< July 21	July 23 >

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

The result was Merge→Semarang#Education. The arguments for deletion are valid as notability has not been established; thus I have included in the mention in the target section an instance of Template:Fact. However, as a potentially significant component of the Chinese Indonesian social experience, I am loath to completely wipe existence of the school from Wikipedia's pages, thus the merge & redirect. This does not preclude a bold action to delete the merged text from the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karangturi[edit]

Fails to satisfy WP:SCHOOL: not-notable, no third-party source, no national recognition, etc. The current form only gives trivial information, and Wikipedia is not a directory page. — Indon (reply) — 00:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school. No references (third party or otherwise). Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Merbabu 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, it is stated here that this school is a leading private school in Semarang. Isn't that notable enough? Moreover, it is not just an ordinary school. It sure is notable in Indonesia. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Siva. Not all that exists in this world can be said notable to have a wikipedia article. Not all schools are notable, otherwise we have millions of articles about schools only. Let us keep our hands in our already defined guideline: WP:SCHOOLS. The most important thing is the first principle of WP policy: there is no independent and non-trivial reliable source about the subject. Your link is a job advertisement for a position in that school, and that can't be recognized as a reliable source. Of course it uses ads slogans. The term "the leading bla..bla.." was written by the school's staff themselves. We need others who acknowledge the notability of a subject. Moreover, the link is a trivial information. It is not describing what the subject is. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Although this campus may well be notable, I can't support it because of the complete lack of references. — RJH (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Merbabu, as no assertion of notability, no way to know how it is notable, and no way to check as presently written, to see if it is notable. Also, it uses offensive, racist language: "invaded". Bearian 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing usage of the word 'invade' was an innocent mistake due to English not being the first language. But I still vote delete. --Merbabu 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Wickersham[edit]

Seth Wickersham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tagged this for proposed deletion on 17th, on the grounds that it's an unsourced orphan living bio. On 22nd an admin browsing the category of ripe prods decided to remove the tag because "There is some claim to notability in the article (writing for ESPN. The Magazine)". Well obvious, I didn't tag it for speedy, but anyway here we are. My proposal is that we either spend the next five days sourcing this article, or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub, with this source [1]. He not only writes for ESPN, but has written for The Sporting News and was an intern at the Washington Post.--Sethacus 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)(formerly Ispy1981)[reply]

Delete not notable per nominator. He appears to be "just a journalist", and the who he writes for does not amount to much of a notability claim. You would expect to see his name of by-lines, but I do not believe it fulfills WP:BIO. If you remove espn.go.com, he scores 123 unique GHits Ohconfucius 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Ohconfucius 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability as a journalist. I don't think it's close, but note also apparent WP:COI in article creation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, "sethacus"! possible sockpuppet voting above?? Ohconfucius 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also as autohagiography per Dhartung; and possible sockpuppetry per Ohconfucius. Bearian 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWitty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BWitty

Speedy delete and salt this time. The vanity article for this "company" (and web developer Amit Avner) have already been deleted once already on English and Hebrew Wikipedias because they are not notable (WP:CORP).[2][3] According to Alexa, this website averages only one unique page view per day. The references given are for one-line listings in Israeli web directories[4][5] and ancient listings his defunct search engine, the domain for which now points to a pornography portal.[6][7] Nothing substantive has been written about BWitty.[8] TreveX^talk 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, totally non-notable website. I think that even my Angelfire page gets more hits per day than that... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dasuquin[edit]

This page is blatant spam. It's advertising a health product for dogs and simply contains a summary sentence and links to the company's website. The only editors are by User:Dvbrar, who creaed the article and also removed the speedy delete notice, and an anonymous IP. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. No reliable sources to be seen on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. TreveX^talk 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, is it possible to re-write this article? A google search shows up quite a number of third-party hits. It must also be noted that amazon.com is selling this product as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, there's nothing to rewrite. Bearian 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I think someone just trying to explain what exacly "Dasuquin" is and thats what it is. I use it for my dog.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.65.132 (talk)
Delete per nom. Even if it's not WP:SPAM, it's WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Renegade: The Story[edit]

non-notable fanfiction, most of the article is an unencyclopedic list. spam. superβεεcat 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fanfic, only 8 ghits on its title. JulesH 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, perhaps an A7 candidate. I'm all for fanfiction, but unless it's notable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fanfic is inherently non-notable unless it's been covered elsewhere - this doesn't appear to have been. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it if you all feel that way, I don't mind. I guess I just wanted an easy way to get informtaion about the story to my friends, at a place they all knew about.

Delete - fan fiction with no independent coverage

Delete - is it possible to be less notable then non-notable? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin close). Cerejota 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Electric blues musicians[edit]

This list should be deleted according to WP:CSD#A3 since it is just a list of links and the Category:Electric blues musicians is much better for the purpose. It also violates WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians for a similar debate. This list is already a category. The non-existing articles argument you and the creator advance is bogus because there are other places to place such requests, such as WP:MUSICIAN. Hu 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following lists have also been nominated for deletion for the same reasons stated above (Categories better, CSD#A3, and WP:NOT#LINK):

Delete (but not speedy). There are articles linked in the lists that are not in the relevant categories. Would be best to see if we could get a bot to transfer the information as appropriate. JulesH 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These lists are mostly already categories. Some users advance a bogus argument that these lists are a good place to stash red links for articles to be created, but the appropriate place for such red links is WP:MUSICIAN and similar projects, as well as the Wikipedia articles request page. Hu 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete carefully After being certain to move information into categories where not synchronized. If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits. Until (1 == 2) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such lists still have value in addition to categories, especially in the red links showing where Wikipedia still has many very serious gaps. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red links argument for lists is bogus. A place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians is the appropriate place to request articles. Hu 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with your first assertion. As to your second, if you wish to start cross referencing various music encyclopedias I'm sure you can find thousands of needed items to add to that project. Some of us take other approaches. Hundreds of the articles I've created were specifically selected over other topics I could have equally well spent the time on because of the red links. -- Infrogmation 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category is not the same thing as an article. A list with no information than other links is a category, or should be. Pharmboy 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, not speedy CSD A3 was not intended to eliminate all lists-and by the argument given it it would do so. There is no WP policy against lists. For that matter, there is also no policy against lists that contain items that do not have an article. Most of these lists do have items listed that do not presently have a WP article Therefore they cannot be replaced by a category, so that argument fails altogether also. Lists are much more flexible than categories, and permit the inclusion of information other than simply the names. In a sense, categories are the most trivial sort of list--they are just away of grouping WP articles. DGG (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No straw man arguments, please. Nobody is arguing that CSD A3 is intended to eliminate all lists. CSD A3 applies to lists that are just lists of links, like these lists, even if the creator goes around tarting them up with a couple of birthdates. The text of CSD A3 is quite clear that wiki links are implicitly included in the deletion criteria, because it explicitly includes hyperlinks in addition to the implicit wiki links. (And no overly bolding text please: I eliminated it assuming it was a typo.) Regardless, here we are in AfD, and these lists need to be deleted because they are just lists of links, forbidden by WP:NOT#LINK. The red links argument that you make fails because there are more appropriate places for requesting articles, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. If your red links argument had any merit then any bogus list could be forced to be kept by adding one red link to it. Hu 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a basic stub cannot be made about the artist, then why should they be in a list? Where is their encyclopedic merit shown? If a stub can be made, put it in the category and viola it is indexed on a nice automatically made list called a category. Until (1 == 2) 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are there to further compliment the categories, appearing in each corresponding category. They are referenced, though admittedly they need some additional work. But many of these lists contain musicians that simpply are not on Wikipedia at this time. The red links are referenced, and each artist included can be found at All Music Guide with a list of albums they have released or performed on. Their notability actually has been established, despite the lack of a stub article for them. Since each list has been referenced, merit has been shown. As for the red link argument being bogus, just give me a chance to provide simple birth/death dates for each and a brief summary of who they are. Deletion seems extreme, considering these are all referenced unlike the majority of lists out there. (Mind meal 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I already told you, directory sites are not reliable sources. Until (1 == 2) 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You telling me something and that something being so are two different things. If you are saying All Music Guide is not a reliable reference, then you need to bring that up at WP:Musicians and WP:Albums, for both state that as a good source for information. Aside from saying it is not reliable, you have done nothing to demonstrate how that is so. (Mind meal 05:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, as in the other nomination.Why are we having this discussion in two places?--Mike Selinker 04:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to nominate the 30 other lists that need to be deleted, so I did so. I didn't want to dump them on somebody else's nomination and hijack it. Hu 06:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge discussions - Let's first get done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians, and then see if there's anything more to say about this list. I think we should keep it for the same reasons I gave there. Lior 04:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how the page appears as of now, and see if you still feel it is not up to par. I believe with the current work being done on this article - which will be done for all the other articles, makes it clear these lists shall remain. That is unless certain members have a vendetta. (Mind meal 04:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Claiming or assuming or accusing or supposing or imagining members of making a vendetta doesn't exactly advance your case. Hu 06:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All and replace with a category. I think a category is perfect for something like this (Assuming that inclusion in the genre is noted by reliable sources) Corpx 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but has anyone voting delete even looked at the current article? It is in accord with how lists should me created as far as I can see. It is referenced. It has short blurbs about the artists. What in God's name do you WANT? (Mind meal 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There are 31 lists that are nominated for deletion and they are just collections of links. I doubt you've improved all 31. Even assuming that one passes muster, why didn't you make a proper article in the first place instead of first going around dropping requests on talk pages gathering allies and calling this a "Dangerous Discussion", etc., as you did. Surely that energy would be better spent on making the articles proper articles in the first place and not forcing Wikipedia to go through this whole process. What we want is proper articles, not accusation of vendettas and "foul smells", as you wrote on another page. Hu 06:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just calm down a little bit and give me a chance to improve all the articles? You make it sound as if the improvments to this list are bothersome to you, like they hit at your pride. The answer to your question shoud be obvious: I was unaware that I was doing something wrong Hu. I have seen so many lists that look like the ones you nominated that it was how I thought things were to be done. I'm not someone who puts a ton of time into the politics of this place, I just want to help inform people. Obviously I needed some allies, as I was getting swiftboated by enemies. Even assuming "1" passes muster is a bad attitude in my view, as you seem unwilling to give me some time to work on them. If I can make every one of these lists look like List of Electric blues musicians does right now, why would you hold that against me? I can say whatever I like here, as you are tossing out "bogus this" and "bogus that" at people. Nobody "forced" Wikipedia to go through anything. If anything you did. I find the lists useful, and put a lot of time into them. If I want to bring them up to par, I hope you won't stand in my way Hu. I don't want to see my work destroyed just to make some point. You can either work with me on this or against me. But if this particular list is deleted in it's current state, I'll know none of this has been done in good faith. (Mind meal 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

PS: "What we want is proper articles, not accusation of vendettas and "foul smells", as you wrote on another page." You sure don't sound as if you want that. If you did then you'd realize I'm trying my best to improve them, instead of getting all nasty with people. You had a captive audience before I leveled the playing field on this debate. I didn't influence anyone on how they may vote, I just showed them that a discussion was underway and invited them to join in. Maybe you don't like democracy, and prefer dictatorship? I can't read your mind, only your posts. And you seem quite determined to make a point here, as opposed to working toward the end you say you want: proper articles. There are so many other avenues you could have taken to achieve better articles, like contacting me and making suggestions. Deletion is quite an extreme measure, and you should know full-well that it gets people angry. I kind of respect people that patrol pages like you, but also I find such work to be provacative and rather pompous at times. I don't spend my time undemrining the efforts of others, I spend my time here adding content. (Mind meal 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The lists do not meet Wikipedia requirements, so they got tagged for speedy deletion. Rather than improve them, you waged politics to get the SD tags removed, which they were, fair enough, so we had to take the lists to AfD. This is not a democracy and this is not a vote. You can resort to a lot of ad hominem attacks against me, but they aren't Wikipedia:Civility. The amount of work you put into something is not determinative. You are not being swiftboated and it is not about you, it's about the lists. You completely misunderstand the process. Hu 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just sampled several more lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre and found List of Electric blues musicians to surpass them in quality, thanks to the hard work of Mind meal. Thus I think you should take back your words about "Rather than improve them", as he has clearly improved this list on a most impressive pace. An AfD is no way to urge him to fix 31 lists in a few days. Please point out the fundamental differences between the 31 lists you've nominated and those in Category:Lists of musicians by genre. That might make our discussion less heated and more constructive. Lior 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems fine now. It doesn't seem to be OR, and it doesn't seem to be just a crib from the All Music Guide. I'm in favor of more like this. Move all others to sandboxes until they are in this state. (As a side note, I don't buy the list on Dirty blues or Juke joint blues, because there are no articles for these music types and since most of the bios hem and haw about whether their artists belong in the genre. That should be cleaned up first, so that each list supports an article. I'm in favor of the Electric and Texas lists, though.)--Mike Selinker 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mind meal asserts, the list is referenced and contains short blurbs about the artists. Seems to be improving as well.--JayJasper 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, the cats are more then enough.--JForget 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular list clearly is no longer subject to WP:CSD#A3, are you going to withdraw your nomination of it? On what grounds and merit do List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians remain here for deletion? A rationale should be provided, since they no longer fit into your opening arguments. This is getting real petty. As a general rule, it makes little sense to simultaneously have a list and a category perhaps. But since many of these musicians now have short blurbs accompanying their red links, we are in a unique situation where information will be lost and categorization cannot suffice. This will occur with each list as time permits me, so eventually none will or should be deleted unless someone is just out to WP:Point#Refusal to 'get the point'. (Mind meal 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is not a speedy delete issue, it is partially a WP:NOT issue, and partially an editorial decision regarding the usefulness of the article in the presence of identical categories. Until (1 == 2) 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding the "red links" that would be lost if this was deleted, from Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline."(emphasis added)

In other words, if an artist does not justify an article they should not be in the list anyways, so nothing is lost by switching to a cat. Until (1 == 2) 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate has become so dishonest. You said before that "If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits." Does that mean what it says or not? I don't understand what else is needed for List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. Could you give me some pointers on that? Because I'm at a real loss anymore. This is really beginning to feel personal now, as everything that a list could be those are. What else do you want? I'm beginning to think you aren't even looking at the articles, because notability is so clearly demonstrated that your comparison to college alumni is really nothing short of puzzling. (Mind meal 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well the first indication is that Juke Joint blues is a red link. There should be an article on the subject, and the artists can go there, once the list is too big for the article that would be a good time to make a list. May I ask how exactly you are defining "Juke Joint blues"? What unambiguous criteria based off of reliable sources are you using to determine the inclusion in this list? It is a mistake to take this personally, it is about editorial decision making, not anyone's opinion about you. Until (1 == 2) 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you addressed only one article. The others? List of Juke Joint blues musicians already states what juke joint blues is, and the entire article is referenced. If you could just look at the reference section you would know the source of that information. These lists go above and beyond the normal lists on Wikipedia, and I find this level of scrutiny rather disturbing, thus the personal aspect of all of this. I'm still unclear on what these articles lack under current guidelines? Are you contesting the defintion, or just trying to be combative? The whole damned article states its reference. (Mind meal 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your "reference" is a link to a Wikipedia article about a directory listing site. I suggest you take a look at WP:RS to see what we consider a reliable source. And that source in no way determines that the artists meet our notability requirements either. This is not about being combative, I am questioning your definition because musical genres are hard to define, and as it is, it seems like WP:OR. Until (1 == 2) 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My blood pressure can't take this. "Juke Joint Blues refers to the hard-driving variation of Southern R&B and electric blues where the rhythm is dominant. It's hard-rocking blues, intended for dancing, and it is usually frenzied uptempo blues or greasy slow blues. Generally, the term refers to R&B and blues singles made in the '50s and early '60s." [9] I have never seen so much scrutiny for something so straightforward in my life. Shit like this makes people want to leave this place. (Mind meal 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am trying to explain to you that "allmusic" is not a reliable source. It is a directory site. Who wrote that? It does not say. It is just a commercial directory site that gathers info from numerous sources and does not say where it got it from. WP:RS explains what we consider a reliable source. If you are having problems with your blood pressure I suggest you take a short break, don't take it so seriously this is just an academic debate. Until (1 == 2) 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that it is not a reliable source per policy? Please see WP:Albums#Review_sites, WP:JAZZ#Possible_sources_for_authors.2Feditors, WP:ROCK#References. (Mind meal 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is not a reliable source because they are just republishing information they gathered elsewhere and do no explain where they got it. This is the same reason IMDB is not a reliable source. But lets just say for the sake of argument that it was a reliable source that demonstrated the music is indeed "Foo folk". Where is the notability of the artists demonstrated? Until (1 == 2) 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt WP:ALBUMS#Review_Sites say AllMusicGuide is not professional and should not be used? Its not policy, but I'd say that's the consensus. Corpx 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says no such thing Corpx. All Music Guide publishes yearly print reference guides. As for "Where is the notability of the artists demonstrated?" ~~Jesus you are thick. Read the fucking lists already.~~ You were right, I do need a break. A really long one.(Mind meal 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep for now and see if they improve. They can always be deleted later if necessary. There is also nothing wrong with red links and since when is allmusic not considered a reliable source? Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2007
Delete per nom 10000% Bulldog123 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of false statements, claims and assertions have been made so far that have not been backed up by the authors of them.

1. All Music Guide is not a reliable source of information.

To demonstrate this, you need to show us where that is said in policy or guidelines governing sources. Otherwise, such claims smell of personal bias, not actual discrepencies. You need to bring All Music Guide's supposed unreliablity up somewhere other than here, because I've already demonstrated how several projects direct users there for sources. This again reeks of personal bias, asserting "truisms" that simply are not based on policy.

2. Notability has not been established for individuals or groups without articles.

This (surprise!) is untrue for List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. They are referenced and assert notability for each individual, including record labels, numbers of albums and sometimes who they played with.

3.This list should be deleted according to WP:CSD#A3 since it is just a list of links and the Category:Electric blues musicians is much better for the purpose. It also violates WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2).

Put simply, this is a false assertion that does not take into account the progress of List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. WP:CSD#A3? Not for these. WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2)? Again, not for these. Also the category superiority to the list is not backed by any guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes where it states"Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.

4. If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits.

Given the absolute ridicule of the improvements since that statement and the refusal to recognize them, I believe this statement was made without any conviction or sincerity. It just sounded nice. Hokum.

5. Wikilinks cannot be used as a reference, ie. All Music Guide in a reference section when All Music Guide is a source.

I presume that this argument presented by User:Until(1 == 2) is the result of their non-binding, non-policy, non-guideline essay titled User:Until(1 == 2)/Wikilinks are not references. This can only be asserted as something others must adhere to once proper consensus is formed on whether or not you are even correct.

(Mind meal 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep and keep working on them. Sampling half a dozen of the nominated lists at random, yes, some of them are just simple lists of links which could be better served by categories, but some have already been improved to add descriptive paragraphs to the listed musicians, including useful details such as what other genres they were active in. I suggest taking a deep breath and letting Mind Meal get on with improving the others. --Stormie 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep working on them. Totally agree with Infrogmation, Stormie and others. Some of the lists may prove to be redundant but at present they are useful to me and others in identifying the need for articles and further work, and in classification. Ghmyrtle 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists and categories are complementary, rather than overlapping and redundant. Lists are simply another way of organizing articles, that allow more flexibility and nuance than categories in their layout/sorting/inclusion criteria. If these lists are not perfect, fix them. If they are incomplete, add information. If they are not sourced, source them (remind you that categories NEVER include any sourcing). No convincing reason for deletion here. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Electric blues musicians, which has been fully annotated and expanded and is far more than a list of links and anything that a category can do. Keep all if Mind meal intends to flesh them all out in this manner. Any which might remain as simple lists of links should then be merged to List of blues musicians or Lists of blues musicians by genre (which should be renamed to List of blues musicians by genre if list content is merged there). As for reliable sources, note that All Music Guide is not just a website: it has a published book on the subject as well. In addition, Encyclopedia of the Blues and The Cambridge Companian to Blues and Gospel Music also exist as reliable sources which can be used to further expand and verify these lists. DHowell 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons name origins[edit]

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT, trivial list, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The nom pretty much says it loud and clear. This is an unreferenced pile of "cruft". Send it to the circular file. Vassyana 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of speculation (some of it contradictory) and no references. Fails WP:V. Deor 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)
Strong delete, purely fancruft, unreferenced, etc. If and only if the name origins can be sourced for the MAIN characters (i.e. the five Simpsons themselves), then that could be added to the main article. The rest is just cruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting but still crufty, if anything could be properly sourced for the central characters then it'd make a fine edition to the main article but still wouldn't justify one of it's own. There's way too much simpsons cruft around already. Elmo 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but tag for cleanup. Most of this can be referenced, using DVD commentaries or articles like this. Now, I wouldn't want "name origins" pages for every TV series, but the Simpsons has such widespread appeal that I'll let this one slide. FWIW, there's a Spanish version of this article, as well. Zagalejo 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The same reasons as above. Perhaps the origins could be sourced and put in the articles of the more signifigant articles, but definitely not in an independant one. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crufty. --Deskana (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sole reference for this page is pretty thin in the reliable sources department. The reference is a Simpsons fan site that is “...voluntarily maintained by members of alt.tv.simpsons and other fans around the world.” ●DanMS • Talk 00:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article I posted here is originally from TV Guide, and much of the info comes directly from Matt Groening himself. Zagalejo 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we provide a source for that? It certainly would make a much firmer source. Fan sites are not always considered reliable sources—although this one seems more likely to be reliable than most—but if we can get sources for the site’s information, we would be on much firmer ground. We have five days on this AFD debate to look for stronger sources. ●DanMS 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I happen to own a copy of that issue of TV Guide. This should prove that the article existed. Zagalejo 02:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although an alternative would be to merge this into the article about Matt Groening. The Simpsons is a classic TV series. I would recommend deleting the articles about individual episodes before deleting the listy listy listcruft. Mandsford 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a show is a classic T.V series doesn't mean a list related to this show is automatticly kept. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that sources have been found, though the article needs clean-up. 128.42.46.50 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the sources? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR concerns me. I would also characterize this as being entirely trivial information (WP:FIVE). Corpx 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Simpsons. It is relevent info about the show, though a separate entry seems unnecessary.--JayJasper 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. I was just browsing the AFD debates wondering what the next "Simpsons" list category would be, and here it is. Currently waiting for List of Barney belches in The Simpsons! Oh, and delete per nom, WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT.
Delete and if necessary merge information into individual character articles. •97198 talk 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A2, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock superstar Michael Jackson[edit]

Copy of the Spanish-language article; prod removed by IP address Nyttend 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A2, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Aabel[edit]

No references or sources to show any significant coverage, awards, or major works. Subject does not meet the requirements in WP:Notability. Ozgod 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Reliable sources to verify that the subject meetsNotability guidelines. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as he appears notable, but does not show verifiable cites. Bearian 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:RHaworth Corpx 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response[edit]

Contested prod. “Up and coming” band from Derby with no record deal. Claim to notability is that they have a myspace page, came third in a local “battle of the bands” competition and have played a few gigs in local pubs. Which is great, but nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. NME (possibly the best source for new British bands) lists them in their unsigned bands database but the only content is a press release, and other stuff mirrored from the MySpace site. I believe this is a good faith contribution from a new editor, but ultimately this band is nowhere near inclusion in Wikipedia. Iain99 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Does not assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC. It's hard to get behind any article that starts with "young up and coming band". --Bongwarrior 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Typical example of an A7/nn-band bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have speedied, but I thought there was a weak (if incorrect) claim to notability, so I prodded instead, and that was contested by the creator so here we are. I won't complain if someone else decides it's speediable though. Iain99 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A7, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per A7. ---Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I believe I would have so marked it initially, definite notability problems. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about blackbirds[edit]

Really not much to say about this list except I'm waiting for List of songs about bluejays. Bulldog123 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems an indiscriminate list that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have. Nyttend 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. For three reasons: 1.) It's an indiscriminate collection of loosely associated topics; 2.) it's not exactly verifiable; 3.) it's pure trivia; and 4.) they left out one of my favorite songs, "Down Came a Blackbird" by Lila McCann. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every other "List of songs about" that has gotten the axe recently. Most of these lists aren't really encyclopedic or useful. --Bongwarrior 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, indiscriminate info, and difficult to maintain. Useight 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I would, personally, have inserted a speedy deletion tag, but AfD will do its job. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is silly and preposterous for wikipedia.Triplejumper 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all previous reasons, and also for getting the lyrics to one of the greatest Beatles songs wrong! Masaruemoto 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection Corpx 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot that bird. Thuffering thuckatash, thith proliferation of lithtcrufth is inthufferable. --Targeman 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, please WP:SOAP it. Bearian 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the usefulness about this list?. Why not list of songs about owls, ducks, seabirds, seagulls, etc?--JForget 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throw a Snowball at it and delete. CaveatLector^Talk 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic delete where is the encyclopedic value?--Cerejota 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Pakistan[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in India - Unmaintainable, incomplete, unverifiable and a category would suffice. Also WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as in WP is not a directory (of schools in Pakistan) Corpx 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, probably by restricting to schools with articles or proven notability. It's more useful than the category system because it provides because it provides the city in many cases. Kappa 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in Pakistan already does that. Corpx 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category does it randomly, depending on whether the school article has the city in its name or not. Kappa 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schools in Islamabad , Category:Schools in Karachi, Category:Schools in Sindh, Category:Schools in Punjab (Pakistan), Category:Schools in North-West Frontier Province all group schools by their locations. Corpx 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Islamabad and Karachi are cities but Punjab and NWFP are provinces. If I'm looking for articles on schools in Lahore, Punhjab, for example, the list will tell me instantly but the category forces a lot of guesswork. Kappa 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains many schools that do not yet have articles, and thereby encourages the creation of missing articles, which will address systemic bias against developing countries. Mowsbury 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - a category would suffice, and would be more appropriate to the task if it's to be limited to notable schools as has been suggested.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SemperFideliS81 (talk • contribs)

Delete just like List of schools in India. "Systemic bias against developing countries"? Nonsense. --Targeman 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend this vote be discounted on grounds of extreme ignorance. Kappa 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to support your claim, perhaps? About the bias, that is. --Targeman 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look in Category:High schools in California and compare the number of articles with the entire Category:Schools in Pakistan. Kappa 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there are more articles on American schools than on Pakistani: there are many more users from the US than from anywhere else, and many if not most of them are teenagers. BTW, I think List of high schools in California and the like should be scrapped as listcruft, too. The overwhelming majority of schools anywhere are not notable and will never be. --Targeman 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom and SemperFideliS81. Or make it a Category. Bearian 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The categories mentionned above should be enough and should be like this for all countries.--JForget 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Categories only cover articles that exist, not articles that should exist but do not yet.Dhaluza 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic list. Also see: WP:BIAS. Dhaluza 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — Dhaluza 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment-maybe a category for such schools might be more useful than a list for a large populous nation? Chris 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, categories only work for articles that exist, not for articles not yet created. Dhaluza 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles shouldn't be created for schools that dont pass the notability guideline Corpx 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually the list will need to be split, perhaps along the lines of things like list of high schools in California. Once all the sub-lists had been created, the main list would be redundant with a category, so we have Category:lists of schools in the United States but not a List of schools in the United States.

Keep as an encyclopedic, useful list -- not all schools on it need to have articles for the list to be useful, and yes, it should be broken up into smaller geographic regions if the list simply gets too long. Noroton 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton, break up into small regions if need be, and definitely remove any unsourced material. Burntsauce 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without much enthusiasm. I have never been much of an advocate of lists, far preferring categories, but this one is organised in a way that makes the geographical interrelationships much clearer than would be possible with categories. Also, the point is valid that the red links assist and guide article development. TerriersFan 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged into Aircalin. Both articles are quite short and the result places all information into one article. ●DanMS • Talk 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircalin Destinations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory, and this page is nothing but a directory. Nyttend 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potato virus U[edit]

This looks like a hoax to me, i checked the references and they did not say much (or nothing at all) about the topic. Tiptoety 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one's legit. A quick google search shows several reputable sources including academic instititions and the NIH. It's marked as a stub, just needs more info. ~ Infrangible 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the first reference is reliable and primarily about the topic. The second reference does not currently contain anything directly relevant although it provides some context. In any case, searching Google Scholar and using search filters such as site:gov demonstrates this is no hoax, it's just a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently there is no current vaccination available for these poor tubers. It's real, and it's referenced. the_undertow ^talk 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References have been added to further validate this completely legit stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Viruses, like other species, are automatically notable. The second ICTV reference is the official viral nomenclature body, and thus rules out hoax. Espresso Addict 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ICTVdb ref. Yes, its stubby, but its not a hoax. -- MarcoTolo 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is what WP:FIVE refers to as being a "specialized encyclopedia" Corpx 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all of the above (except the nom). Not a hoax; diseases of popular human foodstuffs are per se notable. Bearian 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly not a hox, the nominator probably did not read the references. Dan Gluck 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Alkivar. --Deskana (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Plot Summary)[edit]

Wiki does not have plot summary pages alone Lizzie Harrison 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the main article on the book should cover this already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article for TenPoundHammer's reason. Nyttend
Merge to main article as per nomination. Books don't get separate plot summary pages, even books as popular as this one. --Wingsandsword 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#PLOT, even though it was a good book it still doesn't need it own page for a plot. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As plot summary. I don't think a redirect would be suitable in this case per R3, nobody would search that exact string. Useight 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - no reason for this to exist as a seperate article. Elmo 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. The plot summary on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is already unencyclopedic and too detailed; this plot summary doesn't add anything new, and can simply be deleted. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete per Switchercat. Already in the article this would be merged with. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. we don't need any more detail than exists in the article presently. Calliopejen1 04:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearcut violation of WP:NOT#PLOT Corpx 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. WP:NOT#PLOT, the main article already has far too much plot summary, and if Les Mis doesn't need this treatment, HP7 certainly doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. All decent content is already in the main article Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid speedy deletion reason, but it's a valid deletion reason. --Deskana (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Sr 13 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black French[edit]

List putting together completely uncomparable things in a confusing manner. Intresically without merit and POV. Rama 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kind of arbitrary physical distinction to group people together. No more meaningful than people from Spain with blue eyes or blond Argentinians. Why would this be useful to anyone? ~ Infrangible 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afro-European. Slippery-slope tells me that combining a random ethnic color with a random country will generate thousands of these articles that are arbitrary at best. the_undertow ^talk 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect but do not let a list of footballers and pop stars which have nothing in common and whose "blackness" reflects totally different origins and realities. Rama 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think its a trivial intersection to create articles that mainly lists famous people of a certain religion Corpx 05:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 100% WP:OR, and a totally meaningless intersection. Must go the way of List of atheist Nobel laureates and similar which were deleted en masse recently. --Targeman 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, and as listcruft. Borderline racism. Bearian 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a black frenchman and would like a page dedicated to people like me, so fuck off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.140.233.16 (talk • contribs)

A few hints:

IP are not counted. If you want your opinion taken into account, you should register an account (and have a significant number of contributions)
Courtesy will actually help making your point stronger. We tend to value the expression of opinions where the strength comes from the content rather then the words.
Lots of people are this and that, and refrain from making lists based on arbitrary juxtaposition of traits. Rama 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - At first I thought this was African French, but alas. Anyway, Romanian-French, Chinese French, Koreans in France are all better because they add context and discuss current issues. A similar article about African French could exist, but as a list, I don't know. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Peacent 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-cadherin[edit]

Long article about a protein. Created by the owner of a website on the same subject. Spam / original research / too technical? Please advise. -- RHaworth 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. While I could see there being an article about it in the future, the article as-is is written like an academic paper, with little regard for references or proper formatting. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a textbook. the_undertow ^talk 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not a substitute for editing. All ptroteins are notable, like other chemical compounds for which there is abundant literature, and if it isn't formatted, the proper tag is "wikify" not delete. DGG (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~How can we trust the reliability of this article when it has no sources?~~ the_undertow ^talk 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking that because I was interpreting wikify as 'transwiki.' The burden now would be to source the article, if I am correct in what you are implying? the_undertow ^talk 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Add tags for sources, but not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's comments, it's notable but needs clean up. Elmo 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable topic, but written at an inappropriate level. Should be tagged as non-encyclopedic writing and needing cleanup, not for deletion. Tim Vickers 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable protein with 50 hits on Medline; article just needs a clean up. Espresso Addict 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's comments. The article needs a lot of work, but the topic is notable - this paper (PMID 11642747) might be a good place to start. -- MarcoTolo 03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real protein.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some serious editing, but I'd still go with keeping it because cadherins are important proteins. 81.103.99.156 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable protein; article needs improvement.Biophys 02:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about suicide[edit]

The list itself highlights the problem: "This is a list of films about suicide, divided between those in which the suicide is the main theme of the and those in which the act of suicide is committed but is not the main theme. " The truth is there simply aren't enough movies trully about suicide (aside from perhaps documentaries) to justify this list. Bulldog123 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, pure listcruft. The title is misleading if it includes ones where suicide's not the main theme. In addition, this sure wouldn't be easy to verify... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. Yet another unmaintainable list. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Masaruemoto 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the place to categorize movies by the happenings in it. Would be a list of loosely associated items WP:NOT Corpx 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for info: the category came up for CFD earlier this month and was deleted. Lugnuts 05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Suicide is a bona fide theme in fiction. Perhaps the list could be salvaged if it was changed into an article discussing Fictional portrayals of suicide from a literary/musical/film criticism view. Wl219 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell, cruel world. The intolerable amount of listcruft on Wikipedia drove me to this. --Targeman 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<snark>Har har har...</snark> Wl219

Weak delete as is, but keep if the cruft can be removed, keeping those films being about suicide as the major theme or plot device. Bearian 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory and unmaintanable and without any external links/sources. Fails in many many ways.--JForget 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize the films where suicide is the main topic and then delete. I've created Category:Films about suicide as a subcat under Category:Films by topic for this purpose. CaveatLector^Talk 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started trying to do this, but need more discriminating opinions to reach a consensus about how to populate the category. CaveatLector^Talk 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can let common sense be our guide. If the film is about suicide (as a documentary/mockumentary film) or if the plot is significantly driven by a character's suicide/contemplated suicide/attempted suicide then it falls within the category. That would exclude almost all the listed films with only a mere occurrence of suicide or attempted suicide. Wl219 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think might be treading on original research ground Corpx 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be OR if the article for the film makes some kind of wacko claim that it's about suicide. But if the plot summary makes it clear it's a film about suicide, then it's a film about suicide and it's appropriate for the category. What I'm saying is that for the inclusion criteria, there should be more than a mere mention that a character commits suicide in passing. Wl219 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One interpretation is that it's too specific, and the other is that it's too general. Since the two will never find common ground, deletion is necessary.--WaltCip 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists (including this one) that cannot be externally referenced as a list if they cannot be provably complete. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hannah Montana Movie[edit]

No sources given to verify the existence of this movie. A Google search reveals some blogs and forums, but no reliable sources. Metros 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no imdb entry, and the release date has come and gone. Possible hoax. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, either a hoax or... well... a hoax. Reason #149,285 that hoaxes should be speediable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable... or a hoax. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find confirmation that the movie is in the works, but it is way too early at this stage to have an article on it. The article even ADMITS that nothing is known about the plot, thus failing WP:CRYSTAL. Blueboy 96 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed this article is the latest creation of AshTFrankFurter2 (talk · contribs), who has a history of making problematic edits to movie articles. He's been warned. Blueboy 96 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A movie of some sort is in conceptual stage as per interviews with principals. Everything other than that a movie is being considered is pure speculation and doesn't belong just yet. An article in Variety about it would justify a article here. --NrDg 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We know there will be a movie...and that's it! WAVY 10 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:CRYSTAL criteria.--JForget 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8514oem[edit]

I fail to see the notability of this generic typeface. -- Prince Kassad 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the following articles:

...and these articles:

...and another one:

Yikes, delete them all. Totally non-notable fonts, not even worth merging. I can't believe someone went to all this trouble. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of MS Windows typefaces. The articles as they stand don't have enough info or refs for a proper stub, but they do have some encyclopedic value as a list. They were all designed by someone, and eventually licensed to MS, so there is some history that could be developed with further research as well. Dhaluza 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per £10 hammer Will ^(talk) 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. These fonts are distributed with Windows, so that has to confer some notability. The articles are stubs created just one month ago. They may expand to include useful information (e.g. the history of the fonts' development). We should revisit the situation in a few months' time. JulesH 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even see how this would be encyclopedic as a list. To address Jules' first point - dbnmpntw.dll, jgdw400.dll, and MSSTKPRP.DLL are also distributed with Windows - and let's not forget ALANA.DLL, cc3250mt.dll, and the ever-popular DartSock.dll. I would argue that while very vital to the functionality of our computers, none of them are encyclopedic. As to the second point, "may expand" is a bit unsettling - in a few months' time, it's still equally probable that they "may expand", and a few months' time later, still just as possible. Until these fonts are as well-established in popular culture as, say, Times New Roman, or even of the same kitschy niche as MS Comic Sans (edit: which is itself a red-link, thus only bolstering my confidence in this argument), then I see no need for their inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Action Jackson IV 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Comic Sans does have an article, so I've just created a redirect for MS Comic Sans as it does seem a reasonable guess for the name. FredOrAlive 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Delete, none of these seem notable at all, there are thousands of fonts, modern OSs come with a fair few (look at List of fonts in Mac OS X), and frankly if all you can say is that they're included with Windows XP and perhaps what language system they're for, that doesn't exactly assert any kind of notability. FredOrAlive 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unless there is something to distinguish the font from others such as a design award, then they are just fonts with no hope of the article expanding much beyond the substub which it is today. -- Whpq 16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Christians[edit]

I can't see the purpose for this article. What is "the Slavic tribe of the Pontic-Caspian steppe of Middle Asia to the Eastern Bloc (including Poland) and Balkin Slavic Tribes"? That's entirely beyond my understanding. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "I don't understand it" is not a reason for deletion. I don't really understand this album myself, but it seems like the article must mean something to someone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nom's comments aren't good enough, but MrZaius' comments below are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom's a touch out of line, but the article lacks any assertion of note, completely lacks references, is poorly explained/lacks context, and all of its External links are borderline irrelevant, links to official sites of churches that the initial author apparently thought related, but that do not discuss the concept at all. Considerable overlap with Slavic peoples, which seems to deal with the topic much more clearly, although it too lacks sources. Did a good faith search for the phrase for which the article is named, but found very little that wasn't talking about a novievangelist movement. Barring major cleanup, delete. MrZaius^talk 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrZaius. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a coatrack of loosely-connected topics. The article links to Eastern Orthodox sources but we have History of the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as History of Christianity in Ukraine and Christianity in Kazakhstan. There are doubtless articles on individual splinter sects, but just being Slavic isn't a good reason to connect these different topics. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The number of much fuller articles that this overlaps with could be extended very considerably. A very short article on a very large topic, that does not even link to the fuller ones. Johnbod 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 100% WP:OR. This umbrella term is totally made up. A Slavic Christian is a Christian who happens to be a Slav, or vice-versa. And just WTF are the "Eastern bloc" and "Balkin Slavic tribes"? What next, Blond bespectacled Jewish coffee-drinking Rottweiler-loving African tribes? What a ridiculous association of unrelated topics. --Targeman 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr Zaius, Johnbod, Targeman, and Dhartung. Bearian 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Chuck Yeager; no individual notability established. - KrakatoaKatie 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Scott D'Angelo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Being married to a notable person doesn't grant her notability. The information about arguments over assets is already in the Chuck Yeager article. Anything of worth from this stub should simply be merged into that article. IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chuck Yeager per nom. Victoria, unfortunately, doesn't (yet) have enough notability to stand out on her own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - The subject is noteworthy in her own right, and further development of the article would demostrate such. Check-Six 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, no individual notability established. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above as herself is not enough famous to gain a WP article for herself.JForget 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Sr 13 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khira Li Lindemann[edit]

Delete. Per WP:BIO, merely being the relative of a famous person (or persons) does not make one notable automatically. I can't find any indication that she herself has done anything to meet the criteria. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, absolutely no notability. Possible A7 Speedy here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, I imagine the "appeared in a music video" stuff is a stab at an expository claim of notability. Half the article is repeating information from her dad's article anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failling WP:BIO - No notability established Corpx 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the daughter of a celebrity doesn't guarantee notability. Liv Tyler and Tori Spelling are exceptions, not the rule. Pats Sox Princess 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect per WP:LOCAL. --Core desat 07:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Middle School for Girls[edit]

I can't prove it because there are only a handful - at most - of hits on google and this article is the first one to show up (and has more info than the school's website, btw) but everything in me tells me this is a copyright vio. So I am putting it up to everyone to see if they agree with me. Postcard Cathy 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree---this reads like a brochure that somebody copied onto wikipedia. If it's not a copy vio, it is clearly an advertBalloonman 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania#Education. As stated in text (which does appear to be a likely copyvio), the school will be opening in August. While it is possible for a yet-to-open school to demonstrate notability, all we have here is that it's a school. Once information exists down the road to establish notability, the article should be recreated as a standalone article. Alansohn 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Alansohn. This just about the worst case of attempting to use Wikipedia as an advert space for a patently non-notable subject as I've ever seen. Absolutely shameless. Not to mention the violation of WP:CRYSTAL. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - Nothing on the article and nothing through google news. Also dont think that middle schools are inherently notable Corpx 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's simply nothing here. --ForbiddenWord 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania as per Alansohn but don't move any information. Noroton 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is important if you are a black, underpriveledged, poor, young inner-city female. Read the article as to why, it is an option that the local school district ( one of the worst in Pennsylvania ) are unable to offer. A similar school was opened in the same neighborhood in 2001 for boys, following the Nativity/Miguel, and some of the same people are now involved in this project. To those of you who are shooting this down - shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.245 (talk • contribs)
Delete as advertising, see WP:SPAM and the current article text. NawlinWiki 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Need to Lose Ten Pounds[edit]

This is an "ultra low budget" film by non-notable writer who was 14 years old at the time. And premiered at a filmfestival of questionable notability. This the film referenced in the AFD below for A-bo the humonkeyBalloonman 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Notability not established or asserted Rackabello 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know, I know. I'm starting my diet tomorrow. Geez... ~ Infrangible 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. -Wikid77 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. the_undertow ^talk 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability in WP:MOVIE. Useight 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN Elmo 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q.K. Southampton F.C.[edit]

The article was previously tagged for A7, although checking the article, it was not a candidate for speedy deletion, so I've put the article in afd. The article is about a non-notable team which is part of a league that in the article is red linked. Delete per lack of notability JForget 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article was tagged as A7, Club that does not assert it's importance. Nuttah68 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~The Hampshire League is level 12, the threshold for notability is level 10, is it not? Therefore~~ not notable. --Malcolmxl5 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the clarification, fchd. Regrettably, still not notable. --Malcolmxl5 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampshire Premier League (different to the Hampshire League!) is a brand-new league, probably why it is still a red link, which has been set up at Step 7 (Level 11), and I can't see that QK Southampton have ever played higher than Level 11, so a relucant Delete. - fchd 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-bo the humonkey[edit]

Contested prod. No secondary sources, no assertion of notability (aside from a Lloyd Kaufman cameo), article is almost complete devoid of content. A google search only reveals 265 hits. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable... also I nominated the film this article references for deletion above.Balloonman 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC (hasn't been widely-distributed, etc). Useight 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons above. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. Precious Roy 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chainofthoughts.com[edit]

No notability established. Nothing found on a Google News Archive search. Of the references cited, BBC link doesnt mention the site at all (except the screenshot) and the other 2 are blogs Corpx 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If US presidential candidates are starting to use the site for advertising, and if a major news publisher does a story on this, then it's a slam-dunk keep. In the article's current state, however, the website's notability seems peripheral. One of the two blog stories is a Fast Company writer on a FC website, so I give that source a little more credibility. Still, the article doesn't currently back up anything other than its role in the Virginia Tech tragedy mourning. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads as an advertBalloonman 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, members of the site are "advertising" for their favored candidates, and the major news publisher did a story about something else where they showed a screenshot of this as an example. That's basically trivial. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since perhaps there will be additional sources found during the course of the afd. One good source would make it, as C Fred says. DGG (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found two more supporting references, one in a discussion regarding the next generation of tag clouds (joelamatia.com) also, supporters of candidate Mike Gravel using the site for promotion (in line with comments by C.Fred). Are more than 5 references needed? Pundit8086 02:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs dont count as reliable sources Corpx 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably if the BBC article actually said the name of the website, then this would pass, if I understand the consensus?Pundit8086 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just mention the site. It has to be about the site or talk about it significantly Corpx 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll just get the BBC to re-write the article. Pundit8086 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I'm skeptical about the credibility of either of the blogs, though truthdig.com could be up in the air for me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the truthdig reference is a podcast. The creators of said website had enough notability to actually get an interview with the candidate. Pundit8086 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is not mentioned anywhere on the transcript though Corpx 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Evangelical Society[edit]

Article has asserted notability so it passes A7, but the notability does not seem to be fully established. -WarthogDemon 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep about 2800 google hits.Balloonman 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Googling suggests it doesn't appear to have a very large presence in theological thought. That aside, the article has big problems with source quality (e.g. citing Theopedia), neutrality and original research (particularly inference alongthe lines of "X referrring to it means it's important"). Check out Zane C. Hodges and recent additions to Lordship salvation for more of the same. Gordonofcartoon 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing a simple Google test is not a reason for keep. I see no instances of significant coverage in reliable, indepdent news sources that would verify notability for this subject. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is information to write an article, the article can stand. On the other hand, the article is at present somewhat incoherent, reflecting the detailed controversy between two groups that seem to reflect unusual views of christianity., I think a more informed article could be written.DGG (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "free grace" vs "lordship salvation" dispute isn't dramatically unusual on the US evangelical circuit. But my main impression is that this is about writing one minor player into centre stage. Peer review would be useful. Gordonofcartoon 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Your point about proportional coverage bothered me also. This general topic has been discussed since the beginnings of Christianity, and the article makes it seem as if this group started the discussion for the first time. DGG (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Specifically relating to current Christianity, the GES is just one of many ministries with this stance (a typical online list here) so I think undue weight is an issue, even more so at Lordship salvation. Not sure why Free grace redirects there; it seems notable in itself. Gordonofcartoon 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think an article should remain if the notability is not established. Only mentions through Google NEWS archives are trivial and the references in the article itself are not from independent sources Corpx 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this sounds more like an article on the founder than the society. Given his books, articles (both need better referenes) the article may be more worthwhile than this society. If not a merge, this does not appear to meet notability standards. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as notable, but needs much better sourcing. Bearian 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the entry and I’ll work on clarifying it and improving the sources. About the hits, is it possible the GES is a special situation? Any organization that critiques the establishment of a subculture, because of its controversial mission is going to be censured from the limited subculture venues where ideas become popular. Yet the digital collections of conservative theological journals have long included the GES journal. Thanks for your consideration of this entry. Johanna Sawyer 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is going to be censured from the limited subculture venues where ideas become popular

Maybe that's the case, but generally that kind of problem isn't given much slack here, and it doesn't excuse articles from neutral point of view and original research policies. Gordonofcartoon 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shifted the entry toward a more nuetral pov, added some sources, added some historical precedent, shortened the bio of the founder, and having done that, am not sure where there is fresh research... I think a section on Free Grace Theo historical precedents (with sources, not original research), and current Free Grace organizations might round out the entry Johanna Sawyer 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to look at other articles in Category:Christian organizations. One reason the current article is offputting is that from the outset it relentlessly slugs the reader with the theological detail (most of which belongs in a separate article about Free Grace theology) while omitting basic stuff like where The Grace Evangelical Society is based, when they were founded, etc. Gordonofcartoon 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok that sounds like a good plan, thanks.Johanna Sawyer 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Aryeh Friedman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This person seems to be noted only for doing one thing. It was a big thing, attending the notorious Iranian Holocaust denial conference as a Jew. However, that seems to be the only notable thing this person has ever done. The article is about that and about people's reaction to it, with a little non-notable filler thrown in. Steve Dufour 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article has been through the wringer and has been brought up to the clearest possible standards of Wikipedia:Notability through multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources that cover multiple events for this individual over an extended period of time, all of which is clearly documented in the article. Alansohn 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article seems to be about an individual, not a leader or spokesperson of any group (nor has he written any books), who goes around expressing his opinions. If he hadn't been invited to the conference in Iran I am sure that WP would not have an article on him. Steve Dufour 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly about the individual, not an organization, hence the article's title. If he hadn't attended this conference, there might have been a case to support the claim that he might not be notable. However, he was invited and he did attend,as noted in hundreds upon hundreds of articles nationwide. The article uses multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability based on multiple events. I can only address this individual and this article -- not what might have been -- and this article clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out WP:BLP1E. He seems to me to fall into the category of "persons notable for only one event". Steve Dufour 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced with a history before the conference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is widespread significant independent reliable coverage of this person. Clearly passes WP:N. JulesH 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he seems to be notable for more than just one thing, judging from the number of sources, so I'd say WP:BLP1E is invalid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep He seems to have come on the stage mostly though his defence of the holocaust at the conference, but has had other activities such as his plan to work with Hamas for food aid to the west bank, and his activities with the Freedom party. I would say he's notable, but my keep is week because he is so controversial, keeping his article NPOV would be almost impossible unless it were just merged into another article about his colleagues. Basejumper 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to be part of any group of colleagues. Steve Dufour 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know someone else whose article is almost impossible to keep NPOV? Er, OK, bad joke, but with a point. Notability determines whether or not an article is kept, not the threat of editing disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is this person is living, and this article was started by editors who strongly disliked his politics as a policy violating attempt to insult him and show him exclusively in a bad light. (see the last deletion log) It was not until last week that we removed libel that had been up for a very long time, not to mention that with this gentleman, the Israeli press purposely published lies, as was reported in the American papers. (Ex. His wife divorced him, when really she says she supports everything he does. He denied the holocaust, when really he defended its reality, etc.) I think the fact that the article was started as a slam piece, and that there is the press of an entire country willing to slander him, it could be this man should not have his own article on wikipedia just for the potential libel issues alone. Basejumper 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Even for the one speech he would be notable, as I think every news source in the world carried a story. We do not delete articles because of POV problems. DGG (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep John Wilkes Booth was just some schmuck who shot at some other schmuck at Ford's Theatre. It was a big thing, but that seems to be the only notable thing Mr. Booth has ever done. --Action Jackson IV 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, he was an extremely notable actor before that event. This article is a keep, but lets keep the comparisons reasonable. DGG (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he seems to have been notable beginning several years before the conference in question. Yes, that was the point at which coverage leaps, but I don't think BLP1E is meant to cover this sort of case. Being at the conference was not some fluke; it was a direct outgrowth of his career in activism, thus making said activism (more) notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, sourced and improved since last time Taprobanus 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't think he deserves to be notable, he seems to have passed the BLP1E threshold and he exemplifies a notable fringe. HG | Talk 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by last week's NYT. Wiki is no longer just an encyclopedia, but a reference to current events and people in the news. He has passed the threshold for notability as a contemporary figure. --Jayrav 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, DGG, and HG. I don't like him but he's notable. Bearian 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains very little information about him, mostly just about how people don't like ~~him~~ his going to Iran. Steve Dufour 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altered texts in Scientology doctrine[edit]

Title is not neutral point of view. The changes in text could have been from Scn Founder, if relevant it can be merged with Golden Age of Knowledge which is the official name for reissue of Scientology materials Leocomix 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator pointed out the title of the article itself is POV. Besides that, the article itself is basically original research. Older and newer texts of Scientology publications are put side by side to show that they have been "altered". Steve Dufour 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV in the fundamental premise of the article. The text in the books have verifiably been changed, and the cited sources are the books themselves. Now, analysis of the ramifications and meaning of the changes might be POV, but that can be dealt with in editing - we don't nominate articles for deletion over content disputes. wikipediatrix 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The solution for what you allege is not to delete, but to source. What you describe is not original research. Plus this topic is getting more and more important, now that David Miscavige altered the scientology texts once again a few weeks ago. --Tilman 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of Mr. Miscavige. But WP is not the place to expose his misdeeds. Steve Dufour 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the point of the article that Dave did it. The point is that it was done. --Tilman 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced to apparently reliable third parties, including Gene Zimmer, who seems to be an accepted and widely published authority on doctrinal Scientology matters. The solution to NPOV issues is to fix them, not to delete the article. JulesH 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushingBalloonman 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources quoted seem to be websites pushing one side or another of the controversy. Are there any neutral sources that even recognize the controversy exists? Steve Dufour 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article denigrates religions that feature alien-posession. LONG LIVE HIS GREATNESS GALUMPTEL FLUBERNAUSS OF THETICON VII !!!!1!! ~ Infrangible 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a dispute between two factions of alien believers. Steve Dufour 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not for AfD this is an editing problem. We do not delete articles because of POV disputes. especially because of POV disputes between what would appear to be different tendencies internal within a movement. DGG (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the dispute is over if the topic exists or not. Steve Dufour 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been alterations, of course the topic exists. Any dispute is over the reasons for the alterations, which should be worked out in the article. AndroidCat 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream of Scientology, that is the Church of Scientology, says that there have not been alterations. They say they were just following Hubbard's instructions. If the article is not deleted it should at least be renamed. Steve Dufour 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think they have been altered. I am not an expert on these things however. Steve Dufour 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject exists, is notable, and no valid reason has been proposed for deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, just IDONTLIKEIT. AndroidCat 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone could write an article on "Altered Texts in the King James Bible" by comparing the first edition with a modern edition. However, I don't think it would last long on WP. Steve Dufour 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ per above comment - Of course, religious literature is altered from one edition to the next, and so are the meanings etc... What is this trying to prove? Should we have a article which lists all the differences between the guttenberg bible and the latest edition? Corpx 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) - Changed to Neutral Corpx 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that Wiki actually has pages about the differences in various Bibles. Maybe they should be nominated for deletion too? Bible errata#KJV AndroidCat 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, WP does have articles on the different translations and textual variants of the Bible. In response to Corpx, that's why we don't just have the Bible article - we have Gutenberg Bible, Bible translations, Masoretic text, Septuagent, Tanakh at Qumran and dozens of others. Though in this article "altered texts" is probably fine as is, but if it absolutely can't be accepted, at least change the name to something like "updated texts". This is a valuable article and ought not to be vanished because of such a comparatively small objection. Vonspringer 06:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Variant texts", then, which is a phrase that recurs in many religious articles? wikipediatrix 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variant texts would be a great improvement, if you can establish that that is a notable topic. Steve Dufour 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, I think it would be a good variant article title. ;) Vonspringer 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The neutrality of this article is highly suspect, as it makes very weak claims that these changes are viewed suspiciously by "some" Scientologists (always a red light, wording like that), and is sourced, really, only by Scientology watchdog sites that have a bone to pick. Plus the St. Petersburg Times, which seems to be unusually focused on Scientology, but in this case, the source barely relates. This level of sourcing gives the strong impression that this is OR and this article is a mouthpiece of watchdog sites. In theory, this might be a viable topic, but comparing this to articles on Bible errata is not reasonable, given the popular importance of the bible vs. these various Scientology texts. Mangojuice^talk 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply not true. At least one of the sources is a practicing scientologist. That he disagrees with the official line of the Church of Scientology does not make him a "Scientology watchdog site", whatever that may be. JulesH 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that it's a private website, with no editorial reputation we can count on, and as it exists to serve a related issue, its independence is also a problem. Maybe "watchdog site" isn't accurate, but the quality of the source is still a big problem. Mango juice^talk 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Vonspringer Thanks Taprobanus 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat insignificant, unsourced and POV pushing. Makoshack 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, if for no other reason than the nominator's rationale is quite incoherent. There is no POV in the fundamental premise of the article. The text in the books have verifiably been changed, and the cited sources are the books themselves. wikipediatrix 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding of the concept, putting two versions of a text next to each other (as the article does) and saying, "Look! The words have been changed!" is the essence of original research. Not that it's a bad thing to do, outside of WP. Steve Dufour 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the excessive detail there is indeed a problem, but an editing problem. The polemics of the factions are the secondary sources. DGG (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is not incoherent. I'll assume good faith from the doubters and explain it here for their sake and for the sake of those who are not familiar with Scientology terminology. The word 'altered' in Scientology terminology is not neutral but has a specific connotation of "not going by the source material" ("off-Source" in their language). 'Source' itself is defined as L. Ron Hubbard in their dictionary. So 'altered' does not just mean 'changed' but 'changed contrary to the intention of the Founder.' However, Hubbard himself revised (sometimes continuously) his own writings but none of those revisions are called 'alterations' within the movement. They are "in-Source." The title is a biased POV (from former Scientologists, especially Freezoners) because it already assumes that these changes are 'alterations' instead of 'revisions' (the word Hubbard used when he changed a text). From my own experience as a past Scientology editor, virtually all the changes mentioned in the article are from Hubbard. I also happen to have contacted another past editor (working in the unit preparing the texts) who confirmed there were no 'alterations,' i.e. no rewriting of the text by others. --Leocomix 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation of your explanation is still not so coherent to me. And your own personal experience as a Scientology editor is not relevant to Wikipedia articles, as per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. wikipediatrix 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Lecomix's personal experience is not admissible here, his point that "Altered texts ..." is not a neutral title remains valid. "Variant texts" would be a neutral statement as is normally used in literary and scriptural studies , but "altered" implies deliberate changes. The claim that L.Ron Hubbard's writings were knowingly altered by the Church is central to the Freezoners' rationale; it is contentious, a partisan issue that must be treated with care to maintain a NPOV. The exploration of textual variants in the publications of L.Ron Hubbard would be an interesting study (generations of academics might build careers on it, as with works of other famous authors) that could become the subject of a Wikipedia article once it had been written up and published in secondary sources. But the page under discussion is OR because it consists mainly of Wikipedia editors' comparison of quotes selected from the texts in question with the purpose of demonstrating their contention that alterations have been made. DavidCooke 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience may not count but the contention that there have been "alterations" is not proven. The mere fact or statement that there are variants does not establish the existence of alterations. None of those who pretend they exist can put forth a document to the contrary (like an affidavit from an ex-member that such is happening). In addition, the opening segment of the article doesn't even care to reference the Scientology text that states that the "the word of LRH is incontrovertible." The article (before I started to revise it) also omitted to mention 1. that Hubbard used to revise his own texts, 2. that he left editing instructions that can be found in the publicly available OEC volumes. --Leocomix 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced. May need some NPOV cleanup, but that is an issue for editors.--Fahrenheit451 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or, at the very least, delete the section that makes comparison, as it is OR. If the article is kept, I agree that the title needs to be changed to make it more NPOV.HubcapD 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a before and after documented page. Altered is a before and after. No need to delete unless the before and after meaning of altered is not factual. Looking a little more into this area I found that in most Scientology promotion material the central thread is that all organizations sell a standard LRH technology. If it was knowingly altered then the advertising would be fraud. It is very important to the Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) to have this page knock out as it is documented evidence of this Scientology advertising fraud. It is OSA's job to go after material like this. This page needs to remain and stand as factual evidence. There probably should be nothing in it except dates and before and after materials to show what changed. The hair splitting over calling it altered or variant is silly. It probably should be called evidence of fraudulent advertising, which would be a proper legal description. ThomasPaine12323:18, 2007 July 27 (UTC)

Still Delete. The church claims that the changes have been made according to their founder instructions and that any previous version was either a mistake introduced by an editor or transcriber or a datum that Hubbard revised himself. What you propose is not an encyclopdia article (which is why I required deletion or failing that classifying under another title) but a mouthpiece for a very specific viewpoint associated with Freezoners. Said viewpoint not being supported by facts, proofs nor experience with the editing department. Said article being only sourced by Freezoners apparently not aware of the circumstances of the changes in text and filling that void in information with their outrage that somebody has meddled with the word of their prophet. By the way, it is also in the interest of Freezoners to present their "we have the pure tech" pet theory to attract customers. They can claim they use first editions, but first editions in publishing are notorious for containing the most mistakes. Their claim of "pure tech" could as well be the one that is fraudulent. You are obviously partisan. The statement from DavidCooke is the most reasoned one I have seen so far. --Leocomix 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 04:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escats[edit]

Not in English, but this is the English wikipedia. Not sure which Speedy category to go with, so I'm putting it here. superβεεcat 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete translation of this page lacks third party/critical sources to justify the page in any language. NobutoraTakeda 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [10][reply]
Delete - per above and notability - not listed on es.wikipedia.org —Travis ^talk 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per cab's translation and my faulty google search —Travis ^talk 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a Wikipedia page is not an indicator of non-notability. cab 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete A2 ((db-foreign)) applies here. Blueboy 96 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ((db-foreign)) only applies where the article on enwiki has the exact same content as the corresponding page on a foreign-language Wikipedia. Otherwise, it gets listed at WP:PNT. As noted by TravisTX, this does not have a page at eswiki. cab 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to neutral, leaning keep per Cab's translation. Would like to see some more reliable sources before going to keep. Blueboy 96 16:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Blueboy96.Hu 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutley horrible speller. I can't even read what this says. ~ Infrangible 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, translate, and expand Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources can be found by searching on the band name or names of their members.[11][12] cab 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't find anything notable other than they are a group of musicians. Unless someone can provide some sources that demonstrate notability I see no reason to keep this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial sources; where are they??? Burntsauce 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The translatiion isuse is settled, so i have struck the comments on that issue that had not already been struck. The remaining issue seems to be notability and sources to establish it. Discussion on this only started after the translation, hence the relist. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cab has found adequate sources to keep this article. JulesH 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly does this group fulfill WP:BIO? Strong DeleteBalloonman 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. JulesH 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:BIO is problematic but a cursory web search turns up some amount of coverage, but I can't read a lot of it, as it's in Spanish. I'd like to give the author an opportunity to establish notability, and then reevaluate. - superβεεcat 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above although their music appears to be Acid jazz if anything. Bearian 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akshai Sarin[edit]

Despite claims of notability, artist fails WP:MUSIC. Most of his references are either trivial coverage, or not from reliable sources. Created by a single purpose account that seems to show conflict of interest as well (the editor is Axyzmusic and AXYZmusic is the name of his self-run record label/production company). Borderline spam, the editor has created mirror articles at Akshaisarin and Akshai which I have redirected, and include in this AfD. Earlier attempts at properly formatting the article were met with reverts. Precious Roy 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for reasons listed above:[reply]

Weak Keep appears to have signed with a major lable and international tour---both part of WP:MUSIC Balloonman 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At best, one track on a major label compilation (which ≠ "two or more albums on a major label" per WP:MUSIC). That discography is a misleading mess. No sources back up any "international tour", either. Precious Roy 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies. Our first time using wikipedia, hence the slow process in adhering to your guidlines. Akshai Sarin has tracks on 3 albums on major label Sonymusic - The Ultimate Ahah, Klub K3G and Kaal.axyzmusic 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand corrected. But the same track is on both Klub K3G and Kaal. Precious Roy 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has been updated with many more references, however most are from blogs ([13], [14]), are press release profiles ([15]), or his own label's website.
Comment 1. You mentioned the need for some proof of Akshai being an ex member of shiva soundsystem, the link directs to a poster with his name alongside State of Bengal on the blog. 2. Once again, the second blog (roca cruz) is that of Kitchie Nadal's manager - which includes a picture of Kitchie Nadal and Akshai Sarin performing together, and includes the name of their upcoming release. 3. Creativeportal and British Council website information on Akshai Sarin are completely neutral, put up independently by the organisations themselves. These also mention axyzmusic's offices in 5 countries, the direct link axyzmusic's website displays the addresses of these offices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Axyzmusic (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to see those references coming in. Still, a blog is a blog is a blog. Anyone can make a blog claiming to be anybody—that's why blogs aren't considered reliable sources. I'm not saying those two haven't worked together, but there isn't even one picture of them in the same shot. Something like a magazine report would be far preferrable to a blog entry. And I only count four offices on the label's page: Egypt, India, Philippines, and Australia. Oh, and all of the images on the Shiva Soundsystem blog are broken; but maybe it's just my connection. Precious Roy 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some of the bogus sources, but one of the articles, while not particularly well written, is from a reliable source and asserts an international tour (the Times of India article). Does anyone have access to the Mumbai Mirror article? The website doesn't archive that far back and i can't access that from my (U.S. university) library. But if that article substantiates that he's been in rotation on BBC Radio 1, he'd definitely qualify under WP:MUSIC. Chubbles
Keep The Times of India and Jam magazine references were enough for me. However soem of those references are truly trivial and should be removed, such as the ones that simply show that the artist played at an event, but othereise concentrate entirely on other matters, unless the event itself is major enough that merly playing at it is significant. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DESiegel -- the Times of India and Jam magazines seem to meet the criteria for WP:RS, and with a plurality of non-trivial mentions, he barely passes criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to residencies in multiple countries. I would like to know the names of the clubs he is a resident DJ at, and evidence/more detail, but unless those facts are disproven, this article meets the spirit of the "international" criteria of WP:BAND. John Vandenberg 22:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to come here by the way. - Keep per point 9 of WP:MUSIC. Here's the competition, and here's him in it. Giggy _U^CP 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I too was asked to come here. Anyhow, is the Creative Future competition a major music competition as required under point 9 of WP:MUSIC? I was under the impression that the competition was a business competition run by an institution, see here. If I am correct, then he fails point 9 of WP:MUSIC. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was one of 20 finalists, not the winner, nor one of 4 others who received special awards (link). Precious Roy 13:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too self-promotional, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, apparent WP:COI. Realkyhick 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, whoever did the asking asked a bunch of people who often vote "delete" as well as a bunch of people who often vote "keep" on pop music articles. Chubbles 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Full disclosure: Dismayed by the lack of attention this AfD had been receiving, I contacted some people (12) whom I saw frequenting Music AfDs, and asked them to weigh in with their 2¢. (I now know that's considered canvassing and is verboten. Mea culpa.) I didn't target deletionists—despite my tenacity with this particular article, I realize there is potential notability hidden in there. The problem is the puffery and dissembling that was blatant in the original article (and still exists to some extent). Examples: claiming collaboration with State of Bengal—in reality, a member of that group DJ'd at a club night run by a group/collective that Akshai was a sometime member of; claiming "extensive" media coverage—a handful of articles (even 15 articles) is not "extensive"; writing about Laptop-jams so that it appeared to be a group that he was a member of and that they played a festival (and collaborated with Herbie Hancock, Roots Manuva, and other notables) when in fact it was an art project where anyone who showed up with a laptop was allowed to join in (and the notable artists merely appeared at the same festival but not with the art performance). Separating the truth has been a trial, to say the least. I have no interest in swaying this AfD one way or the other, and I appreciate the input from other experienced editors. My desire is that the article, if kept, be balanced and encyclopedic—not inflated and promotional. Precious Roy 13:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can search Mumbai Mirror using the "advanced" option. here is the article:

The A/X Effect Tuesday, June 27, 2006 | Entertainment

Akshai Sarin, or DJ A/X, is the youngest to feature on BBC Radio 1 with his ‘Birdsong’

by Kenneth Lobo

From its inception and throughout the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, the hugely successful BBC Radio 1 – commanding weekly audiences of up to 24 million listeners – was considered a station that you could listen to for new music. While that reputation (and audience) has diminished, BBC still shows a dedication to broadcasting original innovative productions. Last fortnight, Alternative Asia, a show hosted by Nerm, producer of the UK collective, Shiva Sound System, broadcast ‘Birdsong’ by 24-year-old producer-DJ Akshai Sarin, also called DJ A/X, the youngest ever act to be featured.

Sarin composed the eponymous ‘Birdsong’ for a play, directed by a woman called Poonam Sareen, about every man's story about having a dream and pursuing it. “Sareen gave me the synopsis of the play: A girl who is a talented actor is convinced by her father to choose investment banking for a career. She relents and is successful but one day she runs into a chef who points her back in the direction of her dream,” he narrates. As hackneyed as the plot sounds, Sarin found the play unusually mirroring his own life. “I was studying Economics, Philosophy and International Studies at Lawrence University, USA. But I had to make my choice about what I really loved, and I did,” he says. “‘Birdsong’ is an orchestral piece that mirrors the emotions I experienced, full of fluctuating emotions and indecision."

Sarin's music has accompanied the play across India and the response has been positive, with compliments for the track's high production values and instrumentation. The artist points to the “space” in his music that allows every note and moment to build up to create a fulfilling experience. “I'm a fan of space,” he says. “Like Osho said, ‘We look at our palms and fingers but not the space between them and how important that is.’”

This producer boasts of a repertoire over 200 songs, and regular airplay (of tracks from his previous three albums) on radio stations in US and UK. Soundscapes, his debut solo album, released through Mp3.com, sold over 2,000 copies when he was just 16 years old. “I was even invited to perform by a radio station in Bosnia. Unfortunately, I was at University then,” he says, nonchalantly.

Except for his ‘Birdsong’ however, the artist's music has reached a very select audience. His live performances have also been limited to spaces like Zenzi, which usually host an eclectic audience. “I prefer starting a performance with some bouncy, house pieces. With a couple of tracks I can gauge the space the crowd is comfortable in. I take them into that space and then push the boundaries, maybe play some Brazilian beats,” says Sarin. World music has proved one of the biggest stimuli for the widely travelled musician, which also explains the experimenting. “I'm part of an audio visual project where a common theme runs through 12 songs but each track belongs to a different genre,” he says. Admitting to being spiritual, Sarin says that at the heart of his music is “a search to find unity among cultures and individuals”. “I'm into that whole ‘world unity’ thing,” he concludes.

Australia tour: http://www.karmaclub.com.au/images/ax.jpg - flyer from the australia (june 2007 - as dj a/x) tour. http://www.zonar.net/uberlingua/ewf/default.htm - at the emerging writer's festival in melbourne (not as dj a/x)

Keep - Enough coverage, touring, and airplay to qualify. Chubbles 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 09:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud safwat[edit]

Cannot confirm notability. Ghits don't point to anything specific. No reference via ghits for Olympic participation. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable unless references are provided backing up the claims. A number of potential sources make no link between the subject and the Helsinki games. Nuttah68 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reference now found confirming appearance but disproving claims to finishing position. Are there any guidelines on Olympic competitors? Nuttah68 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... WP:BIO defines athletes as notable if they played professionally or at the highest amateur level. THe olympics are recognized as the highest amateur level. Thus, if they competed they are notable. KeepBalloonman 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to just pass notability by being an Olympian. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Confirmed Olympic athelete, therefore notable. Article needs work though. Elmo 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forgive Me and Prevailed Upon, nominations of others appear to be withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Phony entry. Album does not exist in artist's catalog and "track listing" is cribbed from a couple of other noteworthy albums (including Black Flag's Loose Nut -- CJ Marsicano 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same exact reason:

Delete Album does not exist. SethTisue 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Forgive Me, speedy delete Prevailed Upon ~~the other two~~. It looks like Forgive Me was a real song by Versus the World, but the article was redirected to the band article. Prevailed Upon, ~~The other two~~ however, is a clear hoax, and can be speedied per G3. Blueboy 96 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Forgive Me, and Delete Prevailed Upon the other two. (I've added Brooklyn Wednesday as well as a hoax). The user has created infobox links including the other albums, too. I'm just going out now, but I'll try to fix these when I get back if no-one else has. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tagging the other two articles as hoaxes, and have warned BradSerious (talk · contribs) with ((uw-hoax)). Blueboy 96 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgive Me and Prevailed Upon. Brooklyn Wednesday and Duality of Self are 100% real. BradSerious 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I've removed BW. You hardly make it easy when you create real and fake articles, especially ones like BW that we have almost no way of verifying (I only managed to because CJ warned me about it and I found a Jandek forum post about it). ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable... Wikipedia isnt' a collection of song tunesBalloonman 18:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as it's a hoax Famous Mortimer 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Moves, merges and redirects can be discussed editorially, as there's no consensus to do any of the three from this debate. Daniel 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estophilia[edit]

This article was originally speedy-deleted as a neologism. DRV overturned, since that rationale is not among the CSD, and the article is sourced, as well, rebutting that belief. Still, weak delete, as there is not yet evidence of wide currency or encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Estonian national awakening, which goes into far more depth on the background. Move to [[Estophile]] per comment on sourcing below. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Gordonofcartoon. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Estophilia is a significant and notable topic in Estonian history. I draw your attention to the book reference: The History of Estonia, 2nd edition, by A. Maesalu, T. Lukas, T, Tannberg, et al [16] (ISBN 9985-2-0606-1) Quote from section beginning on page 167: Estophiles and the first Estonian intellectuals:

“

The growing interest in exotic and minority peoples in Europe launched the Estophile movement in Estonia. The Estophiles - Baltic Germans interested in Estonia - studied the Estonian language and culture, published fiction of considerable artistic level, newspapers, textbooks for schools, and founded various scientific societies.....

”

BTW, according to this book, the Estophile movement pre-dates and is distinct from the Estonian National Awakening which is detailed in a different section.

Another quote from Britannica online [17] :

“

Written literature began in the so-called Estophile period (c. 1750–1840) with moral tales and manuals written by Balto-German enthusiasts for the native language and culture.

”

Note that the Estonian national awakening started around 1850, so the Estophilia period predates it by 100 years, a significant period outside the scope of Estonian national awakening. Also see the following sources:

Online Encyclopedia reference, Estophilia period 1710-1850: [18]
Online Encyclopedia reference, National awakening period 1850-1917: [19]
Book reference: [20]

Additionally here is a list of 19 books that mentions "Estophile" [21], the earliest english book in the list was published in 1947, the earliest German book in the list was published in 1901. So it is definitely not a neologism.

Also note too that the original stub of Estonian national awakening [22] was subject to an AfD, due to the nominator's ignorance of Estonian History [23]. As you can see, this was eventually developed into a reasonable article, just as this notable article will be too. Martintg 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken: except that the referenced term is "Estophile". The term "Estophilia" is rare to the point of neologism, plus making it sound like some kind of paraphilia, and that's how the article currently comes on. Call the article "Estophile", which is the dominant sourced form of the term, and go straight to the context of the Balto-German Estophile period, and I'd agree with you. I've edited the article accordingly. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your point about it sounding like some kind of paraphilia, I am not 100 percent convinced that "Estophilia" is neologism, since it shares the same root as "Estophile". "Estophile" refers to the individual, while "Estophilia" is the condition and "Estophilic" is the adjective. In any case, the plural form "Estophiles" would be better than "Estophile" as a title Martintg 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the etymological relationship, the "phile" form predominates in sources and has longer-standing currency. Gordonofcartoon 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The -phile is the person and the -philia is the activity. This article is more than just about the people, it is also about their activities. Some sources do mention "Estophilia", including the link to Estonica you updated on the article page. Clearly it is referring to the activity. Martintg 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your personal analysis of the etymology; I'm going by the term that the majority of the sources use. Here are the ratios for "Estophilia"/"Estophile"/"Estophiles" from Google hits. Google Books: 2/20/19. Google Scholar: 0/3/8. Main Google: 36/346/125. "Estophilia" is a minority usage, and the article title should reflect the predominant term relating to the topic. Gordonofcartoon 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could also indicate that a proportion of items are related to individual Estophiles, while another proportion are related to the concept and activities of Estophilia in general. Martintg 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stay away from the Estonians, you pervert. ~ Infrangible 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love the Wikihumour, don't give up your day job. You want to provide a more meaningful comment? Martintg 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment could someone please explain the box below? Personally, I think that afds shouln't be crawled at all, but that's a policy question--and I do not see how hiding them is a way to do it--or even just what is being hidden. DGG (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it into the "Society" category. Martintg 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nothing to do with this nomination, someone just couldn't do a proper second nomination and so the blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Aryeh Friedman was transcluded. --Derlay 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Estophile. -- Petri Krohn 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand English is not your first language, but if you want to move to Estophile, Estophiles would be a better choice, since there were more than one. Martintg 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, condescending remark. For my money, Petri Krohn seems to be able to get by in English (see Understatement) but then what do I know, it's not my first language either. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, naming conventions, here: "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers)." Italics in original. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, reading int to things too deeply again? Do you know all the forms of all the words in English and their proper usage? I rate my English pretty good but still cant say that. As native speaker he does have the right do doubt the judgment of a nonnative speaker without being accused of putting someone down.--Alexia Death 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms? My post wasn't about forms. It was about Petri Krohn being right, per WP:MOS, and about the native speaker therefore lacking a basis for his condescension. My post was also, in a modest way, helpful, in that I had looked for and found the relevant passage in WP:MOS, and gave a link to it. See the difference compared to your post? I'd advise against posting in these discussions just for the purpose of attacking other editors. It fails the usefulness test and wastes peope's time. I'll stop before I do the same. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Above cites sources are IMO sufficient to show this as a sufficiently widely used term that a separate aricel is IMO warrented. Whether to move to a different form of the word is an editorial choice that can always be discussed on the talk page, no need for an AfD to decide that point. Whichever form is finally chosen, create redirects for the other form as each is a plausisble search target (no need for a redir from the plurarl form per the MoS). DES ^(talk) 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as is at current title. It is a notable concept as a movement and a mindframe. I was a trend, a movement, with its notable and non notable Estophiles. Estophile would be a suitable redirect to Estophilia section about notabe estophiles, but moving would change the focus and hamper usage/linking clarity in articles... Estophies would move focus to people not the phenomena, but there were non-notoable Estophiles, estophile wold be a dictionary term not sutable for decribing a larger frame. Estophilia is a suitable title, under witch the the explanation of the term Estophile and mentions of notable estophiles fit.--Alexia Death 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was originally speedily deleted as a retaliatory action by Neil, and the deletion review has made it quite obvious that this deletion had no basis in Wikipedia policy. This AFD has been created merely to formalise this. Consequelly, I expect everybody familiar with the history of the article, or the history of the movement, vote this way. Digwuren 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic and important link in Estonian history. Although I don't oppose the move to Estophile either, as the article seems to concentrate more on Estophiles more than the phenomena of estophilia itself. Suva 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is Russophilia, why can not be Estophilia?Biophys 06:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 2009[edit]

Pure crystalballing, only information available is from a single shaky source. east.718 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should wait before creating this one, as little info is provided here.--JForget 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, fails WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails crystalBalloonman 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasons. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i'm okay with it failing, the only details that came out of the E3 Gaming conference, was a trailer, nothing else. I just created the article cause it wasn't UFC 2007 like stated in the previous article. Until more info which will come out later, delete. -- GoDawgs^(T) 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No there there. Bearian 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. Daniel 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgetbahn[edit]

This fails on two counts: first, it is a neologism; second it is a dictionary definition. I tried to find credible references for it, but found only a few newspaper editorials of an obviously polemical kind, nothing we could use for an authoritative definition. It is not so widespread as to be able to define it form a consensus of common usage, either. Only a few hundred Googles, of which Wikipedia is the top one (always a bad sign). Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It is a pejorative neologism that has gained reasonably broad use, but we could never write an encyclopedia article about it.--Yannick 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. A dictionary definition. It appear to have been around since 2004 and to have gained some usage. --Malcolmxl5 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A dicdef is an article about a word, this article (now) covers the word's usage making it encyclopedic. Also although the term is a neologism, that is not necessarily grounds for deletion. To be a reason for deletion, the coverage on WP would have to be the most reliable source using the term, and there are (now) sufficient references to reliable published sources using the term to make that point moot. Finally, I also found a synonymous term "gadget transit" which is now redirected to this article. No objection to transcluding the definition part to Wiktionary. Dhaluza 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. NY Press is not exactly a big time source. I like it, but it's afree weekely. Could become an article with enough references. Bearian 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Alameda Sun and Rail Professional too. It only matters that these secondary sources are more reliable than WP. Dhaluza 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, or "transwiki" if you would like, but a dictionary definition belongs elsewhere. Burntsauce 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as excessive plot summary. Merge/redirect has a strong following here too, but the suggested merge target is also currently up for AFD. If that page is kept, there should be no problem with a redirect to it being created in this space. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second battle of Hogwarts[edit]

This is a summary of part of the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Rather than shorten the enormous plot summary there, editors decided to create an article on this fictional military battle. The page completely ignores both the manual of style and what Wikipedia is not. The material is too redundant and excessive to be merged, and since the title is in dispute, it shouldn't be redirect either. Wafulz 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article, it makes sense and is about an important battle which needs describing.
Transwiki to Wikibooks where Deathly Hallows can have as crazed a summary as Half-Blood Prince does. Phil Sandifer 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to be said about this battle other than a plot summary. The main plot summary should be made an appropriate length, not split into subarticles. If there is enough to say about the battle to warrant an article (public response, etc) then the article can be recreated, but I doubt it will be necessary. --Tango 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article into the main article, if anything. Significant deaths occur in the Second Battle of Hogwarts, and they deserve recognition. It is noted above that the material is "too redundant and excessive to be merged", but it clarifies event progression in the novel as they occur. Reputation 15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why exactly should the deaths be reiterated? This isn't Sparknotes.-Wafulz 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with you on that. Beyond recognition of the deaths that occur, it is merely an excessively detailed plot summary. Reputation 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Unnecessary as an article, but it seems a likely search term. No reason readers shouldn't be sent to the article on the book. Carom 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. This is coverage of a fictional even that has very little coverage "out of the universe" Corpx 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It seems unlikely that this battle will ever receive significant coverage in reliable sources.--Yannick 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge, to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.--JForget 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understood the battle better when I read this synopsis. Also, I don't think it breaks the Wikipedian style because it contains the battle template.Xammer 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle template is a key violation of the Wikipedia style, since real world templates should be reserved for real world things. An appropriate fictional templates should headline things like author and book title. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes_and_succession_boxes--Yannick 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right, the Manual of Style says just that trivial details should be avoided in fictional thing infoboxes, not that real world thing infoboxes should not be used in fictional thing infoboxes. And that battle template is used in LOTR battles (see, for example, Battle of Osgiliath).Xammer 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant items to to Second Wizarding War. Will ^(talk) 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There may not even be anything to merge, given the size of the plot summary on the book's page. Deltabeignet orm. perhaps 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if shorten, keep if the merged article will become too long. George Leung 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything useful should be in the Deathly Hallows book article. It has now been renamed but there is so much OR around at the moment - where in the books is anything called "The Second Wizarding War"? Sophia 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep/RedirectThe information will probably re appear over time, so it probably needs to be moved elsewhere, in a different form. Perhaps, as the book was only released two bloody days ago, information will become more reliable in the future.Ravenmasterq 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Second Wizarding War, as the Battle of the Department of Mysteries and the First Battle of Hogwarts are already described in that article. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but not to Second Wizarding War, which is itself problematic (it's a term that appears nowhere in the books). Claudia 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second Wizarding War. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second Wizarding War Skhatri2005 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be better to do some editing first, to get the various articles into some sort of coherent shape. Two days is not enough time yet to resort to deletion. DGG (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe we should remove the battle infobox, but I still feel like this is a very significant event in the Harry Potter series and that it deserves its own article. Whatever though, I'll go with whatever you guys decide.Epmatsw 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second Wizarding War Its already there. Carlitos 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten-I do think it needs the page, as it would clutter the Deathly Hallows page, it really is too long. Therequiembellishere 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second Wizarding War — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Second Wizarding War is also up for AFD Corpx 06:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second Wizarding War NighthawkLeader 09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. Even provide a little information there. Not your grandmas account 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I feel that this is an extremely important part of the series, and is very significant, although, the infobox could be changed or removed.Spec ops commando 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not without precedent. In the Star Wars Universe both the Battle of Endor and the Battle of Coruscant have their own pages and in the Star Trek Universe there are numerous entries for fictional battles such as the Battle of Wolf 359 Eamon1916

"Precedent" implies that those articles have been nominated for AfD and survived. This is not the case. Those articles should also be deleted as essentially being plot summaries.-Wafulz 12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Battle of Endor makes sense as an article - but it should be an article on the ways in which the event has been covered in films, games, etc - not a summary. As this event has no out-of-universe significance, it is particularly inappropriate for an article. Phil Sandifer 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article shouldn't exist solely because others do. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every chapter of HP deserves its own article. This is an unwiedly plot summary that mixes fan interpretation with Rowling's text with no distinction. Destroy it. Star Wars battles are covered not just in the movies but in numerous "expanded universe" type materials, like trading card games etc. They actually have enough information that they can be written from material considered canon, rather than infered or added by fans. JK just doesn't give that kind of depth, and probbably intentionally. They are very different works. Savidan 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Savidan is correct; this is plot summary liberally mixed with personal interpretation. Don't try to merge this with Second Wizarding War, which is on its way to a delete result at its own AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - There is nothing wrong with this article other than possibly a rewrite. That being said, it does not deserve to get a complete axe as it does explain the defining point in a multi-billion dollar literary series. Do not merge. Provide a basic background on the Second Wizarding War page with a redirect link in the pertinent section to the Battle of Hogwarts. There's no solid reason to delete this, judging from previous votes on this page. Auror 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it not an expanded plot summary, entirely in-universe? How is it not original research based on its title and contents? It takes more than a rewrite when the article is fundamentally flawed.-Wafulz 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still support the rewrite as it deals with falling in line with expanded plot summary so that it offers, "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." If you demand it be deleted because it violates original research, then the vast majority of the Potter content on Wikipedia would be deleted as well in order to ensure even enforcement. I reject the claim that a simple overview of the Battle must be considered original research merely because the article does not cite a published secondhand source from another entity than that of the reader. To wait for a secondhand source for this article is foolish as all that is required for a comprehensive article is available within the population of Wikipedia contributors who have read the pertinent selection within the Deathly Hallows. If you desire an agreement as to what to include in the summary, fine. Rewrite it to fall in-line with the standards as detailed earlier, and you'll have no cause to delete this. Reference Battle of the Pelennor Fields from Lord of the Rings for an excellent template for a better article and one that evidently has drawn no calls for deletion. Pelennor Fields is not greatly different in the context in which the Battle of Hogwarts article ought to be rewritten, and they are both summaries of fictional events (evidently wholly original research, something questionably taboo - but apparently acceptable for Pelennor Fields?) with references only to the text to boot. Auror 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copy of main HP page. Non notable subject to have its own page! By the way, the name of the battle is "The Battle of Hogwarts." Why do people think that it is the "second?" It clearly states this in the book! Dewarw 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used to disambiguate between the first engagement in the Astronomy Tower in the Half Blood Prince. Can you explain how Battle of the Pelennor Fields is notable enough for its own page? Auror 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think Battle of the Pelennor Fields, which has not been assessed for deletion yet, is an appropriate comparison? Pointing out that other stuff exists does not remove the flaws from this article. Pelennor Fields (and other articles) will be examined later- I'll probably make a village pump post.-Wafulz 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no point in merging, as the material is the same on both pages! Dewarw 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why this article should be so strongly suggested for deletion when there are many other fictional battle articles out there, of no real superior quality. For instance, Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Battle of Bywater, Battle of the Hornburg and Battle of Osgiliath (all Lord of the Rings) have never been nominated for deletion as far as I can see. Mark ^(Talk) 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each article should be judged on its own merit - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, he has a valid point- he's using "notability by comparison." Both LOTR and HP are well-known/expansive works of literature, and have WP articles that serve as plot summaries of their most important(/notable) events. Furthermore, Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's circular logic. If that article is nominated for deletion, it could be argued that it should be kept because this one exists. If that article is in violation of policy, it should be deleted too. Corpx 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article is very extensive on the matter. Looking at the amount of information it provides, I would have no doubt that many people might think of it as a great source (I know I did). I can't find a reason why it should be deleted either, what it really needs is a minor cleanup. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ::Also, before anything is deleted, let us seriously take a look at what links to the article, because a lot of things link to this article. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article could probably be redirected to the more formal Second Wizarding War -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we are discussing The Lord of the Rings's battle pages, should we list them for deletion as well? If this page gets deleted, then I think the others should be (or merged). This is because the LOTR battle pages are very similar to this HP page. Is there any way for the Afd debates to come to this page instead of creating multiple debates with duplicate arguments?Dewarw 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the pages, I agree. What do others think? I think that we should reach a consensus on this page first before committing to about 5 Afd! Wrawed 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a plot summary, a retelling, not an encyclopedic article. It can never become an encyclopedic article. Remove all this in-universe, fannish plot detail, and what remains? Nothing! -- Ekjon Lok 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has a lot of good info, and it's going to be used a lot
Merge into the Second Wizarding War article, should fit in well there. At a glance it appears that a good deal of this article is already there, in fact. Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the book's article already has a synopsis of that battle, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be retelling a story. Lilac Soul 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, seems like a useful redirect but a separate page for it seems like excess. Axem Titanium 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, this is merely one chapter of a book that already has its own article. Marc Shepherd 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default. If dozens of Star Wars battles, most of which aren't in the movie or are briefly so, have their own articles, then why can't the defining battle of a series that's sold a third of a billion copies get one? If it violates rules, then you have a bunch of other articles to dismantle as well. Kazmarov 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we dismantle those articles. If Article X violates policies and guidelines, and Article Y does too, we don't use them to justify each other's existence.-Wafulz 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to second wizarding war (where it exists as a section anyway). Sandpiper 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wigfield Farm[edit]

No doubt a worthy enterprise but not notable. Plenty of Ghits but they are directory/tourist guide entries and I can find no reliable sources showing that there is anything notable about this to differentiate it from many other 'community farms' and there are no secondary sources to meet WP:N. Delete. TerriersFan 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Has no particular importance or impact outside its immediate locality so far as I can tell. --Malcolmxl5 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as Ghits about this place would per touristy. Needs more cites. Bearian 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but I don't see your grounds for keeping? There is no objection to 'touristy' references provided that they are from a reliable source (major newspaper, official tourist board etc.) that establishes notability. The objection is to sources of a directory or tourist guide nature that simply describe where it is, what it is and what it does. Establishing notability doesn't mean that it exists, or that it has rare breeds that people come to see; what is needed are multiple RSs saying that there is something special (i.e. notable) about this farm that marks it out from large numbers of similar establishments. HTH. TerriersFan 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources establishing notability, and little or no prospect of any turning up afaict. SamBC 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G1) by Jaranda. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim surfing[edit]

Non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth 14:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~Strong Delete It's not even a neologism. If google only returns 30 hits on an internet term, most of which are irrelevant, the term just doesn't exist. This is gibberish.--Yannick 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no speedy criterion that fits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess Wikipedia:Patent nonsense became more restrictive since I last used it.--Yannick 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obviously made up one day. I really wish that WP:NFT were a speedy criterion... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G1, yes, its patent Rackabello 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I tagged an earlier version of this as G11 spam because it looked like an ad for a specific service, and between the link that keeps creeping in and the account name of the editor who created the page I'm thinking there's a WP:COI issue as well. I'm not sure it's nonsense, but that doesn't matter because it's definitely not notable... This article has a little bit of everything wrong with it. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Macari[edit]

Clinical psychologist who is also a media personality. Although she has provided commentary on television shows, no references verify criteria in WP:BIO. Also violates WP:SPAM since it promotes her private practice. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference it would be an ad if it had her telephone number or email addy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No qualms about her notability, but the article needs references and footnotes at the bottom to satisfy WP:BIO. Plenty of Google hits on her name, so I could do this myself if I had a bit of spare time to hand :) Uranometria 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Bearian 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is strictly a dictionary. Sr 13 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxing dictionary[edit]

This article is a glossary of terms. Some are used in kickboxing. Most are also general usage terms. Violates WP:NOT#DICT. It's not an article about a "Kickboxing dictionary". It purports to be a kickboxing dictionary. Evb-wiki 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but possibly add a reference or link to the main article on Kickboxing. The article states "Compliments of the author Frank Hays". If there's a book or magazine article out there that's a glossary of terms used in this sport it might be useful to someone interested in the subject. But if so, it already exists out there so Wikipedia does not need to completely duplicate it. As much as people quibble over them, there are very good reasons why most articles have an "External Links" section. -Markeer 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio Corpx 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyvio since the author says its not copyrighted. Corpx 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP is not a dictionnary/glossary/annex.--JForget 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a broader policy on glossaries is developed. Despite WP:NOT#DICT, we have many glossaries on Wikipedia, see Category:Glossaries and Wikipedia:List of glossaries, and previous proposals to delete and transwiki them en masse to Wiktionary have failed.--Yannick 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Glossaries!--Yannick 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plain and simple. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Its just a cut and paste with no intrinsic value that can't be covered by an external link. It is a copyright violaction - it is not enough to say that the author says it isn't - there is a protocol to follow.Peter Rehse 07:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~No evidence it's not a copyvio except a statement from editor. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Looked @ the site copy & paste job may be legal but is a list of techniques useful? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's explicitly a dictionary -- Whpq 14:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cooke (politician)[edit]

Non-notable local politician; text savours of self-promotion Straw Cat 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for local politicians, has not received significant press coverage per Google and Google news searches. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure that this subject fails WP:BIO guidelines for local politician. The subject in question is holding a national offica (a member of the British Labour Party). This party is of course notable in Britain as well. He was also made an Olympic Ambassador for the successful London 2012 bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not a national office - he's a local councillor. I can't see anything here that fits WP:BIO, and an online search unearths little either. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being a member of a national party is not the same thing as holding national office, and Olympic Ambassadors are not notable.--Yannick 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, may I know the reason why Olympic Ambassadors are not notable? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep significant as a student politician as well--not that many student politicians are notable, but I think he might be.DGG (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does student politician meet the parameters of notable politician? I don't think so. This article is just too early in his political career; as such it is more self-promotion, the life-blood of politics, than worthy article topic. It is better to wait and see if his political career takes him to a notable place before providing an article for him. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eliz81. Fails WP:BIO at least for now. Keb25 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstitute[edit]

prod removed; seems like a straight dicdef NeilN 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This entry merely defines a term. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per WP:NOT#DICT Corpx 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary--Yannick 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is already defined on wiktionary, so deletion per NOT seems appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to a category such as Category:Rhythm guitarists. Even if arguments pertaining to the incompleteness of the list are disreagarded, there is consensus, based on a broad majority here, that this subject matter is better organised as a category. — The article should be tagged for speedy deletion with reference to this AfD once all articles have received the category tag. However, the person doing the conversion may want to not add the tag to those articles that do not even mention the artist's work as a rhytm guitarist. Sandstein 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rhythm guitarists[edit]

Listcruft, unsure if it will ever be complete Blueboy 96 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List criteria seems to be checked and maintained. List is a verifiable resource for a specific guitarist role. Peter Fleet 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incomplete and unmaintainable. Apart from that, under what circumstances is this a valuable search tool? Someone looking for the rhythm guitarist from a band would simply search for the band. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Peter Fleet -- CJ Marsicano 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category suffices this purpose Corpx 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx.--JForget 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. JulesH 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although note that there isn't currently a Category:Rhythm guitarists. Can this list be automatically converted into a category? JulesH 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or convert to category. As a list, this one is rather easily verifiable and clear-cut. (If you're not playing rhythm, then you're playing lead -- unless you're in a punk rock band, in which case you're just banging the frets randomly.) I wouldn't mind if it were converted to a category however.
Delete - use a category instead. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said, a category should be used instead of this. 72.66.17.219 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — 72.66.17.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I believe User:72.66.17.219 is a sockpuppet, as the only edit they have ever made to Wikipedia was right here. Something smells rotten in Denmark with a lot of these votes here lately. (Mind meal 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - ditto; this is much better as a category for notable rhythm guitarists. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category. Bearian 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, because a category wouldn't include the bands in which these rhythm guitarists played, which makes this list already more informative than a category. Second, because it has the potential to be expanded and annotated, see, e.g. List of Electric blues musicians. Third, because I don't believe that there are so many notable rhythm guitarists that this list will be unmaintainable; if it does get to large, it can be split by either country of origin or genre (blues, rock, heavy metal, etc.). Fourthly, this is not listcruft as Rhythm guitar is an encyclopedic topic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women bass guitarists for more arguments for keeping lists similar to this one. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which specifically says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." DHowell 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, not a guideline. The word is used so often as a rationale for deleting lists that this needs to be pointed out every time such rationale is provided by those pretending it is a guideline. If the nominator continues to nominate deletions of lists on the basis of listcruft, they are then guilty of WP:Point#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27. This is a disruptive practice where in which the one implicated refuses to recognize governing policy by ignoring it, instead trying to thwart the system by inserting personal bias that has no binding consensus and therefore no legal binding. This nomination was made on non-binding grounds. Also, argument on lists being deleted in favor of categories instead are not supported by guidelines on the matter. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which DHowell mentioned where it states "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other. Again, failure for an editor to have read these guidelines and cease arguing in favor of deleting lists and converting them into categories makes one guilty of WP:Point#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27. This is the improper place to insert personal views on what policy should be. You don't like the policy or specific guidelines? Then change the policy. Change the guideline. Don't circumvent them. Also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists, which says nothing of an incomplete list being grounds for deletion. The entire nomination here is groundless. (Mind meal 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
CommentI guess I should've expanded more on why I think a category would suit better. WP:NOT says WP is not a list of loosely associated topics. Being a "rhythm guitarist" is loose, in my opinion, when I consider the sheer number of candidates out there (notable or non-notable). It should be replaced with a category, just like Category:Point guards exists instead of List of Point Guards Corpx 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following is my response to Corpx on their talk page: "You have selected a very narrow portion of policy that simply does not say what you say it does. It states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". So you must be arguing that these guitarists are not, in fact, notable for playing rhythm guitar. That is the only argument that could be made here, because the very section of WP:NOT you keep referencing states what I just quoted for you. The list topic is musicians who perform rhythm guitar. That criteria for inclusion is far from loose; in fact, it is rather precise and defines greatly who can and who cannot appear there. It is not like List of guitarists, which is much more "loose". You are effectively advocating that one delete any list of musicians by style or instrument given your quite peculiar view on policy, and I will be considering seeking outside (nonpartisan) opinions on this matter so that we both might learn what policy actually says in this regard. Do you have consensus for your take? Right now we are arguing about whether a rock does or does not exist. Surely it either exists or it does not, and so it is with opinions on what language in a policy means." (Mind meal 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - My reasoning for delete does apply the parameters as I understand them of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Converting a list to a category is in keeping with the policy. In this instance we have a category of rhytm guitarists, not the most notable group of individuals in the first place, being presented as a list. I think it will become unmanageable; as often as we have useless articles created it would not take long for editors to make this list overflow with guitarists. There is nothing else that binds this group of individuals together other than their guitar. How can you list Glenn Frey of the Eagles with Lynval Golding fo the Specials; the only thing in common is they play rhythm guitar. I think a category works best when a list of individuals is so disparate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Specifically, what part of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes supports your conclusion? Since the article rhythm guitar exists, are you calling into question the notability of that article? Are you questioning the notablity of musicians who perform rhythm guitar? On what basis have you considered rhythm guitarists not notable? What is there about "rhythm guitarist" that is not specific enough? Do you want them split by genre? The criteria for inclusion on the list is as narrow as any other list. Personal opinions here are fine, but they must be supported by policy for something as serious as deletion. That is my reason for so many questions. What else can a musician be notable for outside of genre and technique? I am curious how one can list any musician ever outside of List of musicians given all of these interpretations of policy. Is not list of musicians far more hard to manage, and is not rhythm guitarists exactly what is intended for lists that must be broken down? (Mind meal 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per no original research, the fact that it doesn't have any reliable sources. Also would be redundant with a category, ~~and list can never conceivability be finished.~~ Whispe ring 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has an incomplete list been an acceptable rationale for deletion? What article on Wikipedia is ever truly complete? If the problem is references, tag it appropriately! Just like you would any article that can be googled for accuracy, but lacks sufficient sourcing. This is systematic bias I see on here over and over, and it is time for editors of good faith to challenge these weak, "my opinion over guidelines and policy" voters who keep showing up on here. I lose faith in this place more and more every day with these deletionists who are too lazy to improve an article when they spot a problem. Fact check the thing if you think it isn't right. This whole process is a complete joke. "Guidelines? Policy? Heh. I'm the decider, and I decide!" (Mind meal 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Alright that's true, but what about the other problems? Whispe ring 14:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a verifiable list of a specific guitarist speciality. Seal Clubber 22:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. CitiCat^♫ 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of lead guitarists[edit]

Listcruft ... not likely this list will ever be complete. Blueboy 96 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List criteria seems to be checked and maintained. List is a verifiable resource for a specific guitarist role. Peter Fleet 13:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incomplete and unmaintainable. Apart from that, under what circumstances is this a valuable search tool? Someone looking for the lead guitarist from a band would simply search for the band. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's being constantly maintained by several editors. It also does not come under any of the listed reasons for deletion. Likelihood of completion is not a valid reason. Many WP articles are unlikely to ever be completed yet the existence of the article is important to WP. As regards validity of a search tool, a search on a guitarist's name will allow the searcher to find the band, or perhaps more importantly, previous bands the musician has played in.
- Comment If you already knew the guitarist's name, though, you'd simply go to his/her article. I'd be more convinced by its use if it was in alphabetical list of band. Also, as regards reasons for deletion, how about WP:NOT#LINK?. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you want a list by band, you can create List of lead guitarists by band, or make this list into a sortable wikitable. DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that may be a valid reason for specific searches, but what about generic searches of lead guitarists? WebHamster 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above -- CJ Marsicano 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category suffices this purpose Corpx 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx.--JForget 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with Category:Lead guitarists JulesH 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would, however, be useful if a bot were able to add the entries from the list to the category first. JulesH 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unlike List of rhythm guitarists, this one already has a category. However, it would take a lot of effort to merge with the category, so I'm kinda leaning towards keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with category. I would suggest a list of notable lead guitarists, but even that could get big and unmaintainable depending on the definition of "notable". The especially notable ones can be mentioned in lead guitar. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We already have a definition of "notable" and there is a Wikipedia convention that "List of X" usually means "List of notable X". DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists serve or browsing, and can include individuals which do not yet have a WP article. There is no consensus that everything that is a category cannot have a broader scope list, or a list that can give more information or arrangement than just a category does. If it is desired to eliminate lists altogether, start a community discussion of the change in WP policy that is being proposed. 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, or change criteria for inclusion. I agree with the above statement about lists (as opposed to categories). However, a group of editors has decided to go against WP editing guidelines, and has included the statement Only add names here if the person has their own article - anything else will be removed. Unless this is changed to conform with guidelines such as WP:RED and WP:LISTS, this article is redundant. Dsreyn 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "A group of editors"??? = concensus doesn't it? No article/no inclusion is an excellent rule that should be followed on all lists. Fair Deal 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category. Bearian 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guitarist is the quarterback of any band, the skilled player whose work makes or breaks the band's success. Mandsford 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that a very subjective statement, just like it would be for a QB? Corpx 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. -- CJ Marsicano 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense wins championships :) Corpx 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also would like to note that List of American Football Quarterbacks does not exist, while Category:American football quarterbacks does exist. Corpx 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a verifiable list. It's easier to maintain than a category and also a quicker search tool. Fair Deal 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, because a category wouldn't include the bands in which these lead guitarists played, which makes this list already more informative than a category. Second, because it has the potential to be expanded and annotated, see, e.g. List of Electric blues musicians. Third, if this list gets to large to maintain it can be split by either country of origin or genre (blues, rock, heavy metal, etc.). Fourthly, this is not listcruft as Lead guitar is an encyclopedic topic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women bass guitarists for more arguments for keeping lists similar to this one. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which specifically says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Listcruft is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Also, the only reference to incomplete lists I can find on Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists, which ackowledges most lists never will be complete. It says nothing of deleting a list that may never be complete, and instead asks users to insert ((Expand list)) to articles that are in such a state. I am voting for a keep due to the opening rationale, which is WP:POINT, not WP:POLICY. (Mind meal 10:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per no original research, and the fact that it doesn't have any reliable sources. Also redundant with the category, and list can never conceivability be finished. Whispe ring 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNamara/Troy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/McNamara/Troy

This unsourced article about two surgeons characters from the Nip/Tuck television series is redundant in the light of the well fleshed out articles on the corresponding characters, Sean McNamara and Christian Troy which fully cover the extent of their partnership. Could be considered neologism. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to the Nip/Tuck article Springnuts 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC). Pointless to have an article with this title; non-notable pairing. Agree may be neologism. Any valid content can be in the main article. Springnuts 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Redirect Fictional topic that has not received coverage in the real world Corpx 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Yannick 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mustang[edit]

This seems like a work of fiction that a group of friends have created. It starts out by saying the character is from a "hugely popular" series, but this fact is unsubstantiated along with the other facts in the article. I found no hits for the character and series. Fictional characters are not really eligible for A7 speedy deletion. In short, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Leebo ^T/C 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands this article utterly fails the general notability guideline in Wikipedia:Notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Springnuts 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still think it is a hoax. — Indon (reply) — 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by hoax though. It starts by saying the character is fictional. It's not trying to make us believe it's true. Leebo ^T/C 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of this is verifiable, in particular, there are no ghits for the apparently '...hugely popular...' Crypts of the Cousins Grave. No apparent notability and no significant coverage. --Malcolmxl5 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows some signs of a complete series, Maybe in an small country or other unknown country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnMustang (talk • contribs) 02:25, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that you are the article's creator. Your comment was phrased as though you are impartial, when in reality the verifiability of this article is your responsibility as the creator. Leebo ^T/C 02:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original editor can't even tell us where or how the subject is notable! —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable character in a non-notable series by a non-notable production company with no verifiable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. No references provided. Note that all of the blue links in the article link to unrelated subjects. ●DanMS • Talk 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author of this article posted a speedy deletion tag on BBC as an attack article! I think that tells us something about the reliability of this contributor. ●DanMS • Talk 04:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author also just removed the AfD tag from the article. All his other edits show a pattern of vandalism. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that this article is a good-faith edit; otherwise, I would have speedily deleted it as pure vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, listcruft, hoax, urban legend. Bearian 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; no consensus to delete. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connirae Andreas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notability unclear from references Clicketyclack 12:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Notability unclear from references and bibliography; does not seem to meet the criteria specified in Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Clicketyclack 13:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the bibliography too???

Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Frogs Into Princes (1979)
Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Trance-Formations (1981)
Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Using Your Brain for a Change (1985)
Andreas, Steve & Connirae Andreas, Change Your Mind and Keep the Change (1987)
Andreas, Steve & Connirae Andreas, Heart of the Mind (1989)
Andreas, Tamara & Connirae Andreas, Core Transformations (1994)

If you wrote and researched with the founders of NLP and co-wrote one of the most important books on NLP (Frogs Into Princes), than you are a very important person in NLP. Thus Connirae Andreas is a VIP in NLP. So there's no reason to mark this page for speedy deletion, nor for deletion at all. ~~And what annoys me above all things, is that the person that added the deletion-template, did not even explain why he/she didn't estimate Andreas...~~Davin7 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Erase second part. This is what you finally did here. Davin7 13:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just one of the professor's that is teaching her stuf Dr. Robert P. Bostrom, University of Georgia. Listing of Maricopa Community College Libraries This must be enough I suppose: for the book Frogs Into Princes there are 30,300 Google hits. For Connirae Andreas herself there are currently 27,600 hits. She's busy for quite some years. Davin7 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat Weak Keep The Google searches above are overestimated, but "Frogs Into Princes"+"Connirae Andreas" still generates a healthy amount of hits, and looking at them the works does appear to be used quite extensively. An oddity - why AfD this and not Steve Andreas? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is new: I ran across it doing New Page Patrol, and originally marked it for speedy, but changed it to AfD after discussion with Davin7 (see edit history & Talk:Connirae Andreas). Note that none of the books listed in the bibliography have WP articles, though that's not a sufficient reason on its own for deletion.

This seems a bit of a gray area on notability: she appears to be well known inside the NLP community (so far as I can tell from search hits), but not more broadly known as an academic or public person by meeting WP notability guidelines as they currently stand: the references cited in the article cannot be classed as independent.

To answer your question, based on the outcome of the debate here, Steve Andreas may well also be a candidate for AfD. Clicketyclack 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will convince you: hits in Wikipedia on Frogs Into Princes (37, including the languages .de, .fr, .nl, .sv, .pt, .ru, .no and .ms), Trance-Formations (10), Using Your Brain for a Change (10), Change Your Mind and Keep the Change (5), Heart of the Mind (4), Core Transformations (2). Davin7 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what :-), look who's there in the picture at Neuro-linguistic programming. I didn't put it there :-) Davin7 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but Connirae's name isn't on the cover of Frogs & Princes shown, and I can't find any editions where she was a contributing author. I don't think that book should be listed on her page: may I please remove it? Clicketyclack 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many of the English WP hits on her name seem to stem from your inclusion of her name in Template:Neuro-linguistic programming. Many hits other WPs seem also to be mainly from inclusion of her name on a template: see the NL template, etc.

The two authors originally shared an article: [24], which explains why Steve Andreas' book credit found its way onto her split-off article, and why the two pages are so similar.

Most of this is beside the point though. As I noted above, she's well known in the NLP community, but does she therefore meet the WP guidelines for notability? Clicketyclack 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right on the point that she was editor and nog the writer of three of the books I had listed. I have removed them and provided the others with ISBN and full names. Davin7 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part about education is also a bit unclear: did she study at the Danforth campus of Washington University? There is no Danforth University in the United States, and her cited bio doesn't mention any university education at all. She does put the letter "Ph.D". after her name though. Where did she get her Ph.D? Clicketyclack 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All her three books are listed in the "Recommended Self-Help Books", section Self-Help/Personal Growth (General) of the University of Florida - Counselling Center. Furthermore I found her book at listings of the American Pacific University Davin7 18:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of her of self-published books is on a recommended self-help list at U of Central Florida's counselling centre, not three, though one by Richard Bandler is also on there which she helped to edit. And "American Pacific University" is not a university, it's a diploma mill: see http://www.ampac.edu/about_accreditation.aspx. It's worth noting that the president of this company is also a member of staff at nlp.com: http://www.nlp.com/about_staff.aspx Clicketyclack 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Connirae Andreas is clearly in the mainstream of NLP and has increasingly established a reputation for taking NLP techniques", review of Bob Janes on Andreas' Book 'Core Transformation'. Davin7 18:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Bob Janes? Clicketyclack 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Books she has authored have been translated into 14 languages", coretranformation.org In how many languages should one publish to be Wikiworthwhile? Davin7 18:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coretransformation.org is Connirae's own web site. Can you please find independent confirmation that these translations exist? Thanks, Clicketyclack 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have on Danforth is "Connirae Andreas was a Danforth Scholar" from coretransformation.org I'm not American so could you please change that section for me? I don't know exact vocabulary of the American academic system. Davin7 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one mystified me too. Maybe someone more familiar with the terminology can help us here. Clicketyclack 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Danforth scholar program is a local award of Washington University in St Louis. [25] An undergraduate college scholarship award is not enough for notability. .DGG (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete None of here books are by well known publishers (or perhaps self-published) or have reviews cited, the translations are attested only be her own site, no reliable 3rd party references. This may be true of some other people in the movement also, but that's no reason to keep this particular article but rather to delete the others also. No general notability. DGG (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such remark is unreferenced. I cannot imagine that you know of all mayor editors, so it's your opinion. Especially seen withing the view that there are a great many translations. There's no doubt about that. Davin7 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite some evidence other than the author's own website that the translations exist? I can't find a single translation.

I can also find no independent evidence that she edited "Frogs into Princes", so I will remove that unreferenced credit from the article pending confirmation. Clicketyclack 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a clean debate on notability, I just removed the 'Danforth unreferenced fact' in order to stick at the notability matter only. Davin7 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess you make of it... Clicketyclack. Do you want a structured diaglogue or what... Never seen greater mess than on English Wikipedia... Davin7 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last attempt. I don't speak more languages but I don't reason of doubt that there are more translations that can be added

Dutch
- Connirae Andreas & Tamara Andreas, Kerntransformatie, NLP als weg naar je innerlijke bron, ISBN10: 9063254644, ISBN13: 9789063254643
- Connirae Andreas & Steve Andreas, Het hart van de geest, veranderen door innerlijke kracht, ISBN10: 9063254075, ISBN13: 9789063254070
- Connirae Andreas en Steve Andreas, Veranderen kan leuk zijn, NLP en de kunst van het plezierig ontwikkelen, ISBN 9063253672
German
- Connirae Andreas & Tamara Andreas, Der Weg zur inneren Quelle. Core Transformation in der Praxis. Neue Dimensionen des NLP, ISBN-10: 3873871408, ISBN-13: 978-3873871403
- Connirae Andreas, Steve Andreas, Mit Herz und Verstand. NLP für alle Fälle, ISBN-10: 3873870657, ISBN-13: 978-3873870659
- Connirae Andreas, Steve Andreas, Gewußt wie. Arbeit mit Submodalitäten und weitere NLP-Interventionen nach Maß. ISBN-10: 3873872919, ISBN-13: 978-3873872912
French
- Connirae Andreas, Tamara Andreas, Transformation essentielle, ISBN-10: 2950575331, ISBN-13: 978-2950575333
- Connirae Andreas, Steve Andreas, Au coeur de l'esprit, ISBN-10: 2950575323, ISBN-13: 978-2950575326
Spanish
- Connirae Andreas & Tamara Andreas, La Transformacion Esencial: Guia Practica De Autodescubrimiento Com Pnl
- Connirae Andreas, Steve Andreas, Cambia Tu Mente Para Cambiar Tu Vida, ISBN-10: 8488242085, ISBN-13: 978-8488242082 Davin7 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for finding the translations. Digging around using the ISBNs you've provided, I've also just found one by Connirae Andreas in Italian: I nuclei profondi del sé. In viaggio verso se stessi (Heart of the mind), ISBN 8834011759. So the claim of publication in multiple languages is correct, and should be taken into account when judging notability. Clicketyclack 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough in a specialized field. --Rocksanddirt 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, keep arguments did not addess the lack of verifiable information. Can be recreated once there are reliable sources/more notability. Until (1 == 2) 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Hood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - prod removed by anon without explanation. Unreleased track on barely released album, no references, no chart history, just an unsourced claim that it's "getting some airplay" on local radio. Not independently notable. Otto4711 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prod. Springnuts 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can always be re-created if/when released as a single. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge when confirmed as a single, at least. - eo 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Song features several notable artists and is on a widely distributed independent label. Subject is not worth a distracting edit war. -- CJ Marsicano 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per above reasons. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment For Speedy Keep Song is released and can be downloaded at iTunes Music Store (where it is listed as one of the top downloades for that artist) and on eMusic.com. -- CJ Marsicano 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has yet to be released as a single, and no sources are listed on the page giving info about its release. No source for the airtime its received in the Miami area either. The ability to purchase it doesn't guarantee notability. Pats Sox Princess 18:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to We the Best until it is released or announced as the next single. Tom Danson 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Gold Airways[edit]

Article fails WP:CORP and these articles sum it up [26] [27] "Only a few problems stand in the way. Gold Air has no aircraft, no air operator's certificate, no launch date and no major financial backers." Russavia 12:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite for NPOV. This company may be a laughable scam, but the fact that it has attracted genuine media coverage is itself evidence that it meets WP:CORP.--Yannick 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a strange one. The articles provided by the nom [28] and [29] are actually secondary reliable sources written primarily about this topic. Just that this venture is, as of yet, failing has made this company notable. It needs to be written in a NPOV perspective, though. It looks like a press release currently. --Oakshade 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - agree with Oakshade that nom is based on an misunderstanding of Notability, and is fatally flawed. Dhaluza 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only after the sources are provided in the article -- the relevant information at this point is only in the Afd; the article as it stands would justify a speedy as G11, advertising. DGG (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bun Boy[edit]

Non-notable restaurant chain - with TWO outlets, and one of these now has a different name (no lobger part of the chain?). A large part of the article is actually about the location of one of the outlets (at Baker, California), but there is nothing worth merging there. Indeed, the details have been copied from the latter article. Emeraude 12:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline in Wikipedia:Notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As above, much of the article is about something else. Springnuts 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Yannick 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At some risk of committing OR, I've eaten at the Baker, CA restaurant: it's not notable, or at least it's no more notable than thousands of similar restaurants. Acroterion _(talk) 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (db-copyvio). -- JLaTondre 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Casul[edit]

Classic vanity page. Single contribution author is clearly the person the article is about. Subject is non-notable and I think it may even by a copyvio from http://casulportfolio.multiply.com/ I can't access the site but the summary looks the same.Peter Rehse 11:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. It is indeed a copyvio from that site. Spellcast 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for copyviolation - oh dear, I didn't think to check when I put the notability tag there. --Bonadea 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went and added the speedy tag.Peter Rehse 12:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--JForget 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter in popular culture[edit]

A very trivial list of mentions isn't very encyclopedic. These types of lists aren't encyclopedic. Relevant information should be in the main article: not branched off into an ever growing list of cruft. RobJ1981 11:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reads to me as if you just do not like popular culture references. This one seems to be one of the best. It is not just a list. The section in antimatter is already too long. I prefer it here rather than mixed up with the science. --Bduke 12:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ahh, another one of those Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. WP:TRIVIA clearly says to avoid lists of loosely related information and a "subject in popular culture" is explicitly named as being part of this. Judging by the archives of previous debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, it seems that most articles were either deleted, merged, or redirected. Spellcast 12:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. Another junkpile of unrelated trivia. Doesn't belong in Antimatter, either. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection. Not the place to document uses of ___ in TV/books/games etc Corpx 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic IPC article with unsourced trivia elements.--JForget 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's certainly not one of the best IPC lists. For a start, there are no sources offered to establish that antimatter in popular culture is a notable phenomenon in the first place. If it would reduce the quality if the antimatter article (which I'm sure it would, as does the existing IPC section) the solution is to delete it from that article, not to spin it off into a completely pointless article, which is just an indiscriminate directory of trivia. Iain99 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and as list-cruft. --Action Jackson IV 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A song once contained the word "antimatter". In a comic someone said the word "antimatter" once. Did someone say this list "seems to be one of the best"? We must be looking at two different lists. Crazysuit 04:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page, do not delete, but edit it for eventual merging into the article in chief on antimatter. Antimatter is certainly a widely used scientific explanation in science fiction books, films, and comics. The properties and uses to which antimatter is put in these entertainments may seem implausible to physicists. Denying that this is not noteworthy, or claiming that the article on antimatter ought to be exclusively concerned with Pure Science and kept free of these imaginative uses of the concept, strikes me as too fastidious. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced, unencyclopedic list of indiscriminate information. María (críticame) 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep understanding popular culture is key to any encyclopedia V8rik 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given that nothing has been presented to address the WP:RS/WP:V concerns. --Core desat 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back (Britney Spears song)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and the sentence "It still yet to be confirmed by Spears' camp what the first single is". Sourced entirely from gossip mags and sites. Kurt Shaped Box 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep it! There is a reason for this article! There has been a music video filmed. Nate danja said that he produced a song called get back! We should keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)
- Ikkomuitnederland, when taking part in any AFD debate, please identify yourself as the author of the article when that is the case. Thank you. ●DanMS • Talk 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The day perezhilton.com is considered a reliable source is the day this project is truly dead. Recreate when the song is released and WP:MUSIC is satisfied. MartinDK 16:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the album page. I cleaned this article up a little bit, but there's a bit of a credibility problem here. I do love Perez tho :-) - eo 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Altough it hasen't been confirmed we should keep this article because: there was a music video filmed for the first single from britney's new album. So there will be a single very shortly! A radio station said they will premier the new single on 12 august( I admit this is not very reliable). Tons of news sites including very reliable such as us magazine have said the first single is called get back! This is enough information for a wiki page. We should keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment - I've changed the above from "Keep" to "Comment" as it is from the same editor who has already voted "Keep". - eo 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the single charts, at the very least. Quit jumping the gun already, people... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should we wait until the single charts? There are so many articles about singles that are yet to be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment Have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is based on rumours, and that alone is not enough to create an article in the first place. Sources also contradict each other. Also, Ikkomuitnederland, why are you so intent on keeping this article? I smell fangirl/fanboy on you. And please, sign your comments. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found an NME article reporting that Spears's next single is titled "Get Back" — could it be considered a reliable source? Extraordinary Machine 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why should it be deleted? There is much reason to believe its not fake. This is rediculous. And as posted above, this article http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/45189012 is from Yahoo exclusively, seems to be very legit. It says that her next single is confirmed to be "Get Back". - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.148.58 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2007
Keep This Page Should Absolutley Not Be Deleted. The Song Has Been Recorded, The Video Had Been Shot And In The USA It Has Been Sent To Radio Stations To Play, Only They Refuse To Play It Because Britneys Camp Wont Confirm Whether Or Not There Is A Swear Word In It. Everything Mentioned On This Page Is True! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.50 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 July 2007
Keep There's no point of deleting this because once Britney released the song the article will be back --SuperHotWiki 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true she is filming a video, but there is NO confirmation that video is for the supposed single "Get Back." Actually, there are sources saying the video isn't for Get Back. Until all of this is confirmed BY THE RECORD COMPANY, not gossip magazines, the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a rumor mill or news magazine. --Circasix 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the problem with rumor-based articles - now the song title is being edited back and forth to "Freakshow", even though the article itself remains titled "Get Back". This is not good. Recommending again to merge this with the album until some kind of official confirmation is issued. - eo 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbyne Manning[edit]

Losing contestant on television reality show. No claim to notability before or after show. Now, just another struggling model in a very crowded field. Mikeblas 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the consensus that reality show contestants are not notable unless they do something (notable) outside the show Corpx 16:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. What a plus size is in the modelling business is beyond verififcation. Bearian 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Bautista[edit]

Non-notable tattoo artist. Time and again 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Google hits dont bring forth much hits for the tattoo artist, except for a handful of (generally non-RS) pages. --Ayleuss 10:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Only coming up with directory stuff/social networking etc - No reliable sources. Nothing on google news either Corpx 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nice guy, great art, not a WP article. Bearian 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: User:Denmark21 removed the AfD template from the Bautista article; he is the creator of that article and has contributed little else. Sesquipedalian 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. At least, there should be verifiable news clips about him from, say, the Philippine Daily Inquirer. --- Tito Pao 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). — Rlest (formerly Qst) 09:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of AO-rated products[edit]

This list violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory in my opinion. Listing products by the rating they recieved, isn't a suitable list page for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 10:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a copyvio to me. The original text can be accessed through searching for this rating here. MER-C 11:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands now, the nominator is correct. However, I think an article about adult video games WOULD be a relevant, sourceable one. As it stands, there seems to be one at Adult_video_games, which could certainly be improved, as it's mostly a list as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to me this would be better suited as a category rather than an article -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We've had this discussion before, we don't categorize by rating. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that doesn't inherently mean it should be kept. I DO think AO is specifically notable in comparison to any other rating (because of just what AO means for the game itself), but if it IS kept, it should at least be expanded beyond a mere list with slight text. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Particularly notable because of the paucity of games that get this rating and the controversy that often surrounds them. I'm not worried about a copyvio because the information probably isn't copyrightable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this game rating is so rarely applied, its application is in itself notable. I don't agree that a list can be copyvio'd unless the list being copied was original and proprietary in some way. I do recommend that, if kept, the article be renamed List of AO-rated software, since I'm unaware of anything other than computer and videogame software having this rating applied to it. Article should be expanded to include more detail on what AO means and why it's controversial and rarely used. The rating has been in place since the mid-90s but I personally have only seen a handful of AO products in the stores; most of the time M-rated games are the norm. 23skidoo 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per brighterorange. Andre (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCricket[edit]

This article is about something made up in school with hardly any influence outside the circle of creators: "Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school in a day". Ayleuss 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "I appreciate this point of view, but I cannot see why this should be a problem. The article is designed to inform those who know about the game of the rules and history. The game actually has quite a reputation throughout schools in the area. In what way can I improve the page so that it is not deleted"Mikemanby19 10:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that you can do is to prove notability. Show a few reliable sourcess which discuss the game and it will be fine. --Ayleuss 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perfect example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Spellcast 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and utter Mcrubbish. Lugnuts 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for variations of cricket made up in school one day.Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete it sounds like a lot of fun. I must start my own team post haste. Perhaps when we get a full county system going it will be wikipedia worthy! Benea 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I played a similar game at school many years ago. How on earth did we keep track of the score without mobile phones? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT Rackabello 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McDelete. Bearian 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (Nominator closure) --Ayleuss 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Danks[edit]

Does not seem to be notable enough. Non-regular professional, only a handful of appearances. Google does not seem to dig up significant number of non-user-generated reliable sources Ayleuss 10:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of newer edits, I am withdrawing nomination.--Ayleuss 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, totally non-notable person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Has played in the Football League with Bradford. Mattythewhite 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - as per his entry on Soccerbase he has played in a fully professional league (with Bradford City), which is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for athletes set out in WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets the criteria for notability per WP:BIO as he has played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played a handful of matches in the FL so is therefore notable as per the current criteria. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played football in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have filled out the article with a summary of his career. --Malcolmxl5 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played professionally Me677 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The subject has played professionally. Yamaguchi先生 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by RHaworth as a hoax. Resolute 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert trail[edit]

Supposedly the inventor of trail mix, but poorly written and smells like a hoax. Google doesn't seem to know that this guy invented trail mix.[30] Calliopejen1 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. He became very rich selling trail mix? That would be a neat trick. Also, the article claims he's Finnish, but Robert Trail doesn't sound like a Finnish name to me. Clarityfiend 10:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V as well as laugh test. Sentence it to take un-broken-in hiking boots on a day hike. --Dhartung | Talk 11:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Does this qualify for speedy under G3? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unsourced, hoax or possible non sense. Yes it does appear to qualify for speedy deletion, so I will add the tag on that one.--JForget 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadie "Freddy" Itayem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fadie "Freddy" Itayem

Vanity nonsense. Neither name turns up and web searches backing up claims, and only one trivial "home game" site mention the person. I already removed one false statement not backed up by the database that tracks tournament players winnings -- $960,000 winngs claimed, reality is zero. 2005 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. If he's on High Stakes Poker, how come he's not on the list of players? Clarityfiend 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of established notability. Nothing anywhere on a search of "Fadie Itayem" Corpx 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete: a hoax and a waste of time. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Bearian 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Food contaminants. Probably doesn't deserve its own article, but at least deserves a mention. Sr 13 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hair in food[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)).

I created this article and don't think it should be deleted as it documents a real and widespread phenomenon. It is referenced as well. Despite this it was tagged as patent nonsense. I say keep. Onthaveanaccountcreateone 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTthe article was replaced by User:Woggy with a redirect to another article. Those considering the AFD can view the original article at [31]. I have asked Woggy to undo the preemptory redirect for the duration of the AFD. Edison 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect was undone by User:Tvoz. Thanks. Edison 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Although the subject may sound silly, It is capable of been expanded. A suggestion to you is to expand the article or try and improve it. But i think it should be kept (for now) or merged into an article similiar to this one. (Woggy 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Are there grass-roots campaigns demanding food be inspected for hair? Do newspapers publish editorials about this phenomenon? What's next? Dirt in food? Overcooked meals? Those are "real and widespread" too. Clarityfiend 08:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at these google results - lots of sources for hair in food.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A string of google results for a phrase does not (necessarily) confer notability. Following on from Clarityfiend's comment above, Google also produces pages of results for the equally non-noteworthy Overcooked meals • nancy • 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 11 references. This is surely noteable.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important public concern, particularly about restaurants, and although not perfect this is a fairly good and reasonably well-sourced article about it. I mean, Food Quality magazine, folks. If they think it's a notable aspect of food quality, I'd hope they'd know. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So you're advocating articles about cleaning chemicals in food, medications in food, personal items in food (pens, jewelry, combs, etc.), tools, nuts, bolts and other equipment-repair items in food, sneezing into food, and coughing into food - all of which are listed along with hair in the Food Quality article? Clarityfiend 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:WAX. I don't think that my not understanding the hate for this article is deserving of sarcasm. It simply seems like a legitimate topic. There's food contamination but a) that's focused mainly on packaged food and b) the topic before us is covered in health terms, in mitigation, and in legislation terms. Sue me, I found it interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Are you saying that I'm not making a valid point? Each of the potential articles I listed is, if anything, more important and encyclopedic than this one. My response may have been adulterated by a small pinch of sarcasm, but it has still been certified 100% safe for Wikipedia consumption. I can see it being briefly mentioned in food contamination, along with a 1001 other things, but it doesn't merit a whole article by itself IMO. Clarityfiend 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article could be merged into another article about health. (172.200.22.239 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - patent nonsense. I can search any term in google, so can I write article based on that facts? Nope, it fails WP:NOTE. — Indon (reply) — 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is things like "aeiaey9w-9t" and "I watched a rabbit have fun playing with red socks from the top of the hill while I was stoned today, it is good, no?".-Onthaveanaccountcreateone 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't think this article should be deleted, But by the looks of it, It probably will be deleted. Like i said before, This article could be merged into another article about health. (Woggy 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's not about a term, it's about a subject. For example the term "several layers" is not subject but would return google results, this is a subject on the other hand. People saying delete should take note, I thought Wikipedia welcomed new encyclopedia articles on proper subjects that are widely known and have sources.-Onthaveanaccountcreateone 11:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man, people worry about the wrong things. Have you seen all the other crap that goes into food? ~ Infrangible 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously... is this a joke? I mean just read it... any article that starts with " Many people consider..." should never haver made it past NP patrol. Build a bonfire and burn this crap. MartinDK 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Article is not crap. You shouldn't call a users article crap. If you think its crap, Then keep that to yourself Martin DK. You have probably created a crap article sometime in wikipedia. (Woggy 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Comment This from someone who made this edit? Aaaaaand let's not forget this fantastic edit by the creator of the article. I'm calling WP:DUCK here. MartinDK 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment That was just silly and i regret doing that. By the way Martin DK you shouldn't stick your nose into other peoples buisiness. (Woggy 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Could this be CSD-ed per db-nonsense? Corpx 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not - in that case delete per only trivial mentions in those articles Corpx 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patent nonsense? Are you serious? It's an article about a legitimate, established issue in food safety. If it happens often enough that the commies have been able to get laws passed for it, then it's certainly deserving of an article here. Kurt Weber 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not patent nonsense at all. It should not be deleted. (Woggy 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, did you even notice that the nominator wanted to keep this article? WP:PERNOM indeed. Oh, sweet irony... DHowell 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you think this article should be deleted? (Woggy 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I wouldn't go so far as to call it patent nonsense, but it's definitely unencyclopedic. Maybe reasonable as a section of a larger article on food contamination, not an article all its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you think its not enclyclopedic? I think its an ok article, But it should be expanded and improved. (Woggy 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or merge with Food contaminants - doesn't deserve its own article. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be much better if it was merged with Food contaminants (Woggy 17:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This is trivia.--Yannick 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be kept or merged but not deleted. I disagree with it been deleted. (Woggy 17:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have made it a redirect to Food contaminants. The user could include some of this information there. (Woggy 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to Food contaminants. The references about hair in food can add to that article. Food service workers have long worn hair nets because hair is easily detectable and objectionable in food. But it is better to have one article than separate articles for "Hair in food" (30,000 Google hits), "Shit in food" (10700 Ghits), "Urine in food" (6940 Ghits), "Semen in food" (960 Ghits), "Insect parts in food" (886 Ghits), "Insects in food" (636 Ghits), "condoms in food" (7 Ghits), "Snot in food" (3 Ghits), and "severed finger in food" (3 Ghits). There should not have been a redirect in the midst of an AFD. Edison 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article was prematurely redirected elsewhere; I removed the redirect so that editors can evaluate the article for the purposes of this AfD. Tvoz |talk 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Food contaminants and redirect. That would be a more suitable location. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - do we need an article for candle on computer? Eyeglasses on bookshelf? Is this the start point for List of substances that are (within Western Culture) not supposed to be in food, in food? Does that mean we'll have articles for dirt in food? glass in food? Dirty glass in food? Or is "hair" the key point of this article? Should there be hair on floor, hair in shower drain, hair on back-order? This whole "debate" reeks of WP:POINT, and I imagine it's a call for sensible action. Leaving this article in will lead us down a slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slippery slope is hair in food in popular culture (I'll leave it to another editor to work on a popular culture-focused pun ;)) --Action Jackson IV 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Food contaminants and redirect. There's no end to the possibilities for crap, critters, objects and foreign substances if they all have their own articles. Acroterion _(talk) 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reasons as above GWatson  ^TALK 04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not article material and it is not notable. There is nothing more to say than just that, hair in food; of course, if we are talking blond hair in food we might have need of the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because the subject is silly, It doesn't mean it should be deleted. (Woggy 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge per above. Reinis^talk 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kurt Weber. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now 16 references, folks! And there aren't even 16 sentences in this article! If it is badly written, then improve it! "Many people consider..." seems to me to be a valid paraphrase of "most consumers find the presence of 'any' visible filth contaminant such as hair in a food product objectionable," a quote from the first reference listed. If you don't think "hair in food" is a notable topic, then at least merge this into Food contaminants, Food safety, or Food and cooking hygiene. DHowell 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is frankly impossible to read any consensus from a mass delete like this. I'm sure not going to take the time to figure out who played at least 20 minutes. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Presutti[edit]

Also nominating the whole squad with the exception of one player who is one of the top college basketball players. The other players nominated are ~~Eric Devendorf, Johnny Flynn, Paul Harris (basketball), Rick Jackson, Antonio Jardine~~, Kristof Ongenaet, Arinze Onuaku, Jake Presutti, ~~Andy Rautins~~, Sean Williams (Syracuse), and ~~Josh Wright. Also assistant coaches Mike Hopkins (basketball)~~ and Rob Murphy (basketball) and the template Template:Syracuse basketball. Consensus on college athletes tend to be delete, unless they win a major award or considered as a top prospect, in which this players doesn't meet. Fails WP:BIO. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per custom on college athletes, and per WP:BIO's prohibition on non-professional and otherwise un-special athletes. Maybe someday, but not to-day. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think Johnny Flynn is an "otherwise un-special athlete"? Google him and you'll quickly see that he represented Team USA in the U-19 championships in Texas recently [32][33][34], and that he's also an NBA prospect[35][36]. Chengwes 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just Jake Presutti pursuant to the Tier One option. My comments were directed at the article listed for deletion, not those listed in the partially struck-out summary of reasons for deletion. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the starters. I personally know that Devendorf is pretty notable. Delete the players who havent seen significant time, especially the walkons. ~~Also, Delete the assistant coaches.~~ So basically, I'd say keep the ones that averaged 20 minutes or more. WP:BIO states that "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." NCAA basketball is the highest level of amateur basketball Corpx 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, you should keep the article on assistant coach Mike Hopkins because he has "played in a fully professional league" when he played in the CBA. Chengwes 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the sport is Basketball, which is a professional sport, both in the USA and in several other countries. In no way can it be considered an "amateur sport", and therefore if none of these guys have played a professional game, Delete. - fchd 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did heard of Devendolf, but he's in my opinion is a wait and see until he reaches the NBA type of guy. I just left a comment on the WP:BIO talk about removing the highest level of amateur sports sentence, as seriously hundreds of thousands of people will get articles with that guideline, that is probaly the most commonly broken out of all the WP:BIO guidelines. There is no point of having that sentence. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "highest level of amateur sports" is still in the sentence, right? Until there is a higher threshold in WP:BIO, I stand by my keep. Chengwes 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a discussion that has already taken place on such players as Louie McCroskey and Matt Gorman. All of these players compete in Division I college basketball, and thus meet the requirement of having "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." There is a good post from the Matt Gorman article that neatly summarizes why all of these articles should be left in place: "Members of U.S. Division I men's college basketball receive national coverage from third party reliable sources, without regards to how good they are, how many points they score, or how many starts they get. This is what notability guidelines for biography are meant to ensure. Attempting to winnow top ranked players from also-rans is going to raise PoV issues and falls outside the scope of notability guidelines as currently written." While I can appreciate you trying to change the rules on WP:BIO guidelines, they are currently written the way they are, and until someone changes it, I don't see why these articles should be removed. Thank you. Chengwes 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCroskey AFD should have been relisted and clearly not closed as a non-admin keep. Gorman is notable for being playing in the USA National team. Most of these mentions are trivial mentions like Player Fu scored 10 points today. The current notabilty guidelines for college athetes is the most broken thing I have ever seen. They aren't proffessional. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where it gets trickey, then. If you say Gorman is a keep because he played on the USA National Team, then, for sure, Johnny Flynn, Antonio Jardine and Rick Jackson should be keeps because they all played for Team USA, as well. And what about Andy Rautins? He played for the Canadian National team. Are you saying that Team USA is more notable than Team Canada? Going back to the discussion I started on your talk page, if you're going to keep guys like Kevin Love in Wikipedia, then I think guys like Devendolf (it's actually spelled 'Devendorf' for future reference) who is a former McDonald's All-American as well as a 2006 Big East Honorable Mention, should be retained. It's a very arbitrary line you're trying to draw here. Chengwes 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage. Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee. Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Wikipedia editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. All Division I men's college basketball players therefore compete on the highest level of their amateur sport, and as such meet current notability guidelines.
In fact, my personal opinion is that college basketball in the USA is the real game. Professional NBA basketball is a grotesque parody of it, designed to diminish tactical aspects and defensive options. The pro game has a very short shot clock and restrictions on zone defense, IMO because its promoters have decided that what the fans want to see are prima donna stars taking contortionist slam dunks, rather than teamwork and defensive play.
College basketball is at any rate the interesting game, and in these parts has a lot bigger following than pro basketball. Here in the area of Louisville, Kentucky, at least, college basketball has hundreds of thousands of vocal fans who proclaim their allegiances on T-shirts, flags, and bumper stickers. The local TV stations routinely run hour long specials on the local teams throughout the season, more if they get into the tournament. Pro basketball gets only slightly more attention than ice hockey, which simply is not played here. When I moved to this area from Canada, this was a bit of culture shock. I was more than slightly taken aback that such attention was paid to basketball at all. Up there, basketballs were pressed into service to kick around the schoolyard when we ran out of soccer balls. This cultural difference may exist elsewhere; here, college ball is a very, very big deal; pro ball not so. At least the view from Indiana is that Division I men's basketball players are ipso facto notable; they get less attention, rather than more, when they turn pro. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the walk-ons pass the "significant coverage from independent sources" bar? I dont think its subjective to apply the "significant coverage from independent sources" to these players. Corpx 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one local source, what about this Keep everyone else delete the walk-ons Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to that. I feel like every scholarship player at Syracuse has received significant press coverage because they are among the top high school players in the country. I can't say the same about the walk-ons. Chengwes 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I do think that walk-ons pass the "significant coverage from independent sources" bar. They are, at the barest minimum, mentioned as members of the team roster in the national sports media; and even the walk-ons usually receive some court time (after a blowout game, typically), giving them independently reported statistics on playing time, goals, assists, and so forth. Their articles may necessarily be shorter than the articles of players who contribute more frequently, but nothing in our notability guidelines says that they are excluded by being walk-ons. If someone has the energy to write articles about these members, let them. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL the person is not yet notable and sorely lacks any kind of mention by non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about just Jake Presutti or the entire basketball squad? I think we need to make it clear when we say "delete" or "keep" who exactly we're talking about. From this, it sounds like you're just talking about the walk-on, Jake Presutti. Chengwes 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jake has received significant coverage from independent sources. I think this is what happens when you dont have a good football program ;) Corpx 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On further inspection, it seems that Paul Harris was previously nominated for deletion, but the result of that discusison was keep. I think we should remove the AfD tag from that page. Chengwes 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add a good quote from the Paul Harris AfD discussion that I think is very relevant here: "I'm really not sure how one can argue that he fails to meet WP:BIO. The WP:BIO guidelines actually quite specifically include American college sports athletes. So there you have it, right there. But even if you want to get stricter than that, he's not just any college athlete, but plays at the highest level (NCAA Division I) of the sport of amateur men's basketball, in one of that level's top conferences (The Big East), for one of that conference's (and indeed the entire sport of men's college basketball's) elite programs (Syracuse University), and he was actually one of the most highly-touted and watched prospects in the country entering this season (though his play in this first season admittedly didn't fully bear that out). As such a top prospect, he's also definitely been covered by independent secondary sources, like Sports Illustrated. As I see it, he's easily notable per WP:BIO. If one feels the WP:BIO guidelines are too loose in that area, I'd actually agree with that, but as they stand today, one cannot say he fails to meet them. The article is just poorly written and sourced."

Keep. As has been established above, Division I basketball players from an elite program like Syracuse are specifically and clearly notable per WP:BIO, as the team receives significant third-party press coverage both locally (Orange basketball is arguably the biggest team in upstate NY aside from the Bills and Sabres and gets covered accordingly) and nationally. This should be enough of a reason to keep. Additionally, another good piece of supporting evidence is that we cannot attempt to define who is a star and who isn't. Like Chengwes alludes to, it raises POV issues to say that player X is more notable than player Y because, in essence, the coach plays them more. As long as they are both on a college basketball roster, X and Y are equally notable from an objective standpoint. We cannot delete articles based on us as fans speculating whether or not a player is a "star" or if they will be drafted. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems there needs to be some clarification here since this is a discussion page for the deletion of an entire basketball team. There seem to be four tiers of votes that are taking place:

Tier One: Delete just the walk-on, Jake Presutti.

Votes (3): Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste, Burntsauce, Chengwes

Vicarious Votes (6): Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste, Burntsauce, Chengwes, Jaranda, Corpx, fchd

Tier Two: Delete those who aren't "stars" on the team, which Corpx suggested. Quite honestly, this is a very tough standard to set, but I think under this system, the possible starters should be kept: Josh Wright, Eric Devendorf, Andy Rautins, Arinze Onuaku, Johnny Flynn, Paul Harris and Rick Jackson. Those that would be deleted are: Antonio Jardine, Kristof Ongenaet and Sean Williams. Again, this is just a complete guess at who's going to start next season.

Votes (2): Jaranda, Corpx; Kubigula

Vicarious Votes (3): Jaranda, Corpx, fchd

Tier Three: Keep the entire team because they have competed at the "highest level of amateur sports."

Votes (2): Smerdis of Tlön, SliceNYC

Tier Four: Delete the entire team wholesale.

Votes (1): fchd

(As another side note, there is the whole issue about the Assistant Coaches, which has mostly been left alone.)

Would you mind just individually listing these, Jaranda?

This is the difficulty of "mass deleting." So I think all votes that are in the next few days should be used under this system to keep a clean record of who is voting for what. Chengwes 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tier Two, the backups should be deleted, the top three players I clearly endorse deleting are Jake Presutti, Kristof Ongenaet who I'm not convinced about notability of him, as 6th best recruit in the class, Arinze Onuaku, and Rob Murphy (basketball) who looks like a graduated student assistant. Keep the obvious starters, with one thing. If they never reach the pros, we could always rediscuss them for deletion. I'm not closing it as I did the nomination, and deletions are still possible. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I'd point out -- if you're going to keep Matt Gorman on the grounds he played for Team USA, then you should also vote to keep Antonio Jardine, Rick Jackson and, especially, Johnny Flynn. It's Flynn that I'm really bothered by because he clearly is notable given that he's on Team USA and has just as much coverage as all of the other McDonald's All Americans from 2007. Also, following this logic, you should keep Andy Rautins, because he played for Team Canada in the same tournament. Chengwes 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cross all of them out. Doing it now Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Rob Murphy (basketball) when you get a chance. I beefed up his biography. Also, there's a better-than-good chance that Arinze Onuaku will be the starting center this year because he's the upper classmen of all of Syracuse's centers. Chengwes 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the "tier two" option. This seems about the right balance - keep the starters and delete the prospects, benchwarmers and assistant coaches (unless, of course, they can be shown to meet WP:N).--Kubigula (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines based in Nepal[edit]

This list is more than covered by Category:Airlines of Nepal and I don't believe that other countries have such a list. Links in the list can also be found on List of airlines and List of defunct airlines Russavia 07:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extra-ordinary list cruft substantially covered by other articles. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#INFO as it provides no context above and beyond the preexisting category. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also think that category suffices Corpx 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should be split into two categories Airline companies based in Nepal and Defuncy airline companies based in Nepal.JForget 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All information offered is desplayed elsewhere on Wikipedia. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Russavia. MilborneOne 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxton Brothers[edit]

I nominated this article at WP:PROD about a month ago because the group isn't notable, the article is unsourced except for the group's website, and the main editor of the article has a clear conflict of interest with the subject. The main editor, one of the Paxtons, removed the prod notice. Before I prodded it, I did a big rewrite and copyedit, removed the 'living legend' and other peacock terms, and the personal information about their other businesses.

However, while the page now looks kind of nice, I still don't think the group is notable. The article is still unsourced, and it seems like its aim is to show how many notable artists with whom they had any association, however brief, and that doesn't make a music act notable if none of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC are met. A note on the talk page states that the group was active before the Internet so sources may be scarce, but that's no obstacle for other articles on musicians of that era and earlier. I've waited more than a month for the article to be sourced, and I think that's long enough. -KrakatoaKatie 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see below) Keep. Meets notability criteria three (from the article) and one (from the external links) of WP:MUSIC. It is unsourced and there may be a conflict of interest, but that is no reason to delete it out of hand. If no-one steps forward to source it by the end of this month, I will myself. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third notability criteria is a record certified gold or higher in any country. One of the external links (artistdirect.com) is a word-for-word copy of one of the earlier versions of this article. Discogs.com is a "community-driven site" and the Paxton Brothers content was submitted by 'paxtonbro'. Perhaps you're thinking of something else, because I've looked up and down WP:MUSIC and can't find any standard met by this article. Believe me, I'd love to be proven incorrect, but I don't think I am. - KrakatoaKatie 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not three, four: a nationwide tour. Anyhow, after looking through google and the external links, I'm starting to agree. There's just not enough to justify an article, and the contributions made here seem more like a vanity page than anything else. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Keep (as you see fit) - KrakatoaKatie & Thesocialistesq – Thank you for your valuable comments and for taking the time to assess whether the Paxton Brothers Wikipedia entry is notable or not. The only reason for submitting the article at all is that there has been a recent interest in our music, which sometimes happens in the music business. Sincerely, it is not an attempt at either self promotion or putting up a vanity page. It is simply an attempt to clearly present what transpired some 30 years ago in an authoritative source. I was previously unfamiliar with the proper format for submitting such a Wiki article and apologize for some of the submission errors I have made. Katie, I thought it was the proper procedure to remove your Prod from the front page, while leaving your comments in the discussion section. Sorry for the mistake. Also, the peacock term, “living american legend” is how Ramblin’ Jack Elliot is often referred to within the music business and among his peers. I’m not really sure why, but imagine it has to do with his association with Woody Guthrie. In terms of the conflict of interest, I can understand your concern, but surely you must realize that many articles about professional entertainers are submitted by their PR firms in order to present the artist in the most accurate and professional manner. Personally, I do not see a COI in them doing so, but rather a benefit to Wikipedian readers. For example, Rock Scully, the long time manager of the Grateful Dead is recognized as a significant figure in the music industry. The person who wrote his Wiki article however, (probably a Grateful Dead fan) is completely unaware of his actual significance and has submitted a very poorly written and inaccurate POV bio about him. IMHO, it would have been better for Mr. Scully's publisher to have submitted the article. I have made no attempt to conceal my identity. In reading through the Paxton Brothers website, it is hoped that you will recognize that no attempt has been made to present our career as anything more than what it was. There is no commercial aspect to the site other than a merchandise link for children and the music downloads are offered for free. We were contracted with a major distribution label, had top-level management, performed on national tours with a-list acts, and were fortunate in our association with some of the eras most respected musicians. In spite of our relatively brief career, many of these professionals have felt it was significant enough to include us on their individual websites. It was my understanding that by submitting a stub (as an article in progress) … that writers, critics, and others familiar with our career would have an opportunity to expand on it and provide references and sourcing. The question is whether the Paxton Brothers career is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia listing. You are professionals at determining such things and based on my understanding of the criteria, it is a judgment call. You both have extensive experience at making such judgments and therefore, I recognize your deleting or keeping the Paxton Brothers listing is a professional decision and not meant personally. So, do whatever you feel is appropriate. Best regards, paxtonbro 10:20, 25 July 2007
Delete as non-notable; fails WP:MUSIC. Fairsing 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standby for about 12 hours. I believe I have some printed references for this group in an old (70's era) compendium from Rolling Stone that I, uh, keep in the smallest room of the house. - Richfife 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied and salted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Boards[edit]

Collection of nonsense, author COI, non-notable, unencyclopedic lists of absolutely nothing. Was already speedied once. Nominating due to multiple hangon tags and silly discussions. superβεεcat 07:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This article is clearly not-notable in nature. A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Tagged & SALT? Corpx 07:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and bloody well Salt it this time. A7 group. WP still has articles this awful? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, WP still has a couple of articles which are this awful, sad to say. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a great article. I have posted at renegade for awhile, and these guys got it nailed. Man, I love that place. SMH at these admins trying to delete it. Don't know what SMH means? Read the article and you will. A place as infamous as renegade shouldn't be condemned for its lack of "notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.219.72 (talk • contribs) — 72.198.219.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment for this and other downright hysterical anon meat puppetry, see the article's talk page - superβεεcat 08:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 Group Brianga 08:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Marie Disney[edit]

~~Delete and merge~~ Merge and redirect to Disney family. Subject is not notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect due to lack of independent notability. Strothra, recall that delete & merge is not possible under the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author (if only "as told to"), planner of Walt Disney Family Museum, philanthropist -- Google search easily finds multiple published sources to satisfy WP:BIO criteria.--SarekOfVulcan 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - lack of independent notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's note: See also the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Mae Disney (2nd nomination). Sandstein 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (per SarekofVulcan) or Merge to the Disney familyJForget 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability. We have articles on people less notable than that. Wryspy 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Google search I mentioned above should be for "Diane Disney Miller", as that's the name under which most recent coverage has used.--SarekOfVulcan 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But need more citations. "She donated $5 million to US charities..." which is from...??? Also, I have requested a photo be put up since she's the only biological child of Walt Disney. Uranometria 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGoogle search results are not generally a suitable proof of notability. --Strothra 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The count of the results don't prove notability: the multiple independent articles on her, her work with the museum, her work with the concert hall, etc., do, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, as moved from a biography to an article on the associated case --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanine Nicarico[edit]

Pretty much WP:NOT#MEMORIAL: this article demonstrates no notability other than being a murder victim; i.e. no substantial or abnormally huge media frenzy, legislation named after this individual. PROD contested by author without comment. hbdragon88 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the subject in question was alive, she was definitely not notable by Wikipedia standards. Her death was an unfortunate event, but one must take note that Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability Corpx 07:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Keep due to the death penalty moratorium. I think that asserts historic notability. This should be moved from Jeanine Nicarisco to the name of the trial. Corpx 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeanine herself was not notable during her lifetime (1972 to 1983). However, the investigation and trials relating to her murder were very notable. Scott Turow, at a time when he was already a famous novelist, represented one of the defendants, and discussed the case in his nonfiction book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote numerous columns about the case. [37] There was also a book about the case titled Victims of Justice by Thomas Frisbie and Randy Garrett. And here's coverage from Time magazine and CNN and CBS News. Note that the Time and CNN pieces are from 1999, and the CBS piece is from 2006. --Metropolitan90 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. This is probably the most famous of several botched prosecutions that led to the Illinois death penalty moratorium. In truth the notable figure here is Rolando Cruz, the man who was falsely imprisoned and later released. It may make more sense to move this material to Rolando Cruz (for various reasons, his co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez does not seem to have become as great a focus).[38] Cruz was, for a time, a definite Illinois celebrity. The coverage of the Nicarico case in the media almost always was as a discussion of how it fit or didn't fit the case the prosecution made against Cruz and Hernandez, and other sundry proposed perpetrators including Buckley (who is not otherwise notable). The prosecution of the prosecution team for proceeding despite obvious disparities in evidence was also notable, but problematic as a separate article, an argument for a combined article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now voting keep as Jeanine Nicarico murder case, as my work on the article shows. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the material but possibly move to Rolando Cruz or Jeanine Nicarico murder cases to better reflect the focus of the article of the basic case and all the offshoots, including the prosecution of the prosecutors (as noted by Dhartung), which should be added here. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I moved this article to Jeanine Nicarico murder case which is the convention for such articles and which better describes the present (stubby) contents. This was a major case which had effects on society. It involved some of the accused being twice convicted of murder with no physical evidence, only alleged statement by the accused, while a different convicted murderer, Brian Dugan, had admitted commiting the crimes. His admission was reported later confrmed by DNA testing. It had a major effect on society in that it was a large part of what led the Governor of Illinois to pardon all death row inmates. The hue and cry over the overzealous prosecutions played a large part in preventing the prosecutor in the trials from winning a statewide illiection in Illinois many years after the death. It was featured in a book by author Scott Turow [39]. Reporter Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune wrote many columns about the case over the years, as sumarized in [40]. The prosecutors in the original trials were themselves later tried for framing the men and acquitted, but the defendants got a 3.5 million dollar settlement. This murder case has passed the test of time and is a highly notable one, with scores of columns and several books over the decades since it occurred satisfying WP:N. The stub article has adequate sources to be edited into a good article. Edison 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but incorporate the contents of the AfD. Is there any practical way to get articles improved without having to bring them to AfD.? DGG (talk)
- Comment In my experience, getting on the main page or in the list of recent deaths helps a lot. In this case I think AFD is serving as an RFC more than cleanup per se, but I am trying to clean up the article, in particular a whopper of a BLP issue. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean BLP issues about saying Brian Dugan admitted the murder, or BLP issues about Jim Ryan and Joseph Birkett's prosecution of the case? Edison 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually as I came to it the article quite falsely said that Stephen Buckley had confessed, not Brian Dugan. Secondly, the prosecutors were said to have been acquitted of framing Cruz and Hernandez without any source. Admittedly, this story is full of such minefields, but those were the two that leapt out at me as needing immediate attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have collected 18 references satisfying WP:A on the talk page of the article, with links to online versions, which help to show the notabiility of the case. My only search at this time was by Google, so material published more than a few years ago does not show up and is not available online, but I certainly saw dozens more stories about the case over the past 24 years. The task is to improve the story with additional references such as these which are available. Edison 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wikipedia articles do not honour dead people anyway, SqueakBox 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the article carefully , as well as the reference on the talk page before voting to delete it. It is in no respect a memorial page. It is a notable and controversial legal case with 23 years of coverage, which had wide ranging effects on the application of the death penalty. Edison 05:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grubstake Goodworks[edit]

Fails WP:ORG notability guidelines. The company has not been the subject of any secondary sources. A google search shows up no reliable sources for this article as well. S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability and none found through google news Corpx 07:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No multiple, non-trivial sources that mention this company seem to exist. Spellcast 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lots of thirft shoppes exists, but they can't all be in WP. Bearian 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Lane[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Hasn't received any awards, isn't notable in a particular sub-genre, isn't particularly prolific, and hasn't been covered in the mainstream press. PornWatcher 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for AVN Female Starlet of the year, XRCO Female performer of the year, FAME Favorite Oral Star, FAME Favorite Anal Star among others Corpx 07:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PORNBIO says if a person meets any one the given criteria, they generally meet the notability standards. All those nominations would qualify as a "serious contender for a well-known award", as said in the first dot point in WP:PORNBIO#Valid criteria. Spellcast 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx and Spellcast. Tabercil 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx. She meets the notability criterium -- fdewaele, 22 July 2007, 18:10 (CET)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's won awards and thus meets notability for porn actors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, wait a minute, TenPoundHammer, the articles above don't say she's won any awards --- just nominated.
Thank you, Corpx, for the links. If she really has been a "serious contender" for these awards, then, sure, I'd grant she meets WP:PORNBIO, and I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD.
However, the first link listed devotes a whole of two sentences (one short paragraph) in a page-long article; she was one of fifteen contenders for the award described. In the second article, she is listed as being nominated for three awards, but each award has five nominees, and there is no separate text describing Ms. Lane's chances. The third article is similar; she is listed as nominated for two awards (among eight each), and there is no prose mentioning her.
Is this really the collective judgment --- that these articles describe her as a serious contender for these awards? Could you all please comment further to this effect? Thanks. PornWatcher 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt being nominated the same as being "a serious contender"? It narrows your odds down from all the pornstars to 5 or 6? Corpx 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your view that anyone who is nominated is a serious contender, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe this is a good analogy: suppose you've made the men's 100 meter dash finals at the Olympics (one among eight runners). Does that instantly make you a "serious contender" for the gold medal? What if you're in the race with Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Maurice Green, and Asafa Powell? Are you still a serious contender for the gold? I don't think so.*** But perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Cheers, PornWatcher 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (I also can't help but to add that for one of the awards, Ms. Lane was one among 18.)[reply]

***That is, absent further information. Maybe you're Donovan Bailey, and you've got a shot; maybe you're Aziz Zakari, and you don't. But that's my point here: we don't have further information as to Ms. Lane's real chances as to winning any of those awards. The only information we have is that she didn't win. PornWatcher 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that's a valid comparison, because for most sports, there is very little subjectivity involved in picking a winner. The fastest person in a race wins, period. Team that scores the most points wins. For any award, the winner is chosen subjectively by voters, so its not easy to predict - just like the Oscars or Emmys. (Also, the consensus is that all olympians are notable, because they're competing at the highest level). Corpx 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good point. Would a more apt comparison be to all-star voting for major league baseball? Each team gets one nominee per position (14 in AL, 16 in NL per position). So, for instance, there were 14 nominees for the third baseman in the AL, but I don't think there was any doubt that Alex Rodriguez was going to win the voting. Were the other 13 serious contenders? PornWatcher 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some all star selections are pretty set due to fan popularity, just like how Yao would be the starting center in the NBA all star game. I dont think you can say quite the same for awards that are chosen by a panel of experts (like Oscars or Emmys), which would be more applicable in this case. Corpx 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But if baseball used a panel of experts instead of fans, would all 14 nominees for third base still be serious contenders?
And to come back to your earlier point about objective criteria for choosing an award winner, say for "AVN starlet of the year," don't things like video sales numbers, size of fan base, and contracts for endorsements (if there is such a thing) come into play? PornWatcher 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the baseball example, the entire pool of candidates for the award is 14 (assuming one player has started most of games leading up to All Star Game). I dont think the pool for this award is quite narrow in this case. Corpx 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're saying that Ms. Lane was a serious contender for those awards with 5 or 6 nominees, but not a serious contender when there are many nominees (around 14 or so). For instance, you say she was a serious contender for the XRCO female performer of the year (five nominees), but (by the all-star standard) she was not a serious contender for the AVN female starlet of the year (fifteen nominees). Would you say she was a serious contender for the FAME favorite oral or anal star (with eight nominees each)? PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned on the WP:PORNBIO talk page that FAME awrd nominees were chosen in rounds, so if she made it to the final round, then I'd say yes. I'd say there are hundreds, if not thousands of porn stars out there that do "oral or anal", so being narrowed from that list to 8 would make her a serious contender for the award. Corpx 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish to interject that Tory was nominated for awards by three distinct groups. Tabercil 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I had lost track of that. Multiple, independent nominations certainly lends credence to the idea that she's notable. PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per listed awards and WP:PORNBIO. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, she hasn't won any awards. She's just been nominated; that's what's being discussed here. Could you add to your reasoning? Thanks, PornWatcher 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From PORNBIO: "Performer has won or been a serious contender for..." thus, AVN nominations count. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify: it's the "thus" in your last sentence that's under discussion here. That is, you're arguing that being nominated automatically qualifies as being a serious contender. Do you have anything further to add? Thanks, PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (perhaps my last ;) In WP:PORNBIO, does anyone recall why the phrase "serious contender for an award" was used when the concensus in this AfD is for the simpler "nominated for an award"? Perhaps it's time for a change to WP:PORNBIO? PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Until (1 == 2) 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 (numerology)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/11:11 (numerology) (2nd nomination)

Previously deleted in 2005 and then kept in early 2006. The majority of the reasons to keep it in 2006 were based around it being "interesting" or words to that effect. Mention was also made of some comments by Uri Geller and the mention of this number in a film, neither of which have survived in the article. As a result, we have here a very brief stub on a theory which "some people believe", with no sources demonstrating that anyone in fact believes it or whether it's a notable theory BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note All the votes are for the version of the article thats been pared down in order to delete it. Please read the version containg the full references. See stable version here--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That this article has, on occasion, had a reference in it doesn't mean that it has been "pared down in order to delete it". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- current version is probably not even of stub length. Non-notable in the context presented. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the person who previously nominated this. I agree with Bighaz's points. No one has stepped forward to present reliable sources that show the notability of these beliefs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 phenomenon which resulted in a rename to this article. Originally I voted to delete this article because I thought we had not established notability. After reconsidering, I've come to the conclusion that the new version contains enough sources to establish notability. Notability was always the only concern for me. The article still needs more sources to bring it beyond a start class article, but that's besides the point for purposes of this discussion.TheRingess (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And expand back to an earlier version. The disambiguation page 11:11 needs a companion article to explain why people are attracted to the number with sourced material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might agree if anyone has ever stepped forward and shown that this is anything except fringe material. No one has even established that a sufficient number of people are attracted to this time of day, let alone why they might be. It seem s to me to be original research to try to answer the why before we have even established the what. TheRingess (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no ban against sourced fringe material. If there was a ban, we wouldn't have articles on minority religions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as expand per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The version that exists now is dreadfully in need of being improved and wields little to show that this is a phenomenon past what "some people believe" without any actual sources (which should be numerous, given that it's frequently referenced along Coast to Coast AM). DrWho42 06:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reliable source for this "phenomenon" beyond "Coast to Coast". Is there a reputable science journal that has published the research results of someone studying this "phenomenon". It seems unlikely to me that a reputable journal would risk their reputation on research that purports to show that there is an actual link between the numbers on a clock and the physical world. Who has established that there is an actual, real, verifiable phenomenon that we can write about? Coast to coast seems to talk about a lot of fringe material, I'm not convinced that inclusion on CTC justifies inclusion on Wikipedia.TheRingess (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were sources until someone deleted all the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Were they reliable sources? See WP:RS.TheRingess (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to be confusing "science" and "philosophy". "reputable science journals" don't usually write about philosophy. Wikipedia doesn't require philosophical concepts to be scientifically vetted. We have whole categories on New Age philosophy, and whole categories on pseudoscience. Wikipedia isn't about "truth", its about verifiable sources. If concepts had to be scientific, we wouldn't have articles on religion. Religion is based on faith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No I'm not. What I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not a repository of every bizarre belief ever held by any individual anywhere. What I'm driving at, is we need to show that beliefs are notable. For example, the Black cat article mentions the magical properties assigned to black cats by humans throughout the ages. We have a plethora of sources in sociological literature and pop culture that chronicle and define those associations. Ask an average person on the street what superstitions they've heard about black cats and they will probably tell you that they bring bad luck (or some variation). See also, the number 7, the number 13, even the number 3, or Loch Ness, UFO's, ghosts, etc. These all have articles because they represent notable beliefs. My problem with this article has always been that I believe we did not establish notability. I argue that the beliefs around this time of day are not nearly as well know as any of the other subjects I've mentioned. So it's always seemed to me that we need to establish and answer several questions. When did people start assigning magical properties to this time of day? Have these magical properties entered mainstream pop culture enough to be recognizable by a majority of English speaking persons? What are the properties specifically assigned to this time of day? I'm willing to admit that this is just my viewpoint based on my reading of Wikipedia's core content policies. My experience has been that all articles need to meet some minimal notability requirements. Perhaps I'm being too strict for topics such as this one. But I hardly think that I'm confusing science and philosophy. You have gone a long way toward establishing that these beliefs are notable enough for an article.TheRingess (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is a repository for every bizarre belief that can be verified with "multiple independent sources". Certainly the BBC and the multiple books on the topic are verifiable, and are independent. Almost all the references are ones I readded, that were deleted just before this nomination to have the article removed. And of course, you have removed them multiple times. First you argued there were too few references, them you deleted them again, saying there were now too many. It appears you just want to see the article disappear, rather than see it properly referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's utter junk. Nick mallory 07:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's pure nonsense. There are no reliable notability claims for 11:11 and using the 'logic' in the article we could equally have an article for 10:10, 12:12 and 12:34 (or any other pattern you care to mention). If this is to be kept in any form it should be merged into Superstition.--Mendors 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Keep' The article has now been updated to include sufficient references to establish notability.--Mendors 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your trying to use the fallacious slippery slope argument. Your saying if we let women vote, next they will let dogs vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meh. I agree that it's dumb, but lots of people believe in it, much like Remote viewing or Telepathy (which cannot be 100% factually 'proven', but nonetheless have sources -- just like this topic should). I'm on a hiatus from voting one way or another (until I become less noobish and understand wiki policy better), but if this survives AfD and nobody else comes forward to expand it -- I'll do the necessary expanding and sourcing to provide context. The topic goes as far back as Uri Geller, and has also been covered by Andrija Puharic, and a lot of other people with weird names I can't remember right now, including some links to The Sirius Mystery), but like I said, if it survives AfD and nobody else sources it, I will.. I just don't care enough about the topic to go look them up right now to defend it as a keep vote. Spazure 07:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of my contentions is that we can't just say "lots of people believe in it", we have to establish that they do through reliable sources. Uri Geller is a reliable source for what Uri Geller believes, he is not a reliable source for how many people share his beliefs. Perhaps there is a reliable journal out there that has established how many people actually have superstitions about this time of day.TheRingess (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You appear to be inventing new requirements for notability. The number of people believing in a concept has never been a requirement. We have an article on flat earth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Actually I'm not. We have a flat earth article because we have reliable evidence that suggests at one point in time in the distant path most people believed that the earth was flat. The fact that they believed this is not disputed. We also have mutliple reliable sources that establish fairly accurately when the majority of people stopped believing in the flat earth. Their also exists a flat earth society that has been written about by many reliable sources not associated with the society itself. On the other hand, if we had no evidence that a large percentage of the human population at one point in time believed that theory, then the theory wouldn't be worth including (just my opinion). As an example, I could write create a website that documents my thoughts that the number 2178 has special healing powers. I could write that people who repeat this number in their head will be healed of innumerable afflictions. I could have forums on my website where people discuss their experiences. I could write a book expounding these beliefs. If I were famous, I might even get a BBC article that basically repeats what I say (I read the BBC article and it seems to be mostly a word for word copy of Geller's website). Does this mean that my theories get their own article? Why or why not? My website and my books and an article about me are reliable sources about what I believe, what I write and my life. Does my analogy make sense? What am I missing?TheRingess (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know we can't keep it based on the grounds that 'it probably has reliable sources out there somewhere', that's (partly) why I didn't bother with a keep vote -- I haven't gone home and dug out the books and notebooks I would need to leaf through to properly source this. Either way though, if it gets deleted, I won't have to think about how to write in pure NPOV form about something I oppose -- really the only point of my comment was that if it does manage to be kept, it won't be a weakly sourced stub for long. Personally, I wouldn't mind if all of the articles on pseudo-science topics disappeared altogether.. but as long as I'm an editor and have agreed to be NPOV in my edits, I feel a sort of moral obligation to correct articles when I know I have time/knowledge/resources to do so. Either way, it looks like it's going to get nuked, so I can go back to only editing articles about stuff I like anyway. Spazure 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1111 times. There are too many similarly inane numbers to give an article for each one. There's already one lousy article covering this - Master Numbers (Numerology). Who needs another (or even the first one)? Clarityfiend 08:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create Redirect to Uri Geller. User:TheRingess said "Perhaps there is a reliable journal out there that has established how many people actually have superstitions about this time of day." The thing is, noteability isn't about how many people hold the belief is it? But rather about whether most people have heard of it/it is a well-known concept, regardless of one's personal belief or lack of belief. redirect and merge to mention 11:11 in the Uri article. Clarityfriend says all inane numbers would get an entry but I don't think that's so- this is the most noteable and we can maybe mention the others in passing. Please can I have permission to see how much of this is in the Uri article? As this is only a small article, I don't think this will need much merging, and the page 11:11 (numerology) won't be needed for any other subject.Merkinsmum 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I beg to differ. I recently saw a TV news report about the upsurge of weddings on 07/07/07. They also expect another on 08/08/08 (8 being a Chinese "lucky number"). Clarityfiend 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Perhaps I should have said that we need to find a reliable source that has established how many people are aware of common beliefs regarding this time of day. The article can't just say that many people have heard of it, we have to establish that.TheRingess (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every time I look at the clock it says 12:34. I was really creeped out until I realized the batteries were dead. ~ Infrangible 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have often heard 11:11 mentioned in this way. Sources need to be found however. Steve Dufour 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Will ^(talk) 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how's about a comment on the Uri Geller page saying something to the effect of

Uri Geller has spoken repeatedly about 11:11, which he believes has mystical power[41][42][43] (one of the sources is the bbc.) This phenomenon has also been adopted by many believers in New Age philosophies [44][45] [46]. However some sceptics say that Geller's examples of 11:11 phenomenon in world events are examples of post-hoc reasoning [47] and confirmation bias. [48]

-would you be happy with that? I know some of the sources are flakey but they are only required to show the belief exists. We might think it's nonsense but some people believe in it. I agree though, this article as it stands doesn't contain much, so perhaps delete but I'd like to put this bit I wrote into the Uri Geller article. But I might just go to its talk page.:)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs).

Weak keep there are probably enough sources, but there is no one version of the article to restore. some of the arguments above seem to be about whether the belief is valid, which is entirely irrelevant. DGG (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the strategy to get this article deleted is to keep removing the references, then declaring there aren't enough references to have a legitimate article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a degree of bad faith being assumed there. I came upon an unreferenced stub and nominated it for deletion. I'm not responsible for what other people are doing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment could everyone look at the latest version of the article. I added my paragraph above, also there was another version with more references. Please look at past edits if it has been changed. It now has 16 sources so to me that makes it a strong keep. Some of the sources might be flakey, but it also has sceptical sources and comments for NPOV.Merkinsmum 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that all that is needed to keep the article is to establish that many people believe 11:11 has some special significance. We don't need to prove or disprove it. Steve Dufour 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need to establish the notability of this belief. If everything must be proved then we open up a huge issue in that all the religion based articles would need to be proved too.--Mendors 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree regarding notability, I think that it's the most relevant issue here. Although I am unsure what constitutes notability for a belief of this nature. I'm not convinced that a few references on websites and a mention by Uri Geller constitute notability. Does anyone know of past discussion that have discussed notability for articles of this type?TheRingess (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had looked at the article earlier and saw almost nothing there. The article as it exists now provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to demonstrate the belief that this is a notable phenomenon, even if there is justifiable leeriness of its existence. This article epitomizes that we look for verifiability, not truth, as a standard on Wikipedia. Alansohn 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uri Geller is not a reliable source. Bearian 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the BBC is a reliable source about what Uri says. Given the number of other people discussing it I don't believe a merge Uri Geller is appropriate; maybe list of kooky beliefs in numerology. Kappa 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename 11:11 (time) We are talking about a "time" on a clock, correct? Nevermind the debate over whether time is a dimension or merely a measuring system. 11:11 is numerals (symbols) on a digital clock, right? The first 11 represents the "hour" of the "day" and the second 11 represents the "minute" and a "colon" separates the two. A number is an abstract idea used in counting and measuring, so it seems to me that 11:11 itself is an abstract idea. What is 11:11? A time on a digital clock (that measures time) that occurs twice in a 24-hour period. Is that a circular definition? I guess, but I can't think of another word than "a time" to describe 11:11. When people ask "what time is it?", others generally don't say "It's eleven eleven time." They just say "about a quarter past eleven" (or maybe "eleven eleven" if they're looking at a Windows toolbar). I think we are primarily talking about digital clock displays and not analog clocks. I think I've heard the phrase "noontime" before...but now I'm rambling. Apparently Uri Geller has mentioned[49] this particular time of day and some books[50][51] have been written about this time of day (or the numbers/symbols themselves). I haven't read the books but I think they may talk of the notion that when one looks at a clock, these numbers, or this specific time, appear frequently (or perhaps are noticed more). It appears to me that there may be superstitions about this time or "New Age" beliefs concerning angels, etc about this time (as seen in results from a search engine query). So, should 11:11 have a entry in Wikipedia? Currently, 11:11 is a disambiguation page with links to music albums, songs, etc. Should there be a Wikipedia page for 11:11, the time of day that appears twice daily on digital clocks? That may count as indiscriminate collection of information but if there is a segment of "New Age" thought that assigns significance to that time, it may be notable. There is a page on 666. The page 13 (number) contains a section called A Significant Number (which may be helpful in this case). Although perhaps 11:11 (numerology) is an attempt to start a new "meme" (if you believe in memes) in a similar way. This page[52] seems to be more about 11:11 in relation to numerology, but is it a reliable source? That page mentions "Solara"[53] (who published a book in 1992) and also mentions sacred geometry and 2012 (and that article mentions metaphysical predictions about the year). We could rename the page 11:11 (time) and list any significance attributed to it, much like the 2012 article. Is "Solara" a noted New Age author? The book was published by Star Borne Unlimited. Is that a self-published source? I don't know. Amazons lists at least 6 books by that author. So, would a page entitled 11:11 (numerology) serve as a promotion for these New Age books/theories? WP:FRINGE says Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is, although it *is* just a guideline afterall. A page exists for the movie The Number 23 (which was based on ideas by Robert Anton Wilson I believe). Some have said that noticing 11:11 more than other times is an example of confirmation bias and some have said noticing 11:11 is about hidden messages. The article looks OK to me right now[54]. If the page is deleted, I think the information on numerology should still remain on the 11:11 disambiguation page. 11:11 (numerology) is hyperlinked on 11 (number), 11:11, and Master Numbers (Numerology) and those hyperlinks seem appropriate to me. It could be said that every Wikipedia article promotes its topic and brings attention to it. "Worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion, but I think the idea of 11:11 has spread beyond "Solara" somewhat (and I'm not sure if that author originated it). We have articles on Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Time Cube, Law of Attraction, and The Secret. Supernatural beliefs about 11:11 may not be as mainstream as those topics -- that is why I recommend the page be renamed 11:11 (time) and the numerology information put in a section titled Numerology or Numerological significance or New Age significance. Failing that, perhaps the following should be added to the 11:11 page: A time appearing on a digital clock twice daily, 11:11AM and 11:11PM and 11:11 (numerology) would discuss the meaning[55] attributed to that time/symbol(s). On another note, this article reminds me of a certain X-Files episode. --Pixelface 12:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' it's not like the article is entirely promotional for the idea, as it also includes strongly sceptical arguments. I also know a lot of people who have created a certain sub-culture aligned with the number 23, so would consider that worth an article. But maybe the circles I move in make me more aware about these issues.:)Merkinsmum 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 (number) is already an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know:) User:Pixelface mentioned it above. I was just saying that I personally know a lot of people who are into it, but maybe some people wouldn't. It is worth an article though, IMHO. Because people will google about 11:11, and here they could find an NPOV view of it easily.Merkinsmum 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with renaming the article. Renaming it would result in the addition of 1 or 2 more sentences along the lines "11:11 is a time of day...". I'm not worried about whether or not we are promoting any of the names mentioned. We are not reviewing their books or ideas. We are merely presenting the idea that more than a few people have some supernatural beliefs about this time of day. We are leaving it up to the reader to decide for themselves how much merit these particular beliefs have.TheRingess (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree, no need to rename, the article isn't about the time itself, but about a belief about it.Merkinsmum 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand: While the concept on this page is no scientific merit it is a notable numerological belief that exists in modern folklore/new age community. It should be kept and expanded on the grounds that it is widely known and remarked upon even if it is not factually accurate. Scientific value, or even a common sense approach (by believers), is not and never has been a Wikipedia criteria. - perfectblue 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and quit pretending the list of 11:11 works is a coincidence: This debate is exhausting after all this time. The "belief" in 11:11 is ambiguous at best, but it is notable, and as such should have some mention on wikipedia. And as such I see no reason to keep segregating the information in the regular 11:11 article. While it is impossible to link each titled work to the phenomenon, it is mathematically absurd to suggest the preponderance of the number in such works is a random occurance. -- GIR 08:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerstōn_Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Palmerstōn Band

Fails to meet notability listed on WP:MUSIC Mearnhardtfan 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and so tagged. Someguy1221 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Someguy and Nom Rackabello 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - the myspace homepage uses the spelling "Palmerston" and this doesn't yield any google news archive results. Addhoc 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Jmlk 1 7 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WaГuigi[edit]

A page for Waluigi has already been created, even though it's a shared page. Also, the character has never been known as "WaГuigi" or "WaГuigi Wario", just plain "Waluigi". This page is completely unnecessary and useless to Wikipedia. Hardcore gamer 48 04:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant, redirect would be speediable under csd r3. MER-C 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not warrant separate article. Redirect only if character is called WaГuigi somewhere reliable, otherwise WP:CSD#R3 applies.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be redirected to List_of_Mario_series_characters#Waluigi. The information in this article is nearly exactly the same as what already exists, anyway. Even though CSD R3 states not to create implausible redirects, I have seen Waluigi's name written that way before. But then again, nobody really types the character Г, so after further thought, I don't think a redirect is necessary in this case. Useight 05:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without redirect. Maxa megalon 2000 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as it is redundant. Big top 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Mario_series_characters#Waluigi (especially as it's a copy paste of that) Giggy _U^CP 00:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect. Bearian 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pipetalk[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a manual. Also, this seems to be a neologism, and the article is not sources or wikified. aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this article. It also impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable advertisment - given the creator is Pipetalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I suspect some promotional relationship to PIPEtalk pipe estimation software, whose page also mentions this TX 5-367-631 patent. Gordonofcartoon 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and the author appears to be a SPA -- Gudeldar 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Philippe. Someguy1221 04:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brgy.piranha[edit]

unintelligible gibberish Mtjaws 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 09:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Zen Center[edit]

Non-notable religious institution. No more notable than any other run-of-the-mill church or synagogue. No claims of notability. Corvus cornix 04:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Philip Kapleau article (which unfortunately is not properly sourced) the Rochester Zen Center was the first Zen training center to be founded by an American.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This says the first Zen training center in America was in San Francisco. Corvus cornix 05:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but that center was not founded by an American.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~ Infrangible 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here is some significant coverage proving the center's notability. Shambala Sun magazine also makes mention of the center. Tricycle, the preeminent Buddhist publication, gives a multitude of results when the center is queried in quotes. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The comments of Absurdist and VanTucky are pretty convincing, as far as reliable sources go, but I'm making this a weak keep because the Philip Kapleau article isn't sourced. There also appear to be several articles on JSTOR which mention this Zen Center in some detail. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got sources, why not add them to the article? But I contend that in none of the links is the Rochester Zen Center the primary focus of the article. "Makes mention" does not satisfy WP:RS. Existence is not in question, notability is. Corvus cornix 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as long as it can be fixed per WP:HEY. Bearian 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players[edit]

Per WP:FIVE (trivia collection) and "wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate info" - What's the point of sorting retired MLB players by age? Corpx 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Indiscriminate Collection. The list is also difficult to maintain, the article list the 32 oldest living ex-MLB players. Why isn't it the oldest 10? 50? A list of oldest currently active players makes more logical sense to me. Useight 05:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmaintainable (or difficult to maintain) list of indiscriminate info per above. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - superβεεcat 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an over categorization to list two unrelated/non-notable traits. Unless the age of a major league baseball player has significant bearing on their career, it should go. Spellcast 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a listcruft and unmaintainable article.--JForget 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is readily verifiable information of a type that, contrary to some of the suggestions above, is often sought after by fans. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indeed a maintainable article, and many fans are interested in this type of information. Valadius 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING shouldn't be a reason to keep Corpx 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but interesting to many people, and notable and verifiable, is a reasonable basis for keeping, in my view. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is highly relevant for baseball fans, as it was front page news on ESPN.com this morning when Rollie Stiles (aged 100) died. The information is useful to baseball historians and easily verifiable. EnjoysButter 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list that is referenced often by baseball historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.95.174 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Baseball historians are fascinated by information that would appear to be insignificant to the average person. Setting a year of birth that yields a list of all living former major leaguers who have reached age 90 results in a legitimate parameter and in no way is "indiscriminate information." Detour1102 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — Detour1102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Thanks to sites like MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com, this is easy to keep track of, and fascinating to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.37.21 (talk • contribs)
Keep Baseball and other major sports enjoy a higher level of protection on Wikipedia. Isn't there a Wikipedia project on major league baseball players? I know that there's one on NFL players. Anyway, this list is not a "indiscriminate information" (a phrase that gets tossed around so casually, nobody takes it seriously) or difficult to maintain. As for why there are 32 players, I think those are the ones who played nine innings and gone into extra ones, all of them being over age 90. Mandsford 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of making a list of a group of people by their age? I think a list like this could be made for every category that includes people. Age has no bearing on their former status as MLB players. Corpx 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't just list players by age, it also includes a bit about their careers. The page answers questions like 'Who is the oldest living Dodger?' or 'How many ex-MLBers are currently over age 95?' Of course age has a bearing on these questions. EnjoysButter

Isnt that trivial information? Corpx 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it notable information, since when one of these guys dies the newspapers see fit to run articles on the event. I understand that we disagree on this, but there are other areas of Wikipedia to focus on rather than this popular and well-maintained page. EnjoysButter 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very interesting, relevant and encyclopedic article for baseball fans. Canjth 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful research tool. Very interesting. Encyclopedic. Alex 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very well-researched list, and rather informative for baseball fans and historians. Granted, it borders on cruft, but I think it's a keeper.--Fightingirish 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It takes a lot of work to compile this information and is valuable for keep a connection with the lost art of old-time baseball. These people deserve recognition and this article gives them that. If the oldest living former baseball players were famous, this wouldn't even be a debate. Dipietro 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for this information and was pleased to find it here. Equally amazed that someone thinks it should be deleted.Kinston eagle 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballroom Dance in Canberra[edit]

No indication as to how ballroom dance is different in Canberra than anywhere else in the world. This page is nothing but a gigantic yellow pages listing for dance instructors in the Canberra area, none of whom would warrant their own page. Corvus cornix 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might as well be an ad for the area's social life. The notability of several seemingly random dance halls is none, and Wikipedia is not a place for regional dance scheduling either. Nothing different from any other town in any other country. Mentions in article attracting as many as 500 people a night to it's dancing nightlife. Many, many places could claim this. Neither they nor this are worthy of an article. Pete Shan osky 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; sometimes I wonder if some people don't realise this is meant to be an encyclopedia. This belongs on the noticeboard of their local library, not Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 05:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, I am the user who created the article. Since reading the above three entries I have edited the article considerably. I refer to the Wikipedia definition of "Yellow Pages"; "The term Yellow Pages refers to a telephone directory for businesses, categorized according to the product or service provided.". I now refer to the Wikipedia definition of "Business". "In economics, business is the social science of managing people to organize and maintain collective productivity toward accomplishing particular creative and productive goals, usually to generate profit." Not one dance group referred to in the article has an entry in the Canberra yellow pages. Managing of people as nothing to do with anything in the article.There is no reference to any dance business in the article. Not one person or group referred to in the article gains or intends to gain any profit from anything to do with dance. Also not one teacher / instructor associated with any of the groups mentioned in the article, receives any remuneration, financial or otherwise, for their efforts.
Furthur, all regional dance scheduling has been removed. --Brian Hickey 07:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is understood that you created this article and no doubt feel strongly about it's deletion. And though I do not doubt you when you say that there is no association with the people the article discusses, it's just not enough. When it comes down to it, the basic point is this: Wikipedia has notability standards, and this article does not meet them. Pete Shan osky 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way to dance around it, Brian. It's just not notable. There's ballroom dancing all over the world. Unless you're dancing with kangaroos as partners (and winning competitions), there's no reason to single out Canberra. Clarityfiend 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I admire the creator's spunk and encourage him to keep working here. The trouble is, there's nothing about ballroom dancing in Canberra that's more special than Polka in Winnipeg or Tap dance in Ulan Bator. Aside from that significance problem, there are serious problems with reliable sourcing and true independent interest in the subject. That said, I think we should appreciate the time and effort put into this article and do our best to integrate its useful content into Culture of Australia, Art of Australia, and Dance in Australia. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Social. Twenty Years 13:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to see the work that Brian Hickey put in preserved somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate place although Wikitravel might be a place. However, I don't think that the article is right for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in it's current form it does not meet the primary inclusion criteria, WP:N, and I don't think any of the supporting criteria are applicable for this article.Ga rr ie 06:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brian, I think your best bet is to write some articles about the studios if you can show they pass WP:CORP, or the idividual competitions if you can show they pass WP:N.Ga rr ie 06:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some editors really need to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. The creator of this article has done so in good faith and with an active interest in writing on an unusual topic. With perhaps the exception of Capitalistroadster, no one has thought about perhaps how the article could be rewritten or fixed up so as to become notable. I'm fairly sure that the (imminent) deletion of this article will cause the writer of this article to leave, which is disappointing. Yet again the deletionists overrule without thought for the hard work and effort that newcomers put into the articles. Shame on you all. JRG 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely a good faith contribution, no doubt about that. The material even seems to be sound, well-written, and relatively impartial. Perhaps it can be userfied rather than outright deleted? Unfortunately, it doesn't really meet inclusion criteria, but it would be nice to salvage something out of what must have been a lot of hard work. Lankiveil 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm into dancing myself. However, this kind of information, while useful to a dancer, is not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Could someone with more spare time than me look at whether the Dance Wikia may be more suitable? Andjam 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vambudo[edit]

Non-notable. The article has had a notability tag for some time and recently a prod tag was added. All tags were removed with no attempt to address the issue. There are no outside sources given to substantiate the claims.Peter Rehse 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability through the provision of sources. My google search turned up some myspace stuff and trivial mentions of this, but nothing suggesting notability. Someguy1221 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject seems to have received only trivial coverage from third-party sources.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third-party sources given to verify notability. --Maelwys 13:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as a McDojo with zero reliable, independent sources proving notability. Neither a regular Google nor a Google News search provided any reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources presented, no non trivial sources found on google search, fails notability much. Also, it's been previously deleted for lack of same .--Sandahl 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete advert for non-notable hybrid, been wikified a bit but sill advertish.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Wars[edit]

We are not a crystal ball, until there are some reliable sources this should not have an article. Pity NOT violations are not speedyable hehe. Until(1 == 2) 03:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The only source named in the article is an admitted rumour! Absolutely unverifiable. Not worthy of inclusion until/unless the reliable sources come along. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Yannick 03:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I first saw this "rumor" on the Seth MacFarlane page. Of course, due to WP:BLP and WP:V, I had to remove it. Miranda 03:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete per nom. This is pure rumor and speculation, and it therefore fails or violates WP:NOT#CBALL, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR (from the latter in this case, WP:COI and WP:NOT#OR), WP:NPOV (as it inherently takes a side in a dispute over future events), WP:NOT#MIRROR as it parrots information from another site, for similar reasons, WP:NOT#BLOG, and also every good bit of sense, decency, and order that Wikipedia has. Really, it should've been a speedy deletion. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me which speedy criteria it satisfies, I will speedy it. But WP:NOT violations are explicitly not speedyable. Until (1 == 2) 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd fall back on WP:IAR myself. I know the rules say hoaxes aren't speedy-deleteable on that account, but this article is obviously unencyclopedic, useless, and to some extent harmful. Also, there's no evident objection to this article being deleted and no-one would be offended by its loss. But maybe that's all a bit much... it's your call really. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article the same way, and it doesn't do anything that pushes it into the realm of speedy deletion. At least with the AfD, we declare outright that no, it doesn't belong on the Wikipedia (and can then speedy delete it under the criterion for recreating deleted material if it comes back). —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also thing ((DbIAR)) applies, however since I nominated this, I would have to ignore all rules twice to delete it. Until (1 == 2) 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a rumor that cites a rumor as its source. Doesn't get any more unverifiable than that. Spellcast 11:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per citations of Thesocialistesq above, no supporting news articles found from reliable sources. I wish South Park, Family Guy, and Simpsons would team up and do a movie, but I promise not to start internet rumors about it (and then document the rumor on Wikipedia). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per the snowball clause and the (valid) speedy tag on the page. Nihiltres^(t.l) 12:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Inder[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY, there's also most likely a conflict of interest. -WarthogDemon 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. That should be enough without the COI! Giggy _U^CP 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSD tagged. And I just saw the author's name, so it's almost certainly a copyvio :P Giggy _U^CP

Comment v2 And yes, when I say copyvio, I mean COI. Giggy _U^CP 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a very poorly written résumé. Someguy1221 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even come close to passing WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being related to notable person does not make oneself notable. Spellcast 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chenjesu[edit]

This is a non-notable fictional race in a computer game.

I am also nominating all the pages in Category:Star Control races, of which Chenjesu is a good example, for the same reason.Yannick 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Control Giggy _U^CP 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Star Control II regularly shows up on many "greatest game of all time" lists (see the page for a couple). Given the overall notability of the game, and the fact that the diversity and interest of the various races in the game is often cited as a reason for it being such a great game, I think that having pages on the individual races is not unreasonable. --FourteenDays 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Star Control franchise (and particularly Star Control II) are one of the most popular games of their type from that era, references to it are common even today. Deletion of all this material is IMO completely unwarranted, could you explain what basis you have for claiming it's "non-notable"? You simply assert this without any evidence or arguments to back it up. I might consider a merge into one of those giant omnibus lists that seem to be increasingly popular these days, maybe, but I don't think it would be an improvement over separate articles and it certainly wouldn't be a deletion. Bryan Derksen 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No single Star Control race has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This is the definition of notability in Wikipedia. I do not dispute that the game itself is notable, but the races are not.--Yannick 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a List of Star Control races article. While I see that the notable nature of this game means such information should be covered, I don't feel the current depth of coverage is justified. JulesH 12:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Star Control races, then consider merging that to Star Control or Star Control II. Alba 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a list article or to the game articles. Appearances in rather prominent games mean they're significant enough to discuss in some capacity; however, they're not really prominent enough for articles of their own. Definitely notable enough for a list... somewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can see the validity of merging to a List of Star Control species article, turning them into redirects would be an immense disservice. As a commonly nominated "best game" with 3 installments in the series, it is certainly notable. Further, merging the data, even trimmed down, into Star Control or Star Control II would bloat the article to the point that someone who wanted to get any details on the game or the species would have to shuffle through the article forever. Considering the rather well-developed backstory of some of these species, such as the Ur Quan, separate articles for some of these species the least should be considered, even in the event of a List article being created. Tavish 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Merging was done for more famous franchises, e.g. Races of The Elder Scrolls. --Voidvector 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tavish's points Pseudo Intellectual 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tavish's points. AND if that's not enough, you can always move it to Chenjesu (star control franchise) or somesuch. cow_2001 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a race article, if that means Keeping them for now and taking more time to do it then so be it. A lot of these articles contain excessively detailed in-universe information, a lot of the articles also have a seperate section for the ships of that race (again, excessively detailed in-universe). By the time this unsuitable material is trimmed and the prose is sharpened they should all fit just fine and everyone wins. If the major races need to keep seperate articles then great, but there's no way all of these need seperate articles.QuagmireDog 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a pragmatic standpoint, the coverage works better as separate articles. I don't think that the Elder Scrolls list is applicable; the majority of the races there are simplistic elf-, beast-man or human variants with only a couple of lines to say about them. The Star Control aliens are far more - er - alien, and most are significantly more elaborate. It takes its share of space to give a race such as the Mycon a description that's of any use. As for the various kinds of Ur-Quan, I admit that those could use a trim, but as it inducted them into a collection of the most memorable antagonists in the entire history of video games, Gamespot described them with: "Even now, we are hard-pressed to find a race of adversaries as complex and three-dimensional as the Ur-quan."

I went through race articles and, by and large, did not find their coverage needlessly detailed. There are some problems but that, as usual, is a matter for cleanup. Having ship descriptions is by no means excessive: the series is a hybrid, its strategy/adventure/diplomacy (depends on the installment) is built around ship-to-ship combat - heck, the local #1 gaming magazine reviewed the first Star Control as an excellent one-on-one battle game with a supplementary strategic campaign. It's a vital central part. Also note that literally every class of ship has its unique features, usually characteristic of and sometimes vital to the race in question. Naturally some of them can be overly long, but fixing that is an order of magnitude removed from wiping them all altogether. --Kizor 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Probably keep. There are around 50 of these races (and articles thereof), and merging them into a single page would create pressure for shortening the description of each dramatically (otherwise the page would be really long). It would reduce the information value. Thus I think keeping them separate is better. Bisqwit 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually finally made a wikipedia account to vote on this one (so pardon my newness), as this game is a classic (that still lives on in the 'ur quan masters' version) and each race is so fleshed out and important to the gameplay that losing this information would make it almost impossible to find otherwise. And trying to explain these races to a friend (which is how I found this page) would be impossible without wikipedia short of having them spend a few hundred hours playing the game.Thephoenix5 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per prior arguments. I find your referring to something as non-notable without even bothering to give an example of why you consider it so moderately insulting to the topic in question. THis would be like deciding Klingons were non-notable.HalfShadow 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No single Star Control race has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This is the definition of notability in Wikipedia. Klingons and Star Control are notable, but the Star Control races are not.--Yannick 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 08:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Steal[edit]

Apparently fails notablity criteria for porn stars. w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'm sure she may be a treat in the buff (not that I'm inagining her naked), but on Wikipedia she's nothing to write an article about. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Corpx' discoveries of not one, but two awards. I'm not sure about the notability of those awards, but just the fact that she's won two awards of any kind may be enough to pass here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, but succeeds in exciting TenPoundHammer :P Giggy _U^CP 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I just said "May be"... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was funny. the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. The subject in question had won any adult movie awards. She has also not yet made any unique contributions to any pornographic film. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Fails all notability criteria, not covered in secondary sources, etc. etc. Valrith 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep !!! She's pretty famous! She won Best new StarletADULT LINK! and Starlet of the year ADULT LINK! Definitely passes WP:PORNBIO Corpx 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that those are Night Moves awards, not AVN awards. Not much notability there... Valrith 03:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but she's a "contract girl", meaning she has an exclusive contract with a company. Only the bigger names have exclusive contracts with companies. Corpx 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How notable is the Night Moves Awards anyway. I've never really heard of it? Is it notable under Wikipedia's standards? If not, then they don't really count here. Where's its WP article? --w^L^{<speak·check>} 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Its been going on for 14 or 15 years, so that should attest some notability Corpx 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It almost goes against something in my genetics to delete this article. I need some consensus here: are these notable awards? the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the rub. Tabercil 03:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have independent, apparently reliable sources. This seems to make her notable. JulesH 12:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. I'm sure if she works hard, she can win an AVN Award and deserve an article, but until then Wikipedia must consider her to be one actress among thousands in a large worldwide industry. To the previous editor JulesH: we have independent reliable sources of the actresses EXISTENCE, but that's not what's in question. I can prove that I exist as well, but that doesn't mean I deserve an article in the encyclopedia. -Markeer 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N and WP:BIO both use a definition of notability that suggests that the existence of significant reliable independent sources about a person makes them notable. WP:PORNBIO explicitly doesn't override this definition, it just provides clarification. This person meets the definition of notable at WP:N and WP:BIO. JulesH 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your definition of "significant" is woefully inadequate. Try www.m-w.com. There is no significant coverage of this person in independent sources. Valrith 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need to look up significant. Its already defined in WP:N as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Corpx 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to have won an award. -- fdewaele, 22 July 2007, 18:11 (CET)
Delete - winning an award from "Florida's Premier Adult Magazine" doesn't seem significant enough to me to automatically meet WP:PORNBIO and I see nothing else to tip the scale. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a fair summary? Krystal Steal has won an adult film award; this is documented by at least a few reliable, independent sources. However, there is still some discussion as to whether this is a "well-known" award (to borrow the phrase from WP:PORNBIO). Corpx has suggested that these awards have been going on for 15 years, but even the Night Moves home page describes themselves as limited to one US state.
A couple of questions: anybody wanna step up an make an article about Night Moves or the Night moves awards? (Neither currently exists.) Does anyone know of any sources that describe the Night Moves awards as "well-known" or "significant" or some other superlative? PornWatcher 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this AFD hinges on the notability of the Night Moves awards. I'd say yes due to the 15 year tenure, plus the national coverage it received from porn coverage sites like AVN.com Corpx 05:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a subject of significant coverage in at least one reliable source, AVN, and I'm sure others could be dug up somewhere, or NightMoves could count as a second reliable source. Does it help that her film Krystal Method is listed in The AVN Guide to the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time? Might this satisfy the WP:PORNBIO criterion "Did the performer star in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature?" Also she is the first ClubJenna contract girl, which might satisfy "Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?" This isn't some random porn starlet we're talking about here. She might be at the fringes of notability as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, but I think she is definitely notable in a real-world sense. DHowell 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake & Josh In New York![edit]

Not confirmed by any offical source. Clearly states in article "Nothing is known about this movie". --Caldorwards4 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seriously, people.... just because IMDb lists it doesn't mean it's good to go yet. What if the film gets axed at some point? What if the title's changed? Et cetera. There's just nothing there yet, so chill out for a while until we know more than the film's title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SD per above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Nothing is known about the movie." - WP:CRYSTAL Giggy _U^CP 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If we want to keep or (if deleted) re-create the article, please give official sources. Big top 05:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL until some more info is released. Useight 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead sentences says it all.--JForget 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp. per Giggy and JForget. Bearian 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another user kept insisting that IMDB had the release date wrong, and in good faith, I spent a solid 15 minutes looking for any kind of vaguely reliable source so we could get the whole thing straightened out. Nada. A couple of entertainment rags repeated the IMDB info. Nothing on the official site. I suspect the whole thing may even just be a rumor that developed out of some kids talking in an internet forum (most of the hits were from forums). The original article said a lot more than "Nothing is known about this movie," but that was the only text that remained once I trimmed all the unsourced speculation. --Jaysweet 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahniom Ki Kahani[edit]

Supposed upcoming Indian remake of A Tale of Two Sisters (at least so far as I can make out), which is unreferenced and gets a whopping 10 google hits. PC78 02:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the whopping 5 ghits (excluding hits to Wikipedia and its mirrors) it would appear there's nothing but a few rumors about this movie, and not even widespread ones. Someguy1221 02:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V - minimal, irrelevant, ghits. Giggy _U^CP 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with reason "empty". Non-admin close. cab 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article survived deletion review claiming that there were sources to assert its notability. It's steadily gone downhill. It's now a mere shell with a product/feature listing. If it weren't for the AfD/DRV history, I'd probably speedy delete it as a non-notable website. As it is, notability per WP:WEB is not proven. There are no assertions in the body of the article about the notability and no sources cited in the article itself to support the notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yikes. Be careful googling this thing, there're like 500 other Timways out there... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 76,000 Yahoo hits--but not a reliable source among them. Blueboy 96 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete In the time given since DRV, nothing happened. Effectively a db-repost, since there hasn't been an attempt to improve it at all. There were copyvios though.... Giggy _U^CP 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A source [56] has been left on the talk page which contains detailed analysis of the characteristics of queries given to them. On this basis, I'd suggest no prejudice against recreation as a non-copyvio article. (I voted for deletion on the last AfD, but changed my mind mainly due to the above source). cab 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If there are sources, then the article is the correct place for the information and the references, not the talk page or the Deletion Review page. This article has been given more than enough opportunity to assert its subject's notability, and those interested in it have failed to do so. Without evidence of notability in the article, the Wikipedia policy is to assume no notability and to delete. Hu 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oldest Living Nobel Laureates[edit]

I think this is in the "not a collection of indiscriminate information" area when we're making a list of a group of people by their current age Corpx 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, as noted by nom. But how on earth did you find this? XD Giggy _U^CP 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) :) Corpx 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recreation of recently AfD'd material in new (and improved) format (enough of a difference to negate speedy). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity from May 2007. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a WikiAlmanac to transwiki this to? 70.55.91.131 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft.--JForget 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate, irrelevant. --Folantin 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate trivia. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely defined trivia, lacking clear inclusion criteria. Wryspy 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it odd that we care more about old baseball players than we do old Nobel laureates? I think it's because these guys are already elderly by the time they get to Stockholm. Not a terribly interesting list. Cross-reference with list of atheist Nobel laureates to figure out which ones are not going to go to heaven. Mandsford 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 by Philippe. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Nickatina[edit]

Non-notable underground rapper. Only albums have been released by small-time label and a label he heads--thus failing WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His albums are self-published, so no evidence of notability there. The article mentions his receiving two awards, but there's no evidence provided that these awards make him pass the notability requirement. Someguy1221 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete albums are self published (strike 1), references not run by artist are not provided for any claims (strike 2), reads like vanity band spam (strike 3). AND the clincher? Fair Use cover gallery! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NHRHS2010^Talk 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a totally non-notable underground artist. Utter failure of WP:MUSIC. Possibly a ((db-band)) candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he heads a record label (albeit a minor one) is the only reason why I didn't slap a speedy tag on that article. Nonetheless, he doesn't even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was not-so-speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley Model Railway Club[edit]

Just a local hobby club like very, many others. A GSearch here produced no secondary sources attesting to the notability of the club. This is a joint nomination with Chatham & District Model Railway Club. Again, nothing interesting in the GHits here. Delete both. TerriersFan 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no evidence appears upon searching for it. Someguy1221 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks fun but it's entirely original research. Only ref is the subject's webpage. the_undertow ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N and WP:NOT#MYSPACE (and probably WP:OR). -- MarcoTolo 03:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Giggy _U^CP 03:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable group. Corvus cornix 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete group with no claim of notability in the article. Even though it's a very small stub, you really get the sense that even the author is really struggling to find anything interesting to say about them to pad it out, with the meat of the article being a (short) list of places they used to meet, including a garage and someone's flat over a shop and Zzzz... Ooops, sorry, nodded off there for a moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement[edit]

The article, being a reproduction of an essay, fails WP:OR. Mendors 00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article is curiously similar to prose by Lyndon LaRouche, and, I suspect a large number of people. It would be an good addittion to an article on this style of political discourse, which makes sweeping generalizations about things over a long span of history Cinnamon colbert 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research? Hardly. It's a quote. As such, it is very unoriginal. --DaleEastman 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for public domain material. the_undertow ^talk 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource, then delete. Wikisource is the repository of public domain material mentioned above. —C.Fred (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misinformed or malicious political essay. It wasn't the socialist part of national socialism that was bad. It was the exploitation of nationalism that led people to not question their leadership. (You're either with us or against us - sound familiar?) ~ Infrangible 02:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As specious as the above arguments for censorship may be, it is important to remember censorship was a primary component of Fascism, Communism and Socialism. The above arguments even bolster Knudsen's case that Fascism is a form of Leftism rather than refute it. --68.212.6.230 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisouce as mentioned above - the place for public domain stuff Corpx 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How do we know this is public domain besides the claim on the article page? The linked page says "Copyright © 1999 - 2007 All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front]. ". Corvus cornix 04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote on the webpage is incorrect - this essay is not property of the website. However, I have seen no proof that the author ever released this into the public domain. the_undertow ^talk 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the first three sentences belong in Wikipedia. This is not the place to reproduce essays in their entirety; the copyright status is actually irrelevant. The article on the author Povl Riis-Knudsen covers the essay, including a quote, so this article is superfluous. Emeraude 12:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the copy/paste section , the rest I remain neutral.--JForget 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This fails policy in so many ways: for starters there 's no assertion of notability, this is obvious soapboxing, it's a huge chunk of "primary source" with only the tiniest figleaf of explanation at the top, there's a possible copyvio etc. etc. This is blogfodder pure and simple and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Nej tak! --Folantin 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More on notability: this Povl Riis-Knudsen character gets precisely 241 Google hits, so I doubt whether we should be hosting his "literary works". His Wiki bio is hardly based on objective, reliable sources either. I suggest it's another one for the chop. --Folantin 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Soapboxing/OR by an embarrassment to our country. MartinDK 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete OR, intrinsically POV, copyvio, impossible to maintain. We might have a record here. Rama 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Soapboxing POV for National socialism. Acroterion _(talk) 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Outrageous soapboxing+non notable author. @ MartinDK: morons are born everywhere. Besides this twit and Drama Queen, your great country has mighty little to be ashamed of ;-) --Targeman 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's snowing on Hitler's grave right now. Bearian 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might belong on Wikisource or not, but that's another debate. NawlinWiki 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just reprinting somebody's words is not Wikipedia is about. Covered adequately in Povl Riis-Knudsen article. Keresaspa 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Everyking 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep Giggy _U^CP 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Kleinenberg[edit]

Reasons the page should be deleted: WP:VSCA and WP:NPOV. As an aside, Kleinenberg isn't notable enough to be listed in his home country's (NL) edition of Wikipedia. Here on the EN site we have great self-promotion. Iterator12n ^Talk 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep other wikis don't determine notability, and besides the article is well established enough to prove his nobility, which itself isn't necessarily a factor for articles in wikipedia. BrenDJ 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Just because he's not on his country's wiki doesn't mean he's not notable. I count quite a few reliable sources here, including an AMG profile -- even if he doesn't meet any other criterion of WP:MUSIC, he does seem to have WP:MUSIC's first criterion ("has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.") nailed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to vanilla keep per other users' comments. This may become a WP:SNOW-job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep, he is a very well-known DJ. He plays in many clubs throughout Europe and Miami, plenty of references. very notable as a DJ. Callelinea 01:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesn't really have anything to do with whether a topic has a Wikipedia article, in English or Dutch. Many non-notable topics have articles, many notable ones don't. I don't really see any serious NPOV problems with this article, and I don't think deletion would be an appropriate response if there were any.--P4k 01:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NHRHS2010^Talk 01:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH. This and this and this here indicate that the 3rd parties are writing about him. the_undertow ^talk 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keeping, no consensus to delete. Until (1 == 2) 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours Emotionally[edit]

Delete - This is non notable film [57].--Sov3 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No respected reviews. I couldn't find the one the New York Times supposedly ran, and the rest I checked seem to be either gay or alternative papers of little note. Abstain due to Scarykitty's comments. Not being able to locate the NYT review put me in a suspicious frame of mind. Clarityfiend 08:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~. No sources besides the production company's link to the trailer. Fails notability.Archon of Atlantis 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a news source is a "gay or alternative papers" does not mean it is of little note. The standard for notability is coverage by independent sources. This film was chosen for the LGBT Film Festivals of San Francisco, New York and Amsterdam, practically the trifecta of gay life on this planet. In general, being chosen for film festivals is what establishes notability of independent films depicting sub cultures or themes that won't make their way into mainstream theaters. Further, the LGBT film festival season is just starting, so an inquiry into the future screeings of this film is warranted before voting for deletion. Finally, the NYT website is a bit screwy. If you search on "Yours Emotionally" in Movies (not movie listings), something does come up, but when you click on it, you are returned to the main Movies page. So I don't think the NYT link on the page is meant to be misleading. Other reviews are hampered by most online media's tendency to be put behind a pay-per-view subscription after a few weeks. I would suggest to other editors that they add the proper source information for the reviews (e.g., author, title, publication and date), and not just the links. Scarykitty 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree that the credibility of a source is not dependent on its mainstream appeal, however, I contend that stand-alone film reviews does not establish notability. As of this time, there are currently 13 user-submitted ratings for this film on the Internet Movie Database. Another film centered around an alternative lifestyle, and could generally be assumed to be viewed by the same LGBT community, A Home at the End of the World, has 4,362 user-submitted ratings at the Internet Movie Database. While no single source could be considered a litmus test for notability, this apparent difference in the awareness of the target communinity to the film's existance is disturbing. I am going to hold my vote per Scarykitty until the LGBT film festival has an opportunity to establish notability. Archon of Atlantis 05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Shopping Center[edit]

Does not assert why this mall is important. There are hardly any stores in it at present, and it doesn't look like it's going to be particularly big. Fourohfour 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With two stores only, it's hard to see why this is notable in any way.--JForget 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly non notable (ugh) "bix box" center. Like the world needs another Kohl's or Starbucks... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although I agree with the first part, I assume that the second comment wasn't meant as a reason for deletion. (FWIW I agree with you, but we obviously can't let our personal opinions in unless it affects notability). Fourohfour 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My comment about not needing another Kohl's wasn't a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Two stores isn't enough. Big top 19:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article's subject patently fails WP:N and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thousands of other big box centers just like it. Acroterion _(talk) 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Every city has one just like it. Bearian 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M4 corridor[edit]

no sources, sounds a lot like a Year 11's Geography essay - I did the same thing (M4 corridor) when I took Geography, and this reads like a stock answer. Will ^(talk) 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? You haven't given a meaningful reason for deletion. It's a decent start on a legitimate topic. This is a very widely used term in the UK. Mowsbury 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks as if it deperatly needs sourcing. If sourcing can be found keep it. However, if not found with in a decent period of time repropose for deletion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Totally legit topic, invalid reasons for deletion given. Article simply needs a cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. When the nominator says he had to study the subject at school you know notability is not exactly the problem. Article is no worse a start than many good articles had, but clearly needs improvement. Johnbod 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason at all to delete this article. --Targeman 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well known region of the UK. There are much more obscure places, people, etc, with articles on Wikipedia. Marky-Son 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, as notable, just needs more cites. Bearian 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid subject, problem content. WP:SOFIXIT Dhaluza 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early close, keep. While egregious copyright violations qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12, this article does not. Since the only stated concern behind this nomination has been addressed, I am closing it as a keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kattankudi mosque massacre[edit]

egregious copyright violations in article Will ^(talk) 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed one paragraph which was a copyvio. Haven't found the rest on Google - there is probably enough left for a valid stub. Iain99 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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