability. There are no references on this article. Forget google count - there are some google hits that seem to describe this pageant - but these all seem to be blogs and the like. What would help is providing multiple non trivial reliable sources, such as an LA Times article on this pageant or something similar.Obina 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza had mentioned in response earlier, that their are other " far more important pageants", and she gave reference to both Miss California Teen USA and California's Outstanding Teenager. While I'm willing to update and change information for suitablity I take som offense to these remarks simply because they are not based in fact. Here are the facts. The Miss Teenage California Pageant was founded in 1980. Miss California Teen USA some years thereafter and the California's Outstanding Teen Pageant is only two years old. These are facts. More facts? The winner of the California's Outstanding Teen Pageant won a $1,500 college scholarship. Our winner receives a $10,000 college scholarship and $5,000 cash. The Miss California Teen USA winner receives very little in comparison to our state winner. Both of the other mentioned pageants that Esperanza notes, do not offer substantial college scholarships to their runners-up. It is a fact our 4th runner up at Miss Teenage California receives more than the winner of the Ca. Outstanding Teen Pageant. I would further go on to state that someone who wishes for me to provide "reliable sources" does not even know how to spell the word "pageant" correctly.

I wish for someone to be exact in the criticism of input, as EVERYTHING mentioned is factual. What more do you need?— 24.23.51.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.23.51.248 please do not delete other user's comments on this page, especially the AfD summary. -- Kesh 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "notability" is vague at best, and doesn't constitute basic facts that exist in the text. Wikipedia needs to do a better job in explaining this. It's rather "wordy" diatribe hardly makes it easier for the layman to contribute.

This may help to clarify notability. And I also suggest this great essay. But it really is easy. I may not be able to spell "pageant" but my goal is to help - if you could suggest 2 newspapers articles or similar describing this event, then editors will want to keep.Obina 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links which may be helpful:

Sources http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/03/05/news/coastal/3_4_0423_01_47.txt

http://www.pageant.com/news/archive/news2006q2.html

http://www.scholarships-ar-us.org/scholarships/beauty-pageants.htm

http://www.paly.net/news/old/20061023.php

http://scholarshipsonthe.net/scholarships-beauty-pagent-scholarships.html

http://www.chs.srvusd.k12.ca.us/CHSHOMEPAGE/Scholarships/Scholarship3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.51.248 (talk • contribs) 23:08, January 25, 2007

Comment Of these, one is from Pageant News Bureau, which covers all pageants, even squitty little ones, so that doesn't prove much. The first one is good, although its more about the locals than the state pageant, the rest are just lists of scholarships and I can't see that establishing notability. Others might disagree, but that's just my opinion. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL SOURCES: (Added here on 01-26-07)

http://www.svcn.com/archives/almadenresident/20040520/ar-news1.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/29_pov.shtml

http://www.paly.net/news/old/20061023.php

http://www.folsom.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3788

Somewhat-weak keep. I added two sources to the article and formatted it a little better. At least one of the previous winners appears to have gone on to compete in Miss USA. Another one may have moved to Utah and won a major pagent there; but I'm not really sure it's the same girl. It may not be the most important teen pagent in California; but I think it's probably notable enough that there's no reason to delete this simple little stub. Moreover Miss California Teen USA, has the same number of references (2). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually several Miss Teenage California winners have gone on to win other major pageants: (Added 01-26-07)

1980- Amy Coverdale. She competed as Miss Missouri USA and was a Top 10 finalist the year that Laura Martinez Herring was crowned Miss USA. She represented Missouri as her family relocated there.

1981- Christina Landman. Won the Miss U.S. Teen Pageant in Lake Charles, LA.

1982- Jodee Dominici. Won Miss Intercontinental in Cartegena, Colombia.

1986- Aya Peard. Won Miss Teen America title in Los Angeles that same yr.

1987- Melissa Anderson. Won Miss Utah USA 1998 and was a top 5 finalist at Miss USA. (Family relocated to Utah).

1988- Deana Avila. Won Miss California USA 1995 and competed at Miss USA.

1991- Tiara English. Won Mrs. California 2001 and competed at Mrs.America.

1993- Jessica Morales. Was 2nd runner up at Miss California USA 2001 Pageant.

1997- Kristen Hungerford. Won Miss Teenage International in South America.

1998- Natalie Arena. Won America's Perfect Teen Pageant in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

1999- Ellen Chapman. Won Miss California USA 2004 and competed at Miss USA

2001- Ami Geist. Was 3rd runner up at Miss North American Teen in Florida.

2002- Tara Sanders. Won Miss Teen of the Nation Pageant in Las Vegas.

2006- Caitlin Barrett. Won Miss Teen of the Nation Pageant in Las Vegas.

Three Miss Teenage California's have gone on to compete at the Miss USA Pageant, four have won national pageant titles, and two have won International pageant titles. Numerous runners up in national pageants since 1980. Laceydog 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment it makes it a little hard to follow the conversation when we don't know who is talking. You can sign your posts by typing four ~s at the end; like this ~~~~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the issue is that the winners didn't go to Miss USA or whatever because they were Miss Teenage California, but because they later won other titles. Quite a few of the other titles you noted are notable, but things like "Miss Teen of the Nation Pageant", "Miss North American Teen ", "Miss U.S. Teen Pageant ", "Miss Intercontinental", "America's Perfect Teen " are not. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Miss Teen of the Nation is an extablished national pageant of over 20 years duration. Miss North American Teen, Miss U.S. Teen and America's Perfect Teen Pageants are no longer, however I seriously doubt those title holders, and their families would deem them not noteworthy.

Laceydog 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)laceydog— Laceydog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Further, it is important to mention that Miss Teenage California is a scholarship program which offers their winner the OPTION of competing at a national pageant. It is an independent, as participation in a national pageant is just one prize that can be accepted or declined by the winner of the state pageant. I believe the winners of Miss Teenage California might be more interested in the $10,000 college scholarship and $5,000 cash, rather than competing in a winner take all nationally televised event, where the runners up receive very little. All of that data can easily be verified. User: Laceydog— Laceydog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Laceydog, do not remove other user's comments from this page, especially the AfD nomination. -- Kesh 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh, my apologies. So new to this. Laceydog 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)laceydog[reply]

Most notable state pageant in California, outside of Miss California (state finals to Miss America) and Miss California USA. Third longest running state pageant in state. Laceydog 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)laceydog[reply]

Delete per well thought out nom. Completely agree that Miss California Teen USA is a viable encyclopedia article, while this article fails Wikipedia:Notability... Addhoc 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoia Birmingham[edit]

Looks notable enough, but this is purely a CV that looks like it comes straight off another website, and with unfree-looking images, too. No qualms about keeping it if it's tidied up to gfdl standards, but this looks bad. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed all the npov/unencyclopedic descriptions in the article. —EdGl 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text is pure copyvio from her website and images taken from there too. Unclear if the wiki article is by her or a fan, but either way. Can one tag an AfD'ed article as speedy, or use the replacement "this is a copyvio" page, or do we waint for an admin to process the AfD here? DMacks 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Created by Abctf, a single-purpose account. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the entire content of the article is "borrowed" then what choice do we have but get rid of it? User:Dimadick

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma cale[edit]

Looks like an elaborate attempt to sneak in a nn. Possibly proddable, but I thought i'd bring it here just to be on the safe side. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this is not an article for nameless nobody as the acronym nn possibly indicates.

User and Eston swimming club coach - Dave Saville ; This is a very talented young woman and i intend to add an article on Mr. Wilkinson also. If you would like to research either person extensively, i think you would withdraw your offensive statements and remove this article from the deletion process please. Thank you.

Please do not penalize talent, Francis (the woman who entered the article) intends to expand the source and cite references, this source is of venerable provenance, unlike many of the other articles listed for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.110 (talk • contribs)

nn stands for "non-notable", i.e., failing to specify any way in which the subject reaches WP's notability guidelines. If it is offensive to you that i have stated this, then I apologise, but it is a fact that as the article stands notability has not been established. I find it interesting that you mention "Francis (the woman who entered the article)", given that the article was created by User: Tony Montanna, who has yet to create a user page. As such, I suspect that you may know more about this article's creation than you are letting on. As it says in the introduction to AfD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable person. Grutness, note that "notability" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia topics. Note also that getting the article deleted now as it stands doesn't mean you can't come back later and write a new article on this person (provided the article satisfies the usual WP standards). DMacks 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DMacks, I know that - I've been around here long enough to know the noability guidelines pretty well. It may well be that User:81.129.0.110 doesn't know them, though. Grutness...wha? 05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but Wikipedia will welcome an article on Emma Cale when she competes in the Olympics. Fg2 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as nn person. Montco 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails WP:BIO at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Bio. Scottmsg 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Allegations of lack of commitment" hardly make her noteworthy. Any particular achievements would. User:Dimadick

Is fame the measure of notability? Your responses are naive and dogmatic - why should i want to converse with people who display flagrant intellectual incontinence, you are limited by a formulaic paradigm. Make wikipedia revolutionary, progressive and stop this stagnant conservative stance. please relax your regulations, as it will end up with the death of this site eventually more radical, daring, informative and creative sites will surpass this regimented system. Or am i being too quixotic for this debate? A MASSIVE - DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.110 (talk • contribs)

Comment I just reverted the last edit by 81.129.0.110 for changing the votes of myself and Montco from delete to do not delete. Scottmsg 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im fed up you people are prats, utter prats, the way you debate and are so rigid just spoils wikipedia. please just relax and give this article a shot, it will not blight your lifes and why not? its not causing any harm and it is a postive contribution. I would understand if it was vandalism or cluttering the site. please please let it be, sorry for editing the messages, I am just very very frustrated.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampak[edit]

Zero Google hits for "Vampak". Zero Google hits for "Julian Borni". Zero Google hits for "My life on a rock". Very likely hoax. Jhinman 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Even the article itself states that vampak isn't notable. Shaundakulbara 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This line: "It is only briefly mentioned in an aside and has no major impact on the story." pretty much sums it up how notable it is. At most it should be merged into the article about the novel if there is one. --Nehrams2020 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mademoiselle K[edit]

There is no assertion of notability, I can't verify notability by Google because I don't read French, and prod was removed with the comment "I disagree with the delete - they are on French Wikipédia" (but without the addition of any information to help determine notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The French version doesn't look any better. It gives a little bio information, presumably about the lead singer, but the only assertion of notability appears to be one album on Capitol Records. So the group appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 08:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect keep arguments are not very convincing, but I think this is a useful redirect at least. W.marsh 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa King[edit]

A non-notable "gag name". Nonpareility 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this appears to be a neologism that has not caught on. The guideline states "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term", and there seems to be no reliable sources about this phenomenon; the article qualifies for original research in this regard. For example,

Phrases like these were obviously intended to sound like "so fucking great" and "so fucking low"

is an analysis of the phenomenon that has no reputable source (WP:NOR). Splitting any of the controversies mentioned in this article into separate articles would be would be non-notable recentism.

No vote. I created the page because it seemed to be "taking off" at the time. I'll shed no tears if it is deleted, tho. bd2412 T 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- (although I would dispute the need for a source for the fact that "sofa king" sounds like "so fucking" - that the FCC investigated a DJ over it is proof enough of that). bd2412 T 02:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  Gotcha. it just seemed like conclusion-jumping to me. Gracenotes ^T § 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V. It also was used on an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force as "I am Sofa King wee Todd Ed." Still, we need verifiable secondary sources to keep this article, and all we have are primary ones of people using the neologism. -- Kesh 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It's interesting though; if a source that discussed the use of the term was provided, I'd cut it some slack. Shaundakulbara 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say very funny thing. Delete, perhaps a redirect to the episode in question if an article exists. JuJube 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More likely, Sofa King (song) shall inherit this space. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not funny, but I swear, this "joke" has been around a lot longer than 2000. If it's being used by Mancow and ATHF, isn't that evidence of notability right there? --UsaSatsui 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. "Was used once by a TV/radio show" isn't a notability criteria.--Nonpareility 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not by itself, maybe, but being used by a TV show, a song, and being a catchphrase of sorts for a morning radio personality should be enough. --UsaSatsui 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a great joke, but when has that mattered?--Czar Yah 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It never mattered, and that's why the nominator didn't mention its funniness as a factor in keeping/deleting it. Gracenotes ^T § 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - putting "sofa king" in quotes still gets me 339,000 google hits (not in quotes is over a million but they're both common words so that's less meaningful). It's the name of more than one band, a couple of sportsbars, included in the domain of several websites, it's in the urban dictionary and several other dictionaries of slang. You're not going to find academic work or newspaper articles discussing it because of the link to profanity, which those sorts of mediums tend to shy away from (it's awkward to write an article full of asterisks and euphemisims) but it's pretty clear to me that this term has soaked into popular culture pretty thoroughly. !!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plymouths (talk • contribs) 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC). oops. that was a typo - put exclamation points instead of tildes - they're right next to each other. Plymouths 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the notability of Sofa King (song) or any of the bands, but of the phrase itself. "No doubt" is a term often used in popular culture but doesn't get its own article just because there's also a band named that. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and this article is not somehow exempt from notability guidelines because it involves the word "fuck".--Nonpareility 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could see the FCC incident merged into Mancow_Muller#Incidents, but I can't find enough discussion of the phrase itself (as opposed to primary uses of the phrase) to justify a stand-alone article. Merge and delete. Gimmetrow 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete discounting new users. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overclock.net[edit]

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.

A seemingly non-notable online forum, of which I have been unable to find multiple, non-trivial, reliable, independent sources with which to verify its notability. Additionally, there is no assertation of notability within the article. The prod that it was tagged with, "non-notable online forum", was contested. Kyra_~(talk) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Is that your reasoning for deletion? Your crazy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.115.66 (talk)

Delete I was the one who prod'd it. not notable per WP:WEB and WP:NN. and please whoever you are sign your posts.--Tainter 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The forum is definitely notable. It is both sponsored and has a very large user base. --Delk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user account was created 02:03, January 25, 2007 and this is the user's first edit (the second is to his or her user page, which links to overclock.net) Gracenotes ^T § 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Although I have just recently created an account (to avoid the display of my IP here), this is not my first action on Wikipedia. I have been around for a few years now, mostly contributing minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) to more obscure articles.) Delk 03:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I was just concerned about a conflict of interests. Gracenotes ^T § 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overclock.net has a massive online user-base, as described in the article. The forum has been sponsored by Nvidia, Newegg.com, Tankguys.com, and Maximum PC. Deleting this on basis of non-notability is ridiculous. Feel free to say that I am only here to support Overclock.net, but the truth would be that this is the first article I feel knowledgeable enough about to edit. I am a long time reader and first time editor. --Amped42 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user account was created 01:38, January 25, 2007 and this user has only edited this AFD and Overclock.net Gracenotes ^T § 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member I'm obviously biased, but this fact also gives me more insight than your average Joe. A few years ago I was motivated to learn about overclocking and quickly found the forum on google. I have been a member in SO many forums, but Overclock.net differs in that its members are leagues above other forums in both intelligence and kindness. This was obvious from the beginning, when no one complained about the frequency of my questions (many of which had been answered numerous times before). Were it simply a nice forum, it might not be notable, but the aforementioned truths have caused the community to explode from around 7,500 members (when I joined in March of 2005) to over 32,000. That's about a 425% increase in under 2 years. It certainly deserves a spot on Wikipedia.TheInformationator 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is an awesome thing, to be part of a community that shares one's interests, and one that is kind and tolerant. I'm not entirely sure that size or growth of a community is a criterion, though, to keep an article. There are many communities with many, many people, but are not notable. Check out WP:WEB#Criteria - if your community does meet one of the criterion listed there, feel free to mention it, but otherwise, this article merits deletion. You might want to check out Wikia, which is a wiki that can be created for a specific subject. Your community can create a wiki just about the subject of overclocking, and edit it. However, unless a criterion on WP:WEB can be found,

Delete: After leafing through this Google search (well, at least the first ten pages), I could not find a non-trivial source that asserted this forum's notability. Unless there is a published non-cybernetic source of which this is the subject (which I doubt), I would have to say delete as non-notable. Sorry, forum-goers. Gracenotes ^T § 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Overclock.net has been featured on G4 TechTV[2], Maxim Magazine, and the Chicago Tribune....." Isn't that enough for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.16.87 (talk)

It would depend on the content of the articles, and whether the article was more about overclocking or the website itself. By the way, if this website is pivotal to the overclocking community (but just to the overclocking community), it would definitely deserve mentioning in the overclocking article. Gracenotes ^T § 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In TechTV's website and show, they told people to go to Overclock.net for help: http://www.g4techtv.ca/callforhelp/guests/0088A.shtml The owner of Overclock.net also hosted twice on Call for help.

Keep -206,000 Unique Visitors Per Month - Source: Google Analytics, January 2006

-1,500,000+ Page Views Per Month - Source: Google Analytics, January 2006
- Hosted television segments on Tech TV's Call For Help
- Appeared within a diverse mix of publications such as Maxim Magazine, The Chicago Tribune and the Australian NetGuide

Hard to believe a website with two hundred and six thousand visitors a month is not notable ... In addition to being mentioned in a diverse mix of publications and the Chicago Tribune.
Jamenta 04:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The G4TV source concerns me somewhat -- it is about overclocking, but the subject of this deletion debate isn't the overclocking article -- it's the overclock.net article. Being mentioned in a publication may not make overclock.net notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. In addition, on the talk page, you mentioned that

Overclock.net is one of the LEADING forums for the overclocking community.

It seems to me that overclock.net is notable just in the context of overclocking, so it should definitely be mentioned in that article (called Overclocking). The work that's been done on this article since its deletion is impressive, although perhaps with a bit of biased point of view. Note that how I vote (Delete or Keep) isn't really important: after all, articles for deletion is a discussion of policy, not a ballot. Numbers are important, yes, but in themselves, they're not a criterion for deletion. (The Alexa rank for this website is 50,000.) Gracenotes ^T § 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (marked as duplicate vote) In January 2007 the Alexa rating for one week was 42,035 with a three month change of 27,685+. The reach has had

a dramatic 73% jump in the last 3 months with a 3 month average of 35.5. One week average of page views in January 2007 was 3 million. Jamenta 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (marked as duplicate vote) I don't understand, 3 sources have been given repeatedly including a television station. If this

is a valid/open discussion please explain yourself Shaundakulbara for making a blanket statement that is incorrect. Jamenta 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first edit in Wikipedia but I assure you that I am not just some fanboy. I come here to make the argument that overclock.net is very notable, all the 'admins' or whatever your titles are say it is not, i dont know how you can come to that comclusion when it has been referred to through so many media outlets. With millions of posts and hundreds of thousands of visits (specified using Google Analytics as a source somewhere on this page by another person) i think it is notable. But, just out of curiosity, what makes an organization 'notable' in your interpretation of the word?

Sreenath —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sreenathpillai000001 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Google search "overclock" and see what what comes up first. if that is not "notable" to you, then what is?TheSubtleKnife 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TheSubtleKnife and Sreenathpillai000001: The code that Google uses is not a measure of notability on Wikipedia. The criteria for notability of a company can be found at WP:CORP. The criteria for notability for an entity whose primary presence is on the internet can be found at WP:WEB. Gracenotes ^T § 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tainter. Montco 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established multiple times throughout this discussion, via webpage hits, mentions in mass publications, multiple sources of sponsorship, and a verifiable large member base. By Wiki's own criteria in WP:WEB notability has been established. Quote: "1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Unquote. Maxim Magazine and The Chicago Tribune cover that handily. Also, having hosted segments for Tech TV multiple times should establish notability, seeing as Tech TV is considered 'notable' enough to have an existing entry in Wikipedia Witchfire 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think just the fact that at one point I was looking for the article on Wiki makes it viable to make this article stay on Wiki. Added to this, it's the second link given in google for search word : overclock. The forum has been referred by many sites, and it has a very big userbase. Why would you delete it ? User:F2002yann

I think amount of work done in the last 12 hours should also be considered. Give the article a chance. Delk 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm trying to link the notable sources including Chicago Tribune article(s) but they are archived. I understand the initial Prod for delete but I believe the credible `non-cyber` references, if I can get them linked, as well as the statements made herein from members of the community of Overclock.net clearly fits the Notable clause.

--Ictinike 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could find those articles. Otherwise, as I've said before, please feel free to mention it in the overclocking article, since it seems as though this community is important to the field of overclocking; furthermore, a Wikia might be helpful. Gracenotes ^T § 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain but lean towards delete. I don't see this as an article which is likely to grow into an article meeting wikipedia's standards. Right now most of the facts in the article don't tell us much about the site (for example, that overclock.net got a press mention is great for them, but a mere mention is different from a secondary source which tells us about overclock.net). The article also has severe problems with tone (along the lines of Template:Advert and WP:NPOV), which could be an argument for Wikipedia:Cleanup, but that's going to be hard unless there are more sources to work from than we've seen so far. Kingdon 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proof? [80]overclock.net is mentioned on the second pageTheSubtleKnife 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that PDF is corrupted for me :( Gracenotes ^T § 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That file is not corrupted. Looks like someone can use a trip to Overclock.net... Here is the file as a JPG... and if it still doesn't work you should reinstall Windows... http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4461/proofuv0.jpg

Comment - While the article does mention the website, it is just that, a mention, as the focus is more on modders, not on the forum itself. From what I see, the source would seem to indicate a mention in the Overclocking article is merited, not have its own article; the passing mention the article gives does not seem to satisfy the non-triviality portion of the primary notability criterion. See note three in WP:N for an example. Kyra_~(talk) 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh! Nice JPG. Jamenta 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no strong feelings about this nomination one way or another, but the sources I've seen provided seem to relate to overclocking, not overclock.net. At best, all they do is provide a link. --UsaSatsui 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (marked as duplicate vote) Your argument Gracenotes, with all due respect, is like claiming Dunkin Donuts belongs in the context of Donut Shops and therefore should only be mentioned in an article on Donut Shops. Doesn't add up. Overclock.net had 3 million page view in January 2007. A year ago it was averaging 206 thousand unique visits a month. IT IS WELL KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE LEADING OVER-CLOCKING FORUMS if not currently THE leading forum on Overclocking, just as Dunkin Donuts is well known to be a leading Donut shop seller among donut shops. Overclock.net probably receives more visitors than all the Dunkin donuts do in the state of Delaware per month. Ask any donut eater if they've heard of Dunkin donuts, most will say yes. Ask any Computer enthusiast & Overclocker if they've heard of Overclock.net, and they will likely say yes as well. Why? Because Overclock.net is a notable site - especially to the 200+ thousand people who visit it per month. This is well known by some very large online sellers such as Newegg, Tankguys & Easypckits who realize just how notable the forum is, and how valuable and specialized. Perhaps the current article needs upgrading to Wikipedia standards - you have a much better argument there, but in regards to notability, as was mentioned earlier - notability requirements have been met as listed by WP:WEB standards. Jamenta 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you for a fact that Overclock.net gets more people than Dunkin' Donuts does in state of California. That has no bearing on the notability of Dunkin' Donuts or anything else. Dunkin' Donuts is notable for being a very large global business that has been around for 60 years that everyone and thier mother writes about. One can't say the same for overclock.net. Please go read WP:AADD, the number of people that visit isn't an indicator of notability. Expecially when there's nothing to back up that number besides what the site says. This is very, very simple: Find an independent source about the site itself, and then you have a much better case against these guys. (In case nobody gets it, DD hasn't made it to CA yet)--UsaSatsui 12:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note, overclock.net is dedicated more in to performance, rather than simple overclocking. ALthough yes, it's main function is to provide users to refine their overclocking ability, it is a general computer's and electronics reference site. Not only overclocking is discussed, but other ways to enhance performance. Please, keep it. F2002yann
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep...LessThanJake1241

Comment To SakotGrimshine : Why ? It is a notable forum, why would villages with 1000 inhabitants be in Wikipedia, while this article which comprises of 32000 members which is trying to spread computer knowledge not be worth a place in Wikipedia ? User:F2002yann a.k.a [OCN] gravity
Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it is then a bunch of other things - 1) not paper 2) one that anybody can edit (until they prove that they can't play well with others or aren't interested in creating an encyclopedia), and others. #1 argues for keeping lots of stuff that your average encyclopedia wouldn't keep. #2 means that we get a lot of stuff that isn't ready for an encyclopedia yet. So we have discussions about where some things fall, and notability guidelines about what we have found in the past to normally be sufficiently noticed to keep an encyclopedia article in good shape.

Policy requires that all content be 1) verifiable (not necessarily cited, not necessarily online) WP:V, 2) written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, and 3) not original research WP:NOR. We've found through experience that what it takes to have an article that complies with policy is a sufficient number of reliable sources that are primarily about the article's topic. (They provide a body of data to work from and an indication that we will probably have enough interested editors to keep the article from being hijacked into spam or an attack page.) WP:WEB and WP:CORP each indicate some other criteria that we take as indicator variables - if they are present, we are willing to bet that the sources exist. (Like smoke coming from the computer is an indicator of a need to buy a replacement part.) Any website or business is a reliable source when self describing, but maintaing a neutral point of view tends not to be a high priority, so we assume that their publications exist, and focus on looking for other sources. We need reliable publications by independent authors that have the article's topic as the primary subject. These need to be non-trivial, which is a discussable interpretation - directory listings are always trivial, full length books are always non-trivial, and in between we are evaluating the amount of content available for having a good encyclopedia article.

As to the village comparison, experience has shown that when someone goes looking, print sources exist. More generally, see the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. GRBerry 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - massive meatpuppetry aside, the non-trivial mentions are enough. If it were only one, I would say get rid of it, but several mentions, plus large # of ghits (I know, I shouldn't use those as sole criteria, but they do mean something) seem to indicate some sort of notability. Part Deux 11:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google hits maybe, however no Google News Archive. Also, can't verify sources. Addhoc 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Bockrath[edit]

This person appears to fail WP:BIO. Although the ((quotefarm)) in the unsourced, anecdotal, and misplaced "Famous Quotes" section reveals him to be a person of wit, the most notable claim that I can find regarding this man is that he wrote Contracts and the Legal Environment for Engineers and Architects, which ranks at #152,821 in Amazon. A Google search shows that his Wikipedia article is first, but Google also recognizes no backlinks. He does not appear to be the subject of any non-trivial published work, nor does this work of his have any reviews (see the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Gracenotes ^T § 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - many (most?) college professors at major schools have published or contributed to one or more textbooks. I don't know that that's really much of an assertion of notability, though. If the article is kept, however, the quotes section needs to go. It's totally unsourced and many of them, if false, could be inflammatory ... WP:BLP. --BigDT 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Guidelines clearly state that professors are expected to publish and that doesn't make them notable. The article includes a long list of "famous quotes" which are not famous by any stretch of the imagination. Shaundakulbara 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I improved the page, removing unsouceable classroom quotations, and added the 4 or 5 universities using his main textbook. There are at least two law review articles, but I didnt look for them yet. I do not consider that this makes for a legal scholar, especially considering that only 1 of the universities is well known, and they all seem to be for construction engineering, which is not his field. I haven't the least idea what he was doing at a College of Marine Studies, nor can I source it. I try to improve articles for academics, but I am limited by their actual achievements. DGG 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, He doesn't appear overly notable, however he has written a textbook that is used in a few universities programs, which means many have read his work and will come looking for answers; I hope Wikipedia will have answers. John Vandenberg 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, check on the page for what the universities are. DGG 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that made the decision more difficult, but in my mind, we want to be covering people who have written textbooks that are used by many. So, because his book is required reading for a good many people, at more than one university (which I assume means that the author cant be affiliated with all of them), I think it is worth recording who he is. e.g. "Contracts and the Legal Environment for Engineers and Architects" (ISBN 007039363X) is ranked #259,619 in amazon books; "Construction Management Fundamentals" (ISBN 0072818778) is #192,905 in amazon books. John Vandenberg 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I'm willing to be swayed. I dont know of those institutions, so if they are only virtual establishments or otherwise not-notable, let me know. (Im off to do some research on them now). John Vandenberg 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If his publications are widely used textbooks then this alone makes him notable in his field. User:Dimadick
Weak Keep, not because I am doubting the notability of the subject but because the article does not show it I cannot say keep Alf photoman 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you said "week keep" if you later wrote "I cannot say keep." Gracenotes ^T § 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say keep without week, hope it is clear now Alf photoman 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this search gives half a dozen brief mentions, then we have the books he's written and mention in courses. Borderline, however, possibly just scapes past WP:BIO... Addhoc 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cisum[edit]

This is a non notable music company, and fails guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. I have not taken to prod since the anonomous author/editor has dropped maintainance tags repeatedly with no comment over the last few months. There are no reliable sources, just a myspace site. I have not been able to find any references, though I confess to being no expert at music industry. Obina 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an advertisement. - Shaundakulbara 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources or evidence of notability, and how many notable music companies operate out of MySpace? -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Verifiable sources have since been provided. The editorial comments above suggesting deletion are based on unqualified judgements by two people with obviously no knowledge of the music industry. Milan Nikitovich 25 January 2007
Delete. The existence of the company has been made verifiable by the recent changes, but notability is not established or addressed. Additionally, this seems to be a Conflict of interest, as the only contributing editor is the head of the company. --Sneftel 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Family[edit]

This appears to be a summary of an entire family of purely local notability; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Bearcat 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a whole lot of notability here. Sorry. Delete. --Dennisthe2 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. It belongs on GenWeb or a personal webpage. There are plenty of venues for purely genealogical info. Wikipedia isn't one of them. Shaundakulbara 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN family, written by a single-purpose account thus likely WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, and of all the people described on the page, only James Kish has even a dubious claim to notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a page from a family website. Sixth Estate 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unless they are related to the Kallikak family ! WMMartin 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Park, Adelaide[edit]

I just don't see anything notable about this place. I could write a dozen articles on business parks in Milwaukee (where I live), but none of them would be notable either. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the Adelaide article is getting too long there might be merit to some sort of "business of adelaide" or "economy of adelaide" article (as was done with transport in Adelaide) that would include everything this article includes. Plymouths 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This area is a part of Mawson Lakes, South Australia. We can merge there if people want. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not simply a business park, this was a government financed iniative as part of a wider development... the University of South Australia campus, the failed 'multi function polis', and the eventual Mawson Lakes project. There are verifiable sources in numerous books on this part of South Australian history. To dismiss this place as simply a business park is folly. michael ^talk 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Whether it's a business park, a three-ring circus or an orbiting space station is irrelevant. Shaundakulbara 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Michael that it's important and notable. 1st technology park in Australia, home to many important companies....unfortunately that's basically the substance of the subject apart from some bits about the foundation of the park. Definately Merge to Mawson Lakes... I've moved the text and I'd suggest (given it's a possible search term) just changing to a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mawson Lakes and redirect. Michael is correct that there is more to this subject to meets the eye – the area is the watered down product of a historically important proposal to redevelop northern Adelaide. It is also a significant example of government sponsored economic hubs in Australia.--cj | talk 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Mawson Lakes per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't mind a merge/redirect to somewhere appropriate. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jerry lavoie 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]