< July 4 July 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

James Nichols (Murder Suspect)[edit]

James Nichols (Murder Suspect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
James Nichols (Murder Suspect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Cheers, JetLover 04:43, 5 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. Redirected to AAA. — Scientizzle 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TripleA[edit]

TripleA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beta software. The only referenced independent sources are a review on a blog and a review on an infrequently-updated, likely self-published website. (The links to Freshmeat and Apple Mac OS X Downloads are not independent sources, since those sites merely post information submitted by the developer.). In summary, there's nothing here that seems to meet WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:N. Psychonaut 00:07, 6 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. While it seems plausible that among internet memes of a few years ago this was of possible note, it's clear that the article in current form fails WP:V because of its extraordinarily vague citations. Failing this policy makes the inability to address WP:N secondary. No prejudice against recreation & reevaluation if said references can be clarified & verified. — Scientizzle 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Chicks in Party Hats[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fat Chicks in Party Hats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references and no real claims to notability. Has stuck around on Wikipedia for years but ultimately has become a non-notable internet meme. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:27, 5 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. Anas talk? 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherhead Fire Station[edit]

Leatherhead Fire Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion as I believe it does not come up to the standards required by WP:NOTE. I would suggest that the best of it be merged into appropriate sections in Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Leatherhead. I have contacted an admin over this (off-wiki) and he agrees that it is not notable enough to justify a page of its own. - Vox Humana 8' 23:05, 5 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. WaltonOne 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Buena[edit]

Aneta Buena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially flagged for speedy deletion, I believe the subject does have some notability. While notability is not inherited (through her work with Ewa Sonnet and Ines Cudna, she has been prolific within her genre.)- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? Addhoc 23:26, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blueback (novel)[edit]

Blueback (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability - Are we to have an article for every short novel with a notable author? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as several reviews and works of criticism related to the novel. As I've mentioned before, material on Australian literature is not widely available on the net, and won't always show up on google searches. Recurring dreams 03:06, 8 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. Anas talk? 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film) the sequel[edit]

Transformers (film) the sequel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, sounds like its just rumours at this point, the original film JUST came out, less than a week ago to be percise. WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia is not IMDB or Filmrumors.com Rackabello 22:40, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent[edit]

The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a hoax. There are zero references on Google to "The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent" that do not come from this article. The ebay link goes to [1], which doesn't seem to have any bearing on this supposed society. Nothing for "Golden Books of Venetian Nobility" except another Wikipedia article written by the same author, which I have put the "hoax" tag on. I asked if the other two references mentioned this society and was told that they did, but as they're not available for me to peruse, based on the other supposed references, I must assume bad faith. This is a continuation of an edit war at List of collegiate secret societies, in which multiple anonymous editors don't like the idea of being required to produce sources. Corvus cornix 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found further evidence related to what is becoming increasingly obvious as a hoax.

The same user who wrote the Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent Article, and created The Pugilist Club article, is also meddling with the Barbaro Family page. I found numerous inconsistencies with that SOSC (Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent) article which he attempted to explain away citing unnamed sources, or sources only he claims to have access to. He has edited my personal comments on the discussion page of that article in what appears to me to be an attempt to cover his mistakes. In the discussion page of his SOSC article he has referenced pugilism, Amelia Earhart, the Wright Brothers, and a letter by Daniel Russell to a Bro. Chase, a letter which is also cited in his article on the alleged Skull and Crescent Order as being one of their prized artifacts. The citing of this letter was the final straw for me. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I found that letter quite amazingly and coincidentally while researching Theta Nu Epsilon on ebay of all places, it became clear that the article on the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent was founded mainly, if not wholly, on this individual's fantasies. That letter can still be found on ebay by putting 200101453405, the item number into the ebay search. When I casually confronted the author of the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent wikipedia article with this, he initially presented a fantastic notion that perhaps the SOSC members were engaging in the ruse of selling their sacred artifacts to themselves in order to make them look worthless. When I gave the ebay item number, then he quite suddenly and conveniently recalled that oh yes, he just remembered that in his unavailable source it says they reprinted copies of this letter for their members and that this must be one of those ultra rare reprints. The buyer (obviously the author of the Skull and Crescent article, The Pugilist Club, and the bastardizer of the Barbaro Family page) left positive feedback for it. Any dullard can tell an original hand written letter from a copy, if it were a copy negative feedback would have been left. Now there is a link to the Ebay item cited as a source on the SOSC article. Upon looking into the publicly available links to items this same person purchased on the online auction site, I found many other fraternity related items as well as Amelia Earhart, Wright Brothers, and pugilism posters! Now I find the author's wikipedia alias is Tiki-Two. Well, that name is almost exactly what the ebay user who purchased this masonic letter uses!

I do not know what his motives are, but it seems he is building a hoax on wikipedia, probably as a teenager considering his use of vulgarity elsewhere, though perhaps as a member of a fraternity. It is also possible that he is building a collection of items that he intends to present and cite in articles as important artifacts of secret societies. As a relative outsider to wikipedia, I don't know what course to take, and really don't have the time to find out. I mainly enjoy reading wikipedia articles, not engaging in what to me is vain online argumentation.

I agree--There is no record anywhere else online of a Vitus Sebastian Barbaro that I can find. There is no record anywhere else online of The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent either. There is no record of a "Pugilist Club" aka "Fight Club" at Purdue anywhere else online.

We can almost certainly expect more hoaxes from this individual.

This won't be the only place I send the above information. Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com July 5, 20:24 PST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.249.234 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 July 2007.


Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com --76.83.249.234 05:30, 6 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. Anas talk? 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford-Dunwoody Road[edit]

Ashford-Dunwoody Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this road article notable nationally?? I suggest someone should be able to explain this article's notability for a non-local encyclopedia. Georgia guy 22:37, 5 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? 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk/Reward[edit]

Risk/Reward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD was bulldozed by the author. No significant assertion of notability (e.g. film reviews). Shalom Hello 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Monitor Review New York Times Review

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Nitrate Prize[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Digital Nitrate Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Still non-notable; only Google hits are itself, related online discussion groups, and the Buffalo Intl Film Festival (created by the same person) -- MightyWarrior 22:09, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fog City Hammerheads[edit]

Fog City Hammerheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable youth swimming club. Was tagged for speedy delete and I originally speedied, then restored (after protest by author) because it does assert one notable alumnus. I don't think that's enough, though. NawlinWiki 22:04, 5 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.
Closure overturned at DRV; relisted at AfD. Non-administrators should never close discussions this early. Xoloz 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, obvious consensus here. I should also echo the fact that bringing a brand-new article to AfD isn't usually a good idea. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWest Airlines flight 5741[edit]

SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable plane crash. No injuries. No sources, though the bottom half of the article, at least, looks as if it was copied from somwhere (some extraneous footer material left bedhind), though I have been unable to find the source. What makes this incident encyclopedia article worthy? Corvus cornix 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is it usual practice to AfD an article after only 2 edits, and only ONE minute after it's creation? I'm sorry, but the creator made 19 edits after that within the first 40 minutes, and addressed most of your concerns. The nominator should be investigated to see if such knee-jerk nominations are his usual method of operation. Perhaps he should be assigned to hand copy the WP:AGF guidleine 100 times. :) Seriously, Wikipedia is always a wrok in progress, and sufficient time should be allowed for an editor to complete what he started in a reasonable omount of time. One minute is certainly not reasonalbe. - - BillCJ 23:37, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-Head[edit]

Pointless and very trivial list that violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:LISTCRUFT. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 21:28, 5 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. NawlinWiki 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Fortuna[edit]

Diana Fortuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:26, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing My Edge CJLO[edit]

Losing My Edge CJLO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for lack of notability since January, created by since-abandoned SPA, orphaned, and no ghits except from parent website and Wikipedia mirrors. Carson 21:22, 5 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. Sr13 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms based on the word cube[edit]

List of terms based on the word cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Quite pointless article created in early days by myself. `'Miikka 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History.

OK. Seeing a pleasantly ovewhelming consensus to kill this realy strange list, and on the verge of its Last and Ultimate Edit I will tell you how it came into being.
It happened in early days of Wild Wikipedia when anons were strong and policies were weak. When a single page could have contained several articles, and a person who could correctly spell "disambiguation" was readily promoted to the glorious status of SysOp (only Jimbo the Jumbo was above and beyond)... Leisurely eyeballing things of none of my business, in best wikiholical traditions, I noticed that throughout 2003 Someones Anonymous were persistently introducing the Time Cube cookery into the pitiful Cube article, while named editors equally laborously deleted it. And suddenly I saw the Tao and it was Jujutsu, and I created Cube (disambiguation) for normal wikipedians and List of terms based on the word cube as a bait for the Time Cubed ones. And it worked! `'Miikka 00:13, 10 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 - not a very strong consensus, but a perponderance of keeps to deletes, combined with policy-based arguments on (one) keep results in a keep. Cheers, WilyD 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Coaly[edit]

Old Coaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A mule who helped build the Penn State student union in the 1800's. While he played an important part, he is not worthy in and of himself of an encyclopedia article. The Evil Spartan 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, inclusion in a WikiProject is a poor reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, the information from articles on several Penn State buildings and the Willard Preacher were merged into other, more significant articles. Same thing should happen here. --Spangineerws (háblame) 21:43, 6 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, sources aren't reliable enough, notability not demonstrated. Feel free to repost if you can find better sources. NawlinWiki 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Kage[edit]

Ethan Kage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person appears to be non-notable, and there is no evidence that he meets the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Prod removed with comment "removing prod, I'll fix the article later", but with no indication of how this person is notable. FisherQueen (Talk) 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Within gay culture, often times porn stars become gossip subjects, and become known for more than just their on-screen presence. There is an anonymous editor that has been sending quite a few of these articles to deletion and I don't have time to get the appropriate information for each of them at the same time. I would appreciate a bit more time to get things done. I can assure you that there are a few articles written about him, and thus satisfies WP:BIO. Thank you. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. He's right; I have seen quite a few porn actors tagged for speedy deletion lately. I did change the speedy-deletion tag to a prod to give you time to add the needed sources, because I wasn't convinced he met the speedy criteria, but when a prod is removed before the problem is solved, my practice is to send the article to AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, CaveatLector. I see just one editor has asked for more time; two sources have been named but neither is reliable (as also noted by Corpx): one is gossip, the other, blog; and, the number of hits a subject scores on a google search is a measure of interest in, and, hence, notability of, the subject, especially as compared to others in the same industry (as noted by The Evil Spartan). And those hits are to gay porn-cruft like sites. It's simple: Ethan Kage is not notable. Delete this article. 72.76.2.40 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refresh my memory, why are leading sites in their fields discounted as reliable sources because of labels that you are placing on them? The point is that there IS information AND sources out there to be used in this article. IHAVENTHEARDOFIT is not a check for notability (nor for reliability for that matter), and if we judge information by how many google hits something gets, we wouldn't have talked about French military victories at all before google fixed its google bomb problems. CaveatLectorTalk 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and IHAVEHEARDOFHIM and WP:ILIKEIT aren't good reasoning either. The fact is that there are paltry mentions of this man, and he abysmally fails WP:PORNBIO. This comes nowhere near the mentions by "multiple non-trivial third part sources" - thus not passing WP:BIO either. And that is good policy. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sites being used to attempt to assert notability are gossip and blog -- it's what they are. Gossip and blog are not reliable sources, whether or not they're "leading sites in their fields" -- which neither of these is. Nothing better can or will be found because there's nothing else. This guy's not notable and he doesn't warrant an article. 72.76.98.153 18:12, 9 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. Anas talk? 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water engine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Water engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a fringe theory with no assertion of notability. (Note that neither 'Carl Cella', his band 'Rampage', or the journal mentioned here, 'Psychadelic Illuminations', are notable enough to have articles themselves.) The article is utterly unsourced, with the exception of a link to an article written by Mr. Cella himself, who can hardly be considered 'reliable'. It admits 'accurate documentation of the engine is hard to find on the Internet', suggesting that even the page author is unable to find supporting material. If any evidence of notability/verifiability can be found, the claims here could be merged into Water-fuelled car. Terraxos 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm seeing lots of talk about this on the internet in blogs and fringe-theory sites, most of it coming from Cella himself, but nothing I could call a reliable source. If it is kept, it'll need to be rewritten from the reliable sources to make it clearer that the thing doesn't actually work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerissa Sugars[edit]

Nerissa Sugars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NN. No ascertation of notability, unnotable role in news broadcast. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 20:25, 5 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. Sr13 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Heights Elementary[edit]

Villa Heights Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. This elementary school does not assert any notability at all. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:17, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalcycles[edit]

Nationalcycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly added only as an advert for the company - user has also been inserting links to other, even unrelated articles. No citation. Edited to say: similar pages created by this user have been speedily deleted, and the user was warned not to recreate them. Stephenb (Talk) 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable sources to assert notability, and nothing to confirm their claim to be the number two online cycle retailer by volume in Britain, nor am I convinced that claim, if true, would make the company notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:24, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fout[edit]

Fout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is likely a hoax. There is no evidence that such a drink exists. Article is a new editor's only edits. The only editors who have edited the article are SocialAnthropologist27 (talk · contribs) and an anonymous user. Article's citations, several of which are 404 errors, do not establish that such a drink exists. Contrary to the claims of the article, chinanowmag.com does not reference 'fout' — goethean ॐ 19:37, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles the Bear[edit]

Bubbles the Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Sub-stub that makes no attempt to show notability, let alone to establish such. TexasAndroid 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some sarcasm for the rationale trolls. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:54, 6 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. WaltonOne 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Panic![edit]

Zombie Panic! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mod with no assertion of real-world notability. As far as I can tell, not subject of any third-party review or commentary. No mention of notability despite presence of ((notability)) tag for three weeks. EEMeltonIV 19:16, 5 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 (CSD A1) —Xezbeth 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocifers[edit]

The Ocifers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small-town incident, with no evidence it really happened. Katharineamy 19:08, 5 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. Sr13 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GWAR Enemies & Victims[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GWAR Enemies & Victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of people that are considered enemies of GWAR. Doesn't assert how any of this information is notable, and lacks reliable sources. If kept, needs a rewrite to fit the Manual of Style, as currently it reads more like prose than an encyclopedic article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they were a paramilitary organizasation. then maybe we might be allowed to nuke them into orbit (have you by now guessed that I don't like GWAR?) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:36, 5 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 to Super-heavy tank. Anas talk? 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-heavy tank[edit]

Ultra-heavy tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unclear basis for existence, little unique content, already merged into super-heavy tank  —Michael Z. 2007-07-05 18:59 Z 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the purpose of a redirect, to guide people from erroneous terms to a correct one.--Victor falk 08:17, 9 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, default to Keep. WaltonOne 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of selected cities by population density[edit]

List of selected cities by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has no defined criteria for inclusion, and as such, is useless as a list. From WP:LIST - “Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria”. The article's ambiguous title means it can't provide this. Further, the article is predominantly unsourced, and I believe the calculation of the population densities by users (as stated at the top of the article) can be considered original research. Hammer Raccoon 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but define criteria. --DodgerOfZion 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has some potential to become an interesting list although could certainly do with clarification of the criteria for inclusion. PatGallacher 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just delete this and create a new page, e.g List of cities by population density, or something to that effect? Hammer Raccoon 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be far too large; this list is for more well-known cities, and besides, it isn't like this page is a lost cause. --DodgerOfZion 20:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that page would be too large, so only the top however many cities would be listed - much like the article List of cities by population. But the reason that this article should be deleted is inherent in the title; there is no basis for inclusion or exclusion in the list. Where in the article does is say that "this list is for more well-known cities"? Hammer Raccoon 20:54, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is compromised of WP:OR and does not serve any encyclopedic value. Original AFD survived as most keep votes were because "it's interesting" Article should be deleted --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - addressing specifically the "cheapens" aspect of your argument, I find that unacceptably POV here. A list of fictional charatcers who have done or achieved a particular feat has no impact on real people who have done the same feat. Otto4711 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it drive the plot? Fabricating his and the squad's memories to support the MOH citation is a major plot driver. The status accorded a MOH winner is a major plot driver. Raymond's specific status as a MOH winner opens doors for him in both the novel and film. Otto4711 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I dont agree with the existence of those lists either, they're real world subjects. Categorizing details like this in fiction seems extremely trivial Corpx 01:52, 9 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 to Dilemma. Anas talk? 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't[edit]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is unsourced, poorly written and does a horribly job of demonstrating the phrase in question. It needs to be deleted, or if not deleted, needs to be rewritten badly The Clawed One 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's no paradox here: you're just damned :-) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yep. It was a ref to this Simpsons episode. Redirect to dilemma too! Lugnuts 05:41, 6 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, fails WP:V; see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Music / Hevanely Beans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Horror Music / Hevanely Beans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability & Unverified; This article seems to be one of episodes in Camp Lazlo. the creator may have had confidence in the information. However it is unknown, and it cannot be verified now. (fake info?) If its infomation is true, its information is too early yet to separate and it can be contained in List of Camp Lazlo episodes at present.--Mujaki 18:36, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Blumenfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amir Blumenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

seems that this page has already gone through an afd in 2005 and has been recreated. Non notable person, no external references apart from his own website. no encyclopaedic article. Possible speedy?. Also picture Image:Amir-Blumenfeld.jpg which only links to this page should be deleted Greatestrowerever 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Urban golf. WaltonOne 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Golf[edit]

Campus Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - this is just another name for "Urban golf". I don't deny that this activity exists, but the name is just a local variation and isn't significant in and of itself. If not delete, then at least merge this with "urban golf", but that idea has met with unexplained resistance. Rklawton 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom - this game is similar to urban golf but not at all the same thing. This game has spread to college campuses across America and is known only as Campus Golf and not as Urban Golf. I believe that you will have several Wikipedia people search out a link to Campus Golf who have never heard of Urban Golf. Please believe me when I tell you that playing in city streets is not the same thing as on a college campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.114.51 (talk)

Nom - Many years ago, when I was a student at Baylor University, we use to have students travel from universities all across the country to play our course. We even sent Baylor players up to Kansas university for a Big 12 campus golf tourney. This is a game that carries its own traditions and has its own heritage. The only similarities I see to Urban Golf is that it's a form of golf. I think wikipedia would be wise to continue the campus golf page and watch loyal players from across the country fill in its unqiue rules, forms and traditions. I challenge you to google campus golf and see it's many sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.114.51 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- we need actual sources, not just a count of Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omniglot[edit]

Omniglot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a useful and cool website, but I don't see that it meets WP:WEB. I can't find non-trivial media coverage. The article cites only one review of the site, hosted at Bowdoin College, which seems to be a reprint of material from the American Library Association newsletter. The site has no indication of major awards. Therefore, even though I like the site, I suspect that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since "omniglot" is an English word used independently of the website, I have to doubt that all 300,000 of those hits are relevant here. However, if some of them are from reliable sources, they would be useful. I did a Google search before starting this AfD (as well as a Lexis-Nexis search, and a Google Scholar search), and didn't come up with useful sources. It's entirely possible that I missed something, though, so if anyone can find some independent, non-trivial coverage of the website, please let us know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yahoo! test confirms status of notability here for a search of "Omniglot web site -Wikipedia" returns almost 100,000 hits. Alexa turns up 88,000. Gogle also has many.bibliotheque (Talk) 11:16, 9 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Beach Sound[edit]

Cherry Beach Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant COI article was created by User:Guerrieri who's username matches the last name of the studio founder/owner. After that was speedied it was recreated by User:Cherrybeachsound. Appears to be a self promotion article that doesn't provide any proof of notability, and often reads like an advert. Delete Improbcat 17:18, 5 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 Anthony.bradbury. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herman goebbels[edit]

Herman goebbels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article looks like a duplicate of Joseph Goebbels. Shalom Hello 17:13, 5 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 salted. Anas talk? 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not For Your Ears[edit]

Not For Your Ears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been deleted and recreated no less than 4 times (twice as speedy; twice as PROD). Recently recreated, PROD'd, and de-PROD'd, it's time that this had a full discussion. This is a bootleg with no inherent demonstration of notability per WP:MUSIC; i.e. there is not sufficient independent coverage of this to demonstrate that it is any way a notable part of the musicians' discography... I'd say it should be deleted. Isotope23 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://evanescencereference.info/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page . This has everything evanescence in one database including reasons not to download "You". HappiestCamper 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the forbidden Amy Lee song is mentioned, rightly or wrongly, in passing in the Amy Lee article. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine that "You" is mentioned in the Amy Lee article as it is a song by her. But thanks for telling me about it anyway HappiestCamper 18:46, 7 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. NawlinWiki 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Salamander[edit]

Frost Salamander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was Listed as "Too Obscure" in a Prod, but since there's a large catalog of these things that may be affected I think it should go to AfD. IMO this entire category should go into a list CredoFromStart talk 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support Listifying the more obscure ones, but notable D&D monsters of that type, such as the Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons) should retain their articles. I feel I was a bit hasty in creating this article. Accept my apologies. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Levey[edit]

Nikolai Levey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This guy has no kind of notability, he scores 0 on the google test of notability with less than a hundred hits [Nikolai Levey -wikipedia -answers -blog] . He produced an album and doesn't seem to have done much since. The article was prone to all kinds of rubbish and has never been sourced. If it is here to fill a red link from Coldplay a few details can be merged there. I move to Delete Mike33 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bif Bang Pow![edit]

Bif Bang Pow! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a company with no obvious claim of notability. Likely to be spam, as related edits were made by User:65.91.28.130, which is an IP owned by Entertainment Earth, a retailer of the Bif Bang Pow!'s product. This edits occurred just a few minutes before the creator of the article created their account and the creator has edited the same articles [6]. TigerShark 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prod'ed the article yesterday after the same observations, but later retracted the prod. While the sole editor's goal is clearly self-promotion, the article's been trimmed back to mostly factual stuff and it now does at least make an attempt to assert notability. I tried to engage the editor on his/her talk page but got no response, although he or she did appear to try to adhere to the requests I made (e.g. by not re-deleting the prod for example).
Okay, so what's my point in all this? I think notability is borderline, but Seethelittlegoblin seems to be amenable to leaving out the promotional stuff, so I don't see this article as being overly spammy anymore. So I don't think this article really hurts Wikipedia per se (though it's debatable whether or not it helps).
I don't really have an opinion either way on keep vs. delete. I just thought these comments might be useful to other editors in deciding which way to go. --Jaysweet 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thansk Jaysweet. I just wondered which parts of the article you feel possibly assert notability. All I can see is that they have created model for notable subjects, and they have shown them at a, probably, notable trade show. I wouldn't consider either of those to make the company or products notable themselves. Is there anything else? Cheers TigerShark 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions of notability I saw were: the association with Alex Ross, who is notable; the final sentence of the article proper saying that the Big Lebowski figures were featured at a Comic Con; and the three 3rd party articles in the references section (from IGN, Film Junk, and Action Figure Insider).
Now as to whether those assertions actually prove notability... I'm with you about the Comic Con, probably not. The 3rd party article, well, it's borderline. Action Figure Insider, probably not. IGN, well, I dunno, IGN is a pretty notable publication, but I'm not sure everything they cover is notable per se. I don't know anything about Film Junk.
The association with Alex Ross I think might be the strongest argument they have going. There doesn't seem to be any debate on Wikipedia as to whether he is notable, and if this is what he is doing now, maybe that makes sense. Maybe a merge with Alex Ross then?
Anyway, like I say, I'm definitely not voting keep. At best, this article is borderline. --Jaysweet 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Party[edit]

The Union Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article that may be a hoax (I could find no reliable sources on my own). Even if it does exist, it has no releases as yet so the article is just crystal ballery. Closenplay 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 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. WaltonOne 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Independence Party[edit]

Southern Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is about a tiny former U.S. political party, which was founded as a splinter group from the very small fringe Southern Party. Its head was a non-notable blogger. It has now disbanded, supposedly. It's unknown if they ever ran anyone for office. The article has no assertion of notability and no sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 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.

Eternal Daughter[edit]

The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispering 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 5 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.

Pambazuka News[edit]

The result was no consensus. CitiCat 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pambazuka News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - No assertion of notability, seemingly fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources for verification, also suspect a conflict of interest with the article creator. Prod removed without comment by aforementioned COI account. DarkSaber2k 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:00, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrox[edit]

Wardrox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sourced claims of notability found; a quick google search shows pretty much nothing but minimal data on open submission sites and forum posts, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 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. There's no referenced information to merge; when verifiable data becomes available it can be added to the main The Sims article. A Traintalk 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims:The Island[edit]

The Sims:The Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason: No references etc. Turk brown 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I said "you", I didn't mean you personally, but rather "you" in the general sense, ie: anyone. ie: someone could easily find sources and add them to the article, and possible add some more information on the game. With the filters that my job put on searches I would not be able to do as much as I would want to at this time. When I get home I could try to help clean it up. The question is this: Is it notable? Well, it appears to be a game for all the major consoles, and it is confirmed, so yes it is. It just needs to be expanded upon. Definitely not worthy of a deletion --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect (or just Delete). This is a couple of sentences about a potential game without any citation at all. Merge a sentence that it's planned (with an actual citation) to The Sims: Sequels and redirect this title there until there's something to actually say about the game. One of the reasons wikipedia is not a crystal ball is that funding for the project may fall through, the company making it could be bought out, the game itself might run into technical problems that cause a company to shelve it indefinitely, etc. At the moment it's something that maybe, possibly, could exist someday. If and when that day comes, I have little doubt someone will write an article about it, with reviews from periodicals that cover the gaming industry. Until then, this entire "article" is an uncited statement of intent. -Markeer 01:08, 6 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 ck lostsword•T•C 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mofunzone[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mofunzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. The website doesn't have reliable sources and doesn't meet the notability guideline WP:WEB. It survived an an earlier deletion discussion a year and a half ago, but all the "keep" arguments were based on Google hits and Alexa ranking, neither of which are indicators of notability and are flawed as described in WP:GOOGLE. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Squat[edit]

Rockin' Squat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Put up for speedy for notability, but did not seem 100% certain of NN status to me. But still, no independant sources are given for his notability. TexasAndroid 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (rap crew)[edit]

Assassin (rap crew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band with no sourcing to show notability, but IMHO just does not quite deserve speedy. The band's founder, Rockin' Squat, has been placed up separately for AFD. TexasAndroid 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame to remove Assassin from Wikipedia. It is a landmark in French hip-hop, the first french hip-hop band to be self-produced and not signing with the major labels (which might explain the lack of what you call "notability"). It is a reknown hip-hop crew in France and is still producing albums. See also http://www.assassin-connexion.net TheAnarcat 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 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 - per request on my talk page. De facto creator is asking for time to find sources and add to article. The Evil Spartan 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nittwits[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nittwits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable Penn State organization. While I appreciate all they've done for our university in promoting the basketball team, the fanclub of one of the more non-notable college basketball teams is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. One previous AFD was closed no consensus. The mentions they have in media are very fleeting. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 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 -- Y not? 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Management Body of Knowledge[edit]

Project Management Body of Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This text sounds like self-promotion or an attempt at marketing a product or concept on Wikipedia. Althena 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is one of the best references on the Project Management. I agree that the style of the article should be changed and the article itself should be extended, but the article should not be deleted. There is no self-promotion as this book is a collaborative work of many individuals. This book for project managers is like The Art of Computer Programming for programmers. Solarapex 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the deletion. Agree with changing the style. EyeMD T|C 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the deletion, is a must, for the Wikipedia. Agree also with style change and increase extension.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get extreme. Following this logic, articles like ANSI C, UML, and even HTML would have to be deleted as well, just because we don't want to have ISO standards in Wikipedia. I hear what you are saying, but let's sort out a few things:
  • Style and content - it seems everyone is agree that the style and content should be changed.
  • Title - not too many people know this standard by its numbers, PMBOK is a much more popular name. I have not seen yet any PM courses without mentioning PMBOK (note, that this courses were not conducted by PMI).
I think the tag 'Article requires cleanup' would be much more appropriate than 'AfD'. With the 'AfD' tag I have very minimal motivation to touch this article. Others may feel the same. It just doesn't make sense to spend time and make any significant changes knowing that the article may get deleted. Basically, the article is locked in a way it is now. In order to cut this knot I think we need to do three steps:
  1. Ask ourselves if PMBOK is significant enough to have an article in Wikipedia (without taking into account the style it is written now).
  2. If so, remove the AfD tag and
  3. Decide what this article should be like and work on improvement.
To me the coverage of the project management area would be weak without this article. Let's not judge significance of an article based solely on the style it is written. It may just need some improvement. Solarapex 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing in this discussion is that 7 wikipedias have an article on PMBOK with no intent to delete it, but some users on this Wikipedia think that this article should be deleted. Solarapex 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Wikipedias? do you mean wikipedias in other languages or other wikis? - that's not an argument for keeping it as the criteria for articles varies significantly between wikis. --Fredrick day 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant that. Nonetheless, this fact says something. Moreover, I don't think the the criteria for articles varies significantly between English and German (2nd) and French (3rd). Solarapex 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we are a general encyclopedia, and the chapter titles simply recapitulate information from the main article. DGG (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't cover a subject as broad as project management because "we are a general encyclopedia"? ➥the Epopt 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should cover it, and we do; we have the main article, into which this can be merged. I do say that we should not have a separate article about a handbook which provides no additional information, just listing the section headings which of course correspond to the main points about the subject. A reference in the main article would do. By your logic we expand every general reference in every article into a separate article of its own. DGG (talk) 03:35, 8 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. 
-- Y not? 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmutzige Euros 2[edit]

Schmutzige Euros 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. ProD tag deleted with no discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 5 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 unverifiable in reliable sources. · jersyko talk 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jones (wrestler)[edit]

Tony Jones (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your list basically comes down to four points which you repeat (three of which you repeat), "NCAA California Collegiate Champion" (there are hundreds of NCAA wrestlers without pages, and this alone is not enough to justify his page), Named to Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "PWI 500" from 1998-2005 (500 wrestlers means a lot are not notable), Held titles in All Pro Wrestling and Ultimate Pro Wrestling (A WWE affiliated "talent scout"/development territory) (essesntially winning an indy title does not make a wrestler notable), mentioned in "Beyond the Mat" (being seen in a film nine years ago does not make a wrestler notable, and if he was notable he would have been prominent in the WWE by now). Darrenhusted 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darren, the only thing I repeated was that he was featured in "Beyond the Mat" as that satisfies both "published source" and "enduring historical record" notability tests. While they're similar, the fact he competed in NCAA (satisfying "highest level of amateur sports") and won NCAA California Collegiate Championship ("recognized awards or honors") are different things. I'd agree that individually these accomplishments may not satisfy notability but when combined, and especially his being featured in a major documentary, the page should stay. For comparison, wikipedia features pages on both Arthur Agee and William Gates (from another documentary Hoop Dreams) who had arguably less success in their field than Tony Jones. Additionally, tagging me as a SPA is flash judgement and borders on a personal attack. My first edit was over a year ago in, surprise, a professional wrestling article. I happened to look up Tony while rewatching "Beyond The Mat" and felt motivated to contribute to prevent what I saw as a valid article from being deleted because he's not "notable enough". He satisfies several notability requirements, a lack of success is not a lack of notability. Sqweak 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoop Dreams is a not the same, Arthur and William were the subject of that film, Tony is not. And although Tony has had success there are very few NCAA wrestlers on this site (check the winning teams [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and APW is a wrestling school, not affiliated with WWE, and UPW only became affiliated with WWE last year. So if being in a film, being NCAA or wrestling for APW or UPW isn't enough to bring notability then what reason is there for his notability? Darrenhusted 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:53, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bungee boss[edit]

Bungee boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article claims the term was common, but cites no references. I'm not familiar with it outside the comic strip, and I believe it was only mentioned one or two times in the strip. Since this is not a dictionary of terminology, move for deletion. Konczewski 16:48, 5 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. Neil ╦ 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Shalheveth[edit]

Rami Shalheveth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO. i think this article does about as much as it can to establish rami shalheveth's notability and yet it still fails to establish it, convincingly. Misterdiscreet 18:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I think Bli Panika is fair game for deletion, too Misterdiscreet 04:29, 6 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. Neil ╦ 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis McCauley[edit]

Dennis McCauley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. being honored by a non-notable website (Next Generation) does not make you notable. Misterdiscreet 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:49, 5 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 by Rklawton. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hizzoner[edit]

Hizzoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously removed prodded article sent to Wiktionary (wikt:Transwiki:Hizzoner) and currently pending verification there. theProject 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:48, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macauplus[edit]

Macauplus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No PR [17], abysmal Alexa rank [18] Misterdiscreet 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not asserted, zero references. Pagerank and Alexa are not directly indicative of note. That said, no case for notability made in the article, zero citations and references, and almost all of the article is discussing rather generic-sounding aspects of the site in a border-line unencyclopedic manner. MrZaiustalk 15:51, 4 July 2007
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:48, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 11:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Leigh[edit]

Cynthia Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fandom personality DasGreggo 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo — DasGreggo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add cleanup tags. I'd also like to request a checkuser on the nom as it's edit history, or lack thereof, is rather odd. Jtrainor 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically. I could be wrong, but better safe than sorry. If it is a sock puppet, not like the page can't be renomed by someone else, after all. Jtrainor 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets aren't illegal, per se; it's the use of them in impermissible ways which is the problem. This isn't obviously a bad-faith nomination, and it isn't as if there's a string of SPAs involved in the discussion.  Ravenswing  17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even just one possible SPA should be noted. There doesn't have to be "a string of SPAs" for editors to take note.--Oakshade 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, not a sockpuppet. I'm a "big name fan" much like this person, and I've asked the people of the convention where I'm a "big name fan" at *not* to make a Wikipedia entry for me, because I'm not notable. Neither is this person. DasGreggo 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vietnamese Youth Organizations[edit]

History of Vietnamese Youth Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this article is a total cut-and-paste of a single section of History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations, with no new info Chris 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 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 -- Y not? 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadradius[edit]

Quadradius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. It's a reasonably well developed (Start-class), though. Anyhow, I'm nominating the article as a matter of process, as I feel discussion is needed if there were speedy tags on the page. Evilclown93(talk) 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The reviews are semi-impressive, but I get only 828 ghits for quadradius - pretty pathetic for a supposedly popular game. Out. Brianyoumans 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article was made by the creators of the game, I think, because it was chock-full of personal biographical info, but that's been (somewhat) removed. The article is altogether not that informative or useful, I guess. But I like the game. --Rebent

*Weak Delete: Isn't notable enough and the article isn't terribly encyclopaedic; it's either this or stubbify. --TheSeer - New statement below. (TalkˑContribs) 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To be more specific, the article is rather self-glorifying (almost like an ad, and it would be worse had large sections hadn't been torn out recently) and for a web based game it's ghit count is very low.
  • Comment. I'm unclear on the notability criteria for online games, but this one doesn't seem any more notable than most; having said that, searching 'quadradius' just gave me 15,600 Google hits, so I'm not sure where the 828 figure above came from. I don't know if that makes it notable enough for inclusion. Terraxos 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criteria yet, but because they're online games, I would expect it to have a fairly decent (err... large) amount of Google hits. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:19, 6 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 - based on the present state of the article. Let's see if it improves based on the statements of those proposing it should be kept. It needs attention. Tyrenius 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Smith (artist)[edit]

Mickey Smith (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Appears to be vanity article, or otherwise overly praising. Sources are all generic links to gallery web sites and such, with nothing on those links to verify author's claims. All other sources are primary. Only a handful of Google hits aside from her own site(s). Delete. Realkyhick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This entry was created to describe an artist, much like Alec Soth's wikipedia entry. It states facts much like those found on his entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherever (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if artist atatement is removed, it has no place in a encyclopedia. Callelinea 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could use more external sources, but the subject exists and appears notable enough for inclusion. I agree that the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone. Terraxos 23:39, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stevens[edit]

Walter Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Sources seem to be topic of the Mafia in general. Tried to search for this person on google using multiple different search terms, and could only find maybe one article that just mentioned his name in passing sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it is well written and sources. Just by mentioning the subject in the books means he was notable enough, and if he was arrested more then 200 times that also adds to his notability.. I really cannot see why this article was even nominated. Callelinea 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep iff sources can be found. Bigdaddy1981
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, could have been speedied as empty of content (category a1). NawlinWiki 04:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies II Soundtrack[edit]

Conspiracies II Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet-unreleased soundtrack to a yet-unreleased game; article doesn't even contain a full introductory sentence; non-existent track listing. The article on Conspiracies II contains more information than this page and even that isn't written in a style and tone befitting an encyclopedia. Cromag talk to me 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The soundtrack to a game that hasn't been released yet is about as non-notable as you can get (and violates Wikipedia's policy about future events). Terraxos 23:37, 5 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. A Traintalk 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Hand Wilson (film)[edit]

Lone Hand Wilson (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1920 silent film, described as "minor" in Allmovie entry. Orphaned and unimproved since article was created in Oct. 2006. NawlinWiki 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google results are not a reason, IMHO, to keep something on wiki. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to have all the information in the encyclopedia article and to not have to go elsewhere to find out basic info and notability. Since this article has been around for a long time and the article doesn't give me a clue as to it's importance, then I say go. And even Groggy saying here that it is considered notable because Lester Cuneo starred in it. Well sorry Groggy, I have no clue as to who that actor is and even a line saying something like "Oscar winner Lester Cuneo was the lead actor" would give me some indication. But you didn't say that here and NO ONE said it in the article. So, based on the information here and in the article, I stand behind my reasons for prod'ing the article in the first place - based on what is written, it is not notable. Postcard Cathy 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OOOPS my mistake. I db emptied it. Also, I don't think an info box and only an info box is reason to keep an article. If it is notable, then someone should have SOMETHING to say about it in narrative form and no one does. Postcard Cathy 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different wikiphilosophy. You focus on the "pedia" half of Wikipedia. The other half is that it is a wiki. The point of a wiki is that it's collaborative, and that all the work doesn't have to be done by the original contributor. So the current entry is just an infobox. It still provides useful links and information, and a starting point. If the article has to be recreated, it might end up with detailed text but no infobox the second time around. Considering the difficulty the average editor is going to have in researching a film that is not available in a modern video format, I think the lack of activity is understandable. Anyway, I've now added a basic narrative, as much as I feel comfortable with for a film I've never seen.
As for the WP:HOLE-ish arguments, brandishing one's lack of knowledge has never impressed me as a debating point. If someone were to say that they were a fan of silent movies, and considered Lone Hand Wilson non-notable, that would be something else. I may be no more knowledgeable about silent films than you, but I don't consider that a reason to go to Category:Silent films and start a deletion spree. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the exact reason given by Cathy above - the article contains almost zero information about the film. It also has no incoming links, except for a redirect - not even Lester Cuneo's page links here. Appears to be entirely non-notable. Terraxos 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cuneo's article currently contains no filmography, so it doesn't link to any of his films. I haven't decided how to work this film into his entry so I can wikilink it. Just copying the filmography from the "unreliable" IMDB site would raise RS issues. Adding this film alone, or a random selection of his films, would be arbitrary, since I don't know enough about his career to know which were his most significant films. As for the lack of other links, I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia's coverage of the silent film era is weak, and that articles that ought to link to it don't exist yet. We don't have an article for Lafe McKeee, for example, and his career extended into the talkie era. Deleting this article would just reinforce Wikipedia's recentist.shortcomings. However, I have wikilinked a mention of Lone Hand in Annette DeFoe's article, which is a start. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google News Archives has 19 hits from the 20s; there is no imperative that this article be anything more than a stub until someone has an itch to scratch and wants to expand it. John Vandenberg 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to bring that up, too. As can be seen from the variety of towns in those results, the film was shown in towns all over the United States. Also, although "Lone Hand" is co-director Lafe McKee's only directorial credit on IMDB, he turns out to be a prolific actor who was in hundreds of films into the 1940s. Given the barriers that a film unavailable in today's video formats poses for casual research, it's best to preserve the article until someone knowledgeable in this field can expand it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I am not looking for a doctoral dissertation on the subject or even to unorphan it. I am simply looking for a simple statement of importance and it could be one or two sentences long - such as why Cuneo is important. Postcard Cathy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice against recreation as premature. Daniel Case 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kush (album)[edit]

Kush (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed by anon with no explanation. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article is "sourced" by a thread on a message board and a sentence or two out of an online interview that states that the artist is thinking about using this as the album title. Otto4711 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because there seems to be pretty widespread interest among readers for information on albums. --164.107.222.23 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The interest level of readers is not a determining factor in whether or not an article should be kept or deleted on wikipedia.--Crossmr 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to Geniac's concerns, I understand what you're saying but it's not quite the same thing. According to AllMusic, Havoc does indeed have an upcoming single titled "I'm the Boss" for Nature Sounds (catalogue # NSD):[22] So it's not like he just slapped the record company name on a picture of himself. It does appear to be an official promo. But ignoring the info from MySpace, I believe the MTV link provided in the article plus, the AllMusic link I provided is sufficient enough proof that Havoc indeed has an upcoming album tenatively titled "Kush" with the first single being "I'm the Boss".MrBlondNYC 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The allmusic link does not give an album name. It may or may not be sufficient to establish the notability of the single, but it in no way serves to establish the notability or even the existence of the album. And again, the MTV link is not about an album. It is an interview in which the name "Kush" is mentioned in passing as a possible album title. Otto4711 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arnold[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable Kripto 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the group article. Band looks to be somewhat notable in New Zeland although not sure that the individual himself is notable enough for a proper article and the lack of sources does not help either. Also, to the nom can you add more reasons for your nomination, because it is another reason why I haven't said simple delete .--JForget 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay, fair point. What I meant to say was: this person is not notable by virtue of doing anything except being in a band that may squeak through notability guidelines, and that band already has a page. Keeping this article makes it incumbent on the authors of this page to create more for the remaining members of the band. Kripto 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 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, even discounting my Delete vote below. NawlinWiki 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pugilist Club[edit]

The Pugilist Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yeah, I figured not to speedy it. That would've been a bad move. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced to show notability. Better to delete it sooner than to have someone put lots of time into it and have it be deleted anyway. Friday (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either a hoax or hopelessly NN: "Pugalist Club" gets no Google hits, the more likely "Pugilist Club" gets only unrelated hits, nothing to do with Purdue as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeletePlease don't remove. I am constructing this page based on creditable sources. To learn about the club in the meantime, please go to the list of collegiate secret societies and open up Purdue's Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent and read that group's talk page. There has been much interest about the group even on Greek System talk pages that expressed a wish for an article about PC on Wikipedia. This is no hoax and please be patient while it is under construction. There has even been a posting about the group on the general talk page for collegiate secret societies as well. I thank you for your concern and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tiki-two (talk • contribs)
But here's the thing: we're not discussing the quality of the page, or the amount of information, we're discussing the notability of the subject. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeletePlease be patient. It is very relevant as secret society. Vitus Barbaro of the Barbaro family is a very, very important person. People want to know about it in relation to The Sacred order of skull and Crescent and in relation to Vitus Barbaro. Please be patient. Those that know P.C. know how important it is, and those that don't will be educated with the page. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteGive me a break- give a chance to write in peace and then fine tune and look over any spelling errors grammer etc. Everyone is a critic. I will fix, right now, to please those without patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what we're saying; the club's not notable. It doesn't matter about the spelling or whatever; that's not what we're here for. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nontability not really established. Comparison with The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent carries little weight since that organisation is much older - but its article is equally unreferenced. (The spelling I have fixed free-of-charge since there was a duplicate article on the correct spelling - sadly even at premier universities spelling no longer seems to be considered important. Anon - a) kindly have the integrity to sign on before editing and to sign your comments, b) instead of leaving "give me a break" messages, why not direct your efforts to actually providing some references.) -- RHaworth 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteHalf of what you said is not even true. 1) I referred you to relevant talk pages that express why this article is important. 2) Crescent is referenced- it's info coming from one primary source with all aditional info cited. 3) I already asked for those to out there to be patient. 4) When you replaced my second article with this old one, you have removed half of the valid sources that I added since. I did not ask for your help on this article, I asked for you to be patient while I'm writing it, sourcing it, and fine tuning it. Which no one seems to respect, even after I asked politely many times. Relax my friend- all will be well. I'm also not going to respond to this page anymore- it is taking away from more important writing to be done-please be reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I did not ask for your help on this article..." You don't own articles. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you please cite the author and publisher, or an ISBN, for The Golden Books of Venetian Nobility for the House of Barbaro, 65.54.98.111 (I can find no record of the book's existence), as well as the pages on which the Pugilist Club is mentioned in Champions of the Ring. Deor 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Golden Books are the official record of all nobility/royalty under the government in Venice that sources information of noble and royal families. The way I referenced it, is the way historians will write it when it is used as a source. As for the "Champions of the Ring", I'm not using that source to talk about P.C.. I am going to also talk about Sullivan and Corbett that have relevance to this club, and the material that I'm talking about for those bare-knuckle boxers comes from that source. I just have gotten to writing that part yet, but I thought that I would first secure that source at the bottom, even before I wrote the relevant portion- I'm getting to it. P.C. was a really interesting club that had a very sophisticated culture and symbolism pertaining to boxers/information contained within that book. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
  • Also, I may take a little break, and I might not finish the article completely today. Only after I remove the construction tag, will it be your official siginl that I'm done with it- so again, I please ask for you all to be patient. P.C. is very interesting, relevant to Purdue history, directly connected to The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, and possibly linked to NASA, and Blue Book, and other controversial things.-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
  • I also want to make clear, since the name of the club might be throwing some people off, This club isn't just a boxing club, it is a collegiate secret society/final club and has relevence to the list of collegiate secret societies. It's isn't just a sporting club, but rather a collegiate secret society that used athletics and boxing imagery as symbols for their society. This group is very significant. Don't let the name throw you as if it is were some typical university sporting club. It is a secret societ just like Skull and Bones etc. that was attached to The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, and ultimately will lead to Crescent being shut down on campus, so a page on P.C. will fill in the gaps for SOSC as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. I'm beginning to think that this page is only the tip of a more elaborate hoax, involving, at least, the articles The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent and Barbaro family. User:Tiki-two, who created both this article and the Skull and Crescent one—and who has, along with various 65.54.xxx.xx IPs, been practically their only substantive editor—has also made many, many edits to Barbaro family, inserting, among other dubious information, material about one Vitus (or V. V. or Vitus Sebastian) Barbaro, a "very, very important person" also mentioned in these Purdue articles. A Google search for "Pugilist Club"+Purdue yields zero non-WP hits, as do searches for "Vitus Barbaro," "V. V. Barbaro," "Vitus Sebastian Barbaro," and ""Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent." If I'm wrong, I owe this guy an apology; but I think it's about time that we 86ed all this balderdash. Deor 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless reliable sources are provided. Part of a pattern of hoaxes all revolving around List of collegiate secret societies from a group of anons who feel they can slap anything they want in there without sources and then become hostile when challenged. Corvus cornix 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may well be part of a larger hoax, but even if it isn't - the page as it stands fails the notability and verifiability tests. And the other pages created by the author deserve equally close inspection. Terraxos 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Tiki-two- and no respond to this page untill I post because I am trying to respond and keep getting edit conflicts. wait till I post! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Please explain how the Pugalist Club, founded in 1991, had anything to do with Project Blue Book, which was shut down in 1969. Corvus cornix 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS ALOT ASSHOLE FOR JUST CREATING AN EDIT CONFLICT- DID I NOT JUST ASK TO GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO POST RIGHT ABOVE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ONE. WAIT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And please also explain why a supposed ISBN-less book about Italian royalty, even if we toss logic out the window and assume it exists, would include information about a group of school kids at an American college? You'll be citing The Hobbit and The Big Book of Low-Fat Quiche Recipes next. The more you add to it, the more it sounds like an increasingly-silly hoax, or at best a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING RETARDED? DID I JUST ASK MORE THAN ONCE ABOVE FOR NO ONE TO RESPOND UNTILL I POST IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE AN EDIT CONFLICT FOR THE 4TH FUCKING TIME. IF YOU WANT MY FUCKING ANSWER-WILL EVERONE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET ME POST FIRST.

I am tiki-two and if there is any correlation between my work on the Barbaro family, and SOSC, and P.C. and what ever else I fuckin put tons of work into is because I am a historian who focuses on the barbaro family, which is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES PERIOD WITH VITUS, CALLED V.V., AS THEIR HEAD!!! If you don't know that I suggest that you pick up a history book and learn that all of life's answers don't come from google. Did I fucking make up Villa Barbaro, what about the fellow on SOSC's talk page that told me, not me to him, about the recent auction of the 1992 letter that was just as descibed on the SOSC page, in his own words. Did I not say for % million fucking time to be patient with the P.C. page as I construct it. As for all you smart asses out there,about this ISBN-LESS book about royalty that you won't find, because it is a reasl primary source, what professional historians like myself do. It workslike this, let me teach you a thing or two about being a real historian. It is called fact checking with primary sources, and it works like this. I find out information about the Barbaro family, Vitus etc. and then I actually check the real source that if came from not what some jackass writes in a book. So, I go to Venice, Italy and go to their Dept of Governmental records for nobility that continues to keep updated records of all info about Vitus and others and then I go and fact check it all FIRST HAND!!! so you go the Fenwick High School in Oak Park, IL, one of America's top prep schools and you say, excuse me Debbie Thompson, that is the person you need to talk to at Fenwick, and say did Vitus Barbaro who was called Vito Albergo as a teenager, which you would understand why if you actually read the Barbaro family page, go to your school whomis now the Grand Prince of transylvania and a Ferrari designer. And she will say 100% FUCKIN YES. Then I call Ferrari in Italy, and speak with their design head, Amedeo Felisa- which you will not find listed in Wikipedia either, and i say Seniore Felisa, since you need to know who to speak italian as I do, Did Mr' Albergo actuallt present design work for you company in the 90's when he was barely in his 20's because he is a reclusive genius, and Mr. Felisa will say "Si, Verro" Yes (100% FUCKING TRUE) Then you go to the Art Institute of Chicago and ask their Human Resource Director, is it true that Vito Albergo worked for the museum when he was only 19 years old because he is a Fucking genius, and they will say yes, that is 100% FUCKING TRUE. Now after you do this for 15 Fucking Years as I have, you are then able to write a true and accurate body of knowledge with PRIMARY SOURCES LISTED. Every true historian out there will understand that AH that info can be found at Venice's Government in THE GOLDENBOOK OF NOBILITY SPECIFICALLT FOR THE BARBARO FAMILY. it is not my fault if people are to stupid to knowwhat that is. but that is the way you cite a primary source!!!!!

Ah. Well, even if this supposed books exists, it's a primary source, and therefore not an acceptable Wikipedia reference. Corvus cornix 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual who you claim verified your claims regarding that letter (myself) has since discovered yet another flaw in it, namely that the seller states plainly it was written to Horace Chase and not Salomon P Chase as you claim in the SOSC article. Your hoax has utterly crumbled. I had to go be casual with you in order to find out whether it was a hoax as a hoaxer can't help but pathologically reveal themself. My casual conversation with you on the SOSC discussion page worked. It ferreted you out as a hoaxer. So why don't you just come clean and explain what this is all about? Is it an ego thing, a fraternity prank, a disturbed teenager's cry for attention, an attempt at falsifying items you purchased on ebay as secret society related, hence fraudulently increasing their value, or a combination of the aforementioned?

hyper_individualist@yahoo.com--76.83.249.234 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One of the references is to the Purdue Exponent of Nov. 11, 2001. The Purdue Exponent is available online from 2000 on, and there was no Nov.11, 2001 issue. Nor is there any story from 2000 on with the title specified. [23]. end of story. DGG 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, you go on line and you check that there is a story pertaining to the match up between Purdue and Navy!!!!. And if you gave me the chance to finish you would have understood it';s significance. I want Barbaro family and SOSC returned immediately before i take this up with wikipedia!!!

All of the screaming and swearing don't help your cause. Neither does the edit history of this page, which doesn't show any examples of edit conflicts. Corvus cornix 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a professional historian this anon sure does say fuck a lot. Also it is becoming clear that this whole thing is: if we assume good faith this is original research involving calling up the design head at Ferrari (very hard to do), if we don't assume good faith it is a hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:04, 6 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 but reference more thoroughly. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kanzius[edit]

keep was tested by polymer engineers in akron ohio you can link to tv23.com to see the video of the test

John Kanzius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person has proposed a fringe theory not accepted by the scientific community, and the article makes no other claim to notability. I might change my mind if someone can find a source for this theory in a credible scientific journal Shalom Hello 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if the theory is fringe, just the fact that is being hawked in numerous media stories, is notable. It passes the google test with more than 18,000 pages indexed. It think that it is an interesting subject, on the basis of the novelty alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but include references to those numerous media stories.DGG 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. More external references would be good, but this man appears to be on the cusp of notability: whether his theory is scientifically accurate or not, it has received a moderate amount of media coverage, which is enough to make it notable. The article would benefit from a closer examination of Kanzius' claims, however. Terraxos 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could develop into a big story. Wikipedia needs to un-clench and let things grow, it will be here in 2 years if you want to delete it then.
  • Keep. I saw the vid on youtube and came to Wikipedia to find out about the physical processes involved, if any. If the energy comes from the microwave radiation, that's interesting too. If the whole thing turns out to be a hoax, then that's OK too. Either way the info needs to remain on wikipedia.--Ceriel Nosforit 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Dan Gluck 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on google test: "Dan Gluck" gets, to my surprise, over one million hits! and my Wikipedia user page is almost top of the list. But that doesn't mean that I'm notable. If you want to keep this one, please make an article on myself too! Dan Gluck 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get 959 matches for "Dan Gluck" and 20,600 matches for "John Kanzius". ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iain. Since he's claiming overunity I'm happy with a move of the article to overunity. I still think it's still notable and the patent should be included in the list of patents on the perpetual motion article and also on the History_of_perpetual_motion_machines. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A quick Google indicates that he is getting coverage in the national media, at least for his cancer treatment eg [24]. Obviously he'll never get his burning water into a credible journal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable. It would be nice to find a debunking to incorporate into the article. Iain99 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep. If the science is a farce or turns out to be useless, so be it. The fact that he stumbled upon it and the amount of potential energy that could be taken from this is exciting and I want to see how it progresses, if at all. Atrank 7/11/07
It has no potential as any freshman science student should be able to tell you. He is essentially just another inventor hawking a perpetual motion device. If I claimed that I was going to produce limitless energy by banging rocks together it would be great if it worked, but it wouldn't have potential, nor would it make me worth an encyclopaedia article. Iain99 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't hawking a perpetual motion device at all. If you could convince me of that I'd change my vote. You see, here's a quote from a news story, "[skeptics] argue that at best the energy required to burn it would be greater than the energy produced by burning it. Kanzius admits that is the case now in this very early stage of development." ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...in this very early stage in development" is a big clue - he thinks (or wants us to think) that it's going to change. It has to change for his invention to be of any value - otherwise he's just got an unusual way of electrolysing water, and certainly not an energy source which could power a car as he's claiming. [25] According to some sources he's now claiming that it already has changed - "Since it appears we now have now achieved [an energy yield of] more than unity, I am going to do an embargo on releasing all further information" [26] (sorry for using a blog as a source, but given his iffy notability there aren't many better ones out there - and if he's going quiet there are unlikely to be more any time soon). Iain99 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on reflection and on further reading and searching. His sporadic local news coverage and even more sporadic national news coverage puts him on the fringes of notability at best (WP:NOTNEWS), and the lack of non-credulous, reliable sources makes balanced coverage of his more outlandish ideas impossible. Iain99 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The key for me is that his discovery has "lasting...interest" to use the language of the WP:NOTNEWS essay. People are going to hear about, ask about, and try to reproduce this phenomenon when they hear about it, even if they first hear about it years from now. BeeArkKey 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep move

Two things.

One the "cancer cure" is old stuff. Most of the ideas for this were abandoned back in the ninties. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

The free energy looks like an old hat perpetual motion device. Heat from his microwave oven seperates hydrogen and oxygen, then the hydrogen burns. Would probably be cheaper to use gasoline to burn the water apart than microwaves. Either way, it is hardly better than any other perpetual motion machine.

It is worth noting that like most hawkers of perpetual motion machines, he has a history of taking "donations to perfect his machine" from such things as firedepartments and other groups.

I think this page should be combined with the perpetual motion machines page. --John S Burns 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two observations. This is an excellent article for young physics students learning to use judgment and follow thermodynamics of processes. No perpetual motion. No laws of thermo are in jeopardy and the article as it stands on Wiki does not claim any outlandish violations. Second, this might be a slick way to make hydrogen from electricity if efficiency is high enough and if hydrogen is actually produced. Delivering hydrogen as a commodity makes much less sense than pushing electrons down a wire but with the unholy grail that the high efficiencies of internal combustion might be preserved. What is ruefully missing in this whole mess is enough information to reproduce the effect.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirected to MAYA-II. NawlinWiki 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAYA II[edit]

MAYA II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod contested because the person felt I was wrong to ask for a deadline on a merger. This subject has another article on the same topic and even the same name. A dash between Maya and II is the only difference. It hasn't been merged despite the merger tag since April. If the article isn't going to be merged, then it should be deleted as redundant. Postcard Cathy 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for it to be merged. I am saying if it isn't going to be merged, it should be deleted as redundant. Postcard Cathy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in Wales by population[edit]

List of towns in Wales by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

My prod was contested so I am bringing here. I successfully prod'd a list of Metropolitan areas in Arizona as nn and prod'd this on the same day for the same reason. There is no reason that this info can't be incorporated into an article on Wales, which I believe it already is, and then deleted. It doesn't deserve a stand alone article. It is simply taking up space on the server that can be used by a more deserving article. Postcard Cathy 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be disruption to make a point. This isn't the place to discuss problems your having at the article space. You don't really seem to want the information deleted, just re-integrated into the article. And the space issue is a straw dog. It takes up the same space no matter where it is located. Also, a list has its own rules, they aren't considered articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a waste of resources. Call it a disruption or not. Call it a list or an article or a list that is an article. The point is still the same. It isn't necessary. Other articles/lists of the same type have been deleted. It is redundant. Postcard Cathy
  • Keep or rename Keep if "towns" has a meaning versus "cities" or something else, otherwise rename to List of cities and towns in Wales by population. Seems a valid encyclopedic or almanac type data to have at hand, and if the list is too large for inclusion at Wales, have it here.

Carlossuarez46 23:11, 5 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayna[edit]

Vilayna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesnt seem notable enough. Only a handful Ghits, that too mostly user generated content. Originally speedied, but restored on request to list for discussion. soum talk 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 15:20, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline Rush (Band)[edit]

Adrenaline Rush (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not cite any sources to repute these claims, is poorly written, and sounds completely made up. NineElevenSevenNine 16:12, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Diaspora[edit]

Project Diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anonymous user has put article up for prod; but has been prod'd before, so moving here. Prod reason was: Non-notability; no references; original research; conflict of interest. Bad article. This echos my first prod [27] which was removed by Freaknigh, who says on the talk page that independent references are on their way. However, as the article stands at the moment, there are no reliable independent sources. MarašmusïneTalk 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can defend their argument and leave no suggestions for improvement. Neither have actually researched their claims they are only seeking to have the article destroyed. This article has had at least a hundred separate visitors since it has been put up considering my google analytics have claimed this site as their reference. One person can who does nothing but go around and file wikis for deletion and another who can't even use their real account don't seem to have opinions that weigh properly in my eyes. Not to mention the wiki has been in constant repair of Marasmusines claims since they were made. Freaknigh 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)— Freaknigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ah sorry, let me defend my argument and make a suggestion for improvement. In it's current state, this article does not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V), because it does not have any independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Thus, it also does not satisfy the notability guidelines either (WP:N). My suggestion for improvement is that the article should contain independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Whilst I was prepared to leave the article and wait for such sources, the above anonymous user's prod attempt has prompted me to move the discussion here. MarašmusïneTalk 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in fact, done research. Very few of the top search results for "Project Diaspora" relate to your project. Of those that do, the majority are forum topics started by you. This fact adds weight to the argument that your article does not satisfy that Notability policy.
My reasons for prod'ing the article are:
* You are the developer of the game discussed by the article, therefore the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, and WP:NPOV guidlines.
* My Google research failed to verify any of the "facts" in the article. Therefore the article to not satisfy WP:V. A lot of the claims aren't even on your own site, therefore the article appears to be original research.
That I have no account is irrelevant. My arguments stand. 88.144.18.166 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe so many wiki closet dwellers are all coming out for my entry. I should make a wiki entry for all your collected existence so the world can protect their arses. Freaknigh 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never going to be able to fight this argument properly because there should be separate rules for "products" on wikipedia. You can and will never ever be and to get a source or reference for a product/game/whatever aside from proving it's existence. And for notability, for a product, WOULD be defined as its popularity, how in the world could it ever stem from anything else? Which is why I continuely say that you are all doing nothing but attacking because those rules weren't designed to govern over these kind of entries. Wikipedia should really just make a no products rule. Freaknigh 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. (Picks up random Edge magazine). Here's a full-page review of I-Ninja on page 36. It's independent, non-trivial and from a reliable source. The same game has plenty of features on reliable sites like IGN. Therefore I-Ninja passes verifiability and notability. Popularity has little to do with it. MarašmusïneTalk 17:52, 6 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 JoshuaZ 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental films[edit]

List of environmental films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Again, a list that doesn't list what it purports to. Alone, what an "environmental film" is ends up being very WP:OR-like. But Films like I ♥ Huckabees, where the only connection to the environment is the lead character's occupation, now justifies the inclusion of Jim Carrey's Liar, Liar into List of films about law. Bulldog123 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although there is certainly such a thing as an 'environmental film', it's a little too poorly-defined here, and a category already exists. There seems little need for a list as well. Terraxos 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete similar to all the other "films about": how "about" the subject need the film be; here mere "themes" that seem environmental seems to be enough, which with a little stretch of the imagination any film where a baby is born (overpopulation), a building is built (nonsustainable development), or a car is driven (global warming, pollution, natural resource depletion) fits. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — a category might work instead. Adopting a semantic wiki would also be a good solution. Cedars 10:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "A list that doesn't list what it purports to" is the fault of the editors, not the list. Clean it up and source it. --Hemlock Martinis 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been around for exactly 1 year and hasn't improved much at all since then, which is at least partially indicative that it's near impossible to find an actual "film about the environment" that isn't a documentary (for which lists exist). An inconvenient truth would obviously be a good addition. "Environment film" itself is so vague that it could be mistaken for a Nature documentary Bulldog123 14:03, 13 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 while there are serious OR issues, parts of the article are well -sourced. The suggestion to rename it to be an article about repetitive songs or infinitely recursive songs does have enough merit that I'm not going to delete this for now. However, I strongly urge the people who have argued for keeping below to put in effort so that we don't have this same AfD again in a few weeks. JoshuaZ 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of repetitive songs[edit]

List of repetitive songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Total original research, seeing was what counts as a "repetitive song" depends entirely on the person entering the song on the list. For everyone interested in "helpfulness" (or rather, notability) of such an article. There is none to be found. Bulldog123 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The inclusion criteria are by their own admission arbitrary. I hate to sound repetetive in all these lists of songs articles, but they all fail for the same overall reasons. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Examining the list, they are "infinitely recursive songs" , that can be repeated indefinitely, not the much vaguer set of songs all or part of which repeats a few time. The article explains clearly what the criteria are, and the songs meet it. Possibly change to a better name, after the pattern of Repetitive song, which will eliminate the word "List"DGG 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The article explains clearly what the criteria are, and the songs meet it." Um...who cares? If a list is justified just by having a good inclusion criteria then we might as well rename wikipedia "myspace". This is what came up when I tried to look up "repetitive song" as a distinct entity: [28] or an "infinitely recursive song" [29]. Not convincing. Bulldog123 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered that part of the argument because its the most objective of the possible reasons to delete a list. The other reason given was that it was not helpful, but that seems a very individual criterion: in my eyes this is a distinct genre and therefore helpful. I don't expect everyone to be interested in all articles. And I judge the article by what is in the article, not by what is in google. DGG 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, it's not an indiscriminate list and all the songs on the list have their own pages. Useight 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it isn't completely arbitrary, and describes a fairly well-defined set of songs. However, it probably should be renamed/rewritten along the lines of Cumulative song. Terraxos 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may not be completely arbitrary, but it is arbitrary: inclusion of 99 bottles of beer - which repeats with a slight difference in each round and in a not-so-slight way on the 99th verse - is indicative of the less than rigorous criteria. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
though not mentioned in the article on the song, the version I know continues with "if one of those bottles should happen to be put back, ... and so on ad infinitum in a repeated cycle of 198 verses. the article does include a variation to a similar effect. DGG 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the barfing version we used to sing. not high brow but memorable. ;-) Carlossuarez46 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like those essays. But hey, that's cruft! Unencylopedic, if you will. What's a repetitive song anyway? The definition they give is kinda hazy. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What? Why? This makes no sense as to why it was created, and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:02, 13 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey's Point[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Harvey's Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously created under the titles Harveys Point and Harveys point and speedy deleted under G11 and A7. This page was also a requested speedy delete, but as it keeps being recreated we should determine consensus.

Previous attempt at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harveys Point was shut down by me. DrKiernan 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:NOTE and, frankly WP:SPAM. Pedro |  Chat  15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This third version is not substantially different from the other two. It's still more of an advertisement than anything else and the article doesn't suggest that it's particularly notable. It looks like a pleasant hotel in a pleasant location...but so what? -- Hux 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have listed again for it's unique style under the architecture in Ireland listings due to it's unique alpine themes. I have made every effort to remove any advertising aspect in the article. I feel that this is being taken personally due to previous attempts being considered not notable, and should be given fair consideration as a unique building in Donegal, the top holiday destination in Ireland. I don't deem this article any less worth than some other hotel related articles on WIkipediaIrishjp 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you feel victimised. I assure you that I mean no personal attack. The purpose of this discussion is to ensure that both you and the article get fair consideration. DrKiernan 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I appreciate your response, but I have seen that previous deletions were considered due to it not being written in an encyclopedic manner. This type of thing isn't mentioned during any of the discussions I have had, and certainly rates no worse than a lot of the listings on here. I feel that the way this has been now written is a fair description of a very unique building that I said I will try to get pictures of with the owners approval. I think this submission should be considered on it's own merit for the design and architecture of the building as much as anything else, especially as I am a new contributor who has not truely been assisted in creating a first full posting. I will be fleshing out the details when the information is forthcoming. Irishjp 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per Pedro. If there is something notable about this hotel, which is sourced, please include it for consideration... otherwise, this really seems to be nothing more than an advertisement. Hiberniantears 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I don't think this is getting a fair look and the "who cares" statement really sums it up. I don't particularly care about AM radio stations in Texas, and don't deem the fact that the Jurys Inn in Birmingham is one of the tallest in it's street. People who live in Birmingham might do though, just as people in Donegal and Ireland would care about the inclusion of a hotel like this. As a first post on Wikipedia, I am very disappointed in this narrow focus that is being demonstrated, that the top hotel in an Irish county doesn't warrent inclusion, but one in a British city does. Try a search on "London Hotel" and see what turns up, yet my posting is not noteworthy Irishjp 16:47, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-the-shoulder[edit]

Over-the-shoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

neologism, not a dictionary (point number 3), not an indiscriminate collection of information WLU 15:03, 5 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) — Caknuck 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Gilbert[edit]

Bradford Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is to short for an article. de:Spongo 14:34, 5 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. NawlinWiki 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuban Heels[edit]

The Cuban Heels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally listed for speedy deletion, but there is a claim of notability so I PROD'd but this was de-PROD'd by an IP. The claims of notability here are a few festival appearances and a song that debuted at #72 on the UK singles chart which to me is a rather weak claim per WP:MUSIC. I'll leave it up to the community to decide though. Isotope23 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that is the reasoning I was following, charting #72 on a singles chart would not constitute a "hit" to me. I don't claim any sort of intimate knowledge of the UK music charting system, but in the U.S. anything below "40" can't really be considered overly important or popular. Perhaps others will feel differently, but personally that falls short of the intent of WP:MUSIC criteria #2 in my book.--Isotope23 15:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The link to the band website given in the article is broken, which makes it impossible to determine if they pass any other notability requirements (e.g. press coverage; google doesn't help as there are at least two other bands with the same name). Furthermore the biography is written in a thoroughly unencyclopedic / anecdotal fashion ("Their tragic ending on 7th July 2006 is as rock and roll as there could ever be but here is not the place for it and now is not the time.") It's possible they're notable enough to merit an article, but in any case this isn't the article. --Javits2000 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unusual case. It passes the letter of WP:MUSIC (even if only just), but IMHO it doesn't pass the spirit. The UK is one of the world's major music markets, but just blipping on the charts doesn't necessarily equal popularity, fame, notability, or even big sales. It's not unusual for a song to reach number one with sales of about 30,000 (example: McFly's "Baby's Coming Back" a couple months ago), generally anything outside the top 10 is considered a disappointment for major artists, and #72 is pretty much a disaster, representing a very small number of sales, exactly how small depending on the week. To sum up, good try, but not-quite-notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:55, 8 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, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebDows[edit]

WebDows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for a web desktop, which has only one major contributor who is also involved as a developer in the project. It reads like an advertisement and fails to establish notability, but maintenance and prod tags are silently by said editor. Don Cuan 14:29, 5 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 CSD A7. Andre (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Zero[edit]

Project Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band - only has a MySpace with no songs on it Alfa 14:13, 5 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 or merge for Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit, CBS: Television You Can Feel, and Get Ready for CBS; delete the other seven. Merging the remaining three, or recreating them all as a list, is editorial, however consensus from this debate is that seven of the ten should be deleted, which is what has happened. Daniel 09:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've Got the Touch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
We've Got the Touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Also includes:

I originally PROD'd some of these, but they were de-PROD'd by an IP editor. All of these slogan articles are full of unverified original research and have a strong POV element. Removing all the unsouced POV would leave a stub that would basically just say "X was a slogan used by CBS from <year>-<year>", which would be redundant with List of CBS slogans. The only useable content from these articles are the images and if they were properly updated with fair use rationales they could be added to the List article. There simply isn't much retainable content in these articles, so Delete or Merge.--Isotope23 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added "or Merge", as proposed by Waggers (talk · contribs); it seems a good middle ground solution.--Isotope23 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-The summaries in these articles aren't written to represent someone's point of view, they accurately describe all important elements of each campaign. A lot of this would border on common knowledge, since it isn't private information that could only be dug up in a network history reference. These campaigns were publicly seen and memorable by the public, even if they were only used for a single TV season. I vote for it to stay. -KTBEar456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete All None of them assert their notability as slogans. Might be OR, but I wouldn't know, because no references are given, which is my next issue. There are no references that help to establish these campaign slogans. There are no independent critical articles on them, and they aren't innovative in the marketing field. Tdmg 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some of you have a hard time finding notability in these articles? I believe the author said in another deletion argument that you all focus too much on the slogans, and not enough on the fact that the pieces cover the campaigns as a whole. Just because every piece stars with "X was a slogan used on CBS during said season(s)" doesn't mean it's just about the slogan itself. The slogans were just the main tool used to identify one campaign from another. Also, you're not likely to find archived articles on every network campaign, but everything can be sourced because for all articles written, promos can be found floating around, especially on YouTube. I think everything should be linked up to these videos, and we'll be all set. KEEP-JCarter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

Not innovative? It doesn't matter how innovative they were or not! These campaigns were very much seen by the public and quite memorable, even if they lasted a short time. People do research on this stuff, ya know. Also, some of you got the Welcome Home article down, and THAT was quite an innovative promotional era for CBS >:O -Gary Rosetti ('SAVE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that none of this is in any way sourced... even in those 3 you've mentioned.--Isotope23 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple of IP's went through and removed the AFD notices, then added YouTube links with uncertain copyright status in as "references" (which really only references that these spots exist, something that isn't in dispute). I've reverted these changes, but it should be noted that many of the articles didn't have AFD notices for a day or 2.--Isotope23 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were saying they were sourced.--Isotope23 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we need to get this settled once and for all. While there was never any question that these campaigns existed or not, I get the feeling that Isotope23 and Edtropolis are trying to shut me down because after I listed video sources, they were removed the next day. Again, you guys need to start making connections: the videos I linked to completely verify everything that is covered in the articles, from promotional practices to artistic styles. With the videos confirming all that info, it isn't strictly original research anymore. Just because the proof isn't in article form doesn't make it any less valid. I do care about Wikipedia standards and try my best to have everything be credible, but some of you are just going way too overboard with your motives to delete. People do care about this stuff. --User:numbaonestunna 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't remove them to "try and shut you down". I removed the videos because it wasn't clear that the uploader actually had permission to upload what is certainly copywritten material (see WP:C and WP:EL). If these articles are kept those videos still shouldn't be linked there. Beyond that there are still large amounts of original research in the articles that those videos don't in any way address.--Isotope23 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those videos come from a reliable YouTube source who has proper copyright notices up himself, so they are in no way infringing on anything. Those do in fact cover most of the info. in the articles, because everything discussed appeared in TV promos. If Wiki rules state that videos aren't an acceptable form of citing, than perhaps it's time to revise some rules. It's not going to be possible to find an article on any given campaign that exactly covers what I do. Archived videos are the only way, so far, that my pieces can be backed up. Hopefully more people will contribute here and maybe aid in the effort to find old articles that cover a least a portion of what is stated. I also understand five days is the norm for deletion, but Isotope, if you're the only one with article problems/issues, you cannot delete with you being the only person voting for it. It requires a lot more people and participation than this. --User:numbaonestunna 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually will not be the one deleting this (if consensus should deem that it deletion is warrented) as I nominated it. Deleting this myself would be a huge conflict of interest.--Isotope23 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming in late here, but I would think that a video could certainly be a cited source for an article, provided it meets the usual WP:RS requirements. For a YouTube clip, that seems to me to mean that the original source of the video is given, not just the video itself (the reliability of the info depends primarily on the creator not the uploader). That's unrelated to concerns about copyright violations involved in the uploading. I'm not on a computer that can view YouTube, so I don't know what it means that the uploader "has proper copyright notices up", but stating that something is copyrighted does mean it's okay to infringe on that copyright by exceeding fair use of the video. If the thing runs afoul of that, then I don't think Wikipedia should be linking it for any reason (don't want to be seen as supporting copyright infringement)...this is quite a different area of WP policy (if there is one about this?) than the issue of using video-links as article references. DMacks 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video issue is really separate from the fact that the bulk majority of these articles is unsourced original research and opinion. The fact is that the videos do not source large tracts of these articles; they just establish that these videos exist, what the slogan was, and who appeared in the spots none of which is tied to the reason I submitted these article for deletion. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm just going on my reading of WP:EL and WP:C in regards to the videos. My understanding is that you can't link to a video unless it is clear that the uploader has permission to distribute this content (i.e. upload it onto YouTube) or provides a fair use rationale. It isn't enough that they just clearly state that the material is copywritten. If the articles are kept, we can continue this discussion at one of the article talkpages and if anyone is interested in seeing the videos for themselves for purposes of this AFD they are free to visit the article history.--Isotope23 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Isotope, most of the information in the articles do come from the videos, like I said. Therefore, if we link to the videos, everything that I discussed would be cited. Also, I do have permission to link to these videos from the owner. I don't know where you're getting the idea that much of this stuff is opinion, when everything is explained the way it appeared, with hardly any guesswork or assumptions involved. -numbaonestunna

As I've said before, it isn't enough that you have permission from the video uploader to link these here; he/she has to have permission from CBS to have uploaded them to YouTube in the first place. You getting permission from someone who may be violating copyright isn't enough. Regardless, if these are kept I will go through them and point our/remove the guesswork and assumptions that exist. There is quite a bit more of that then you seem to be portraying here.--Isotope23 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge into CBS - see Sainsbury's#Advertising for a good example of how it can be done. We don't need an individual article on each slogan. Either these should be merged into CBS or into a new CBS slogans (or similarly named) article. Unreferenced material should be tagged as such. Waggers 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually a decent idea. The parts of the article that are not original research could be merged to a single article (and the list article could be a redirect there as well). The video link discussion could be continued there and if enough WP:V, WP:RS sources are found that any individual campaign can support a fully sourced article it could always be broken back out to the original namespace.--Isotope23 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go ahead and add the information you found from the sources, but I'm a little iffy on the usefulness of the FortuneCity one. WAVY 10 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the FortuneCity site isn't exactly WP:RS material and really only establishes that the slogans exist with a screenshot, which isn't the issue here anyway.--Isotope23 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some work to the articles, removing much of the OR (and in Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit's case, re-working the tone) in the articles. Not sure if it will help. Also, I would amend my proposal to (if the articles are kept), split Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit into two separate articles. WAVY 10 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you took out some of the worst offenders as far as OR/POV is concerned. There are some more changes I think would be beneficial, but to be honest I'm just waiting to see what the outcome of the AFD is... I hate working on something that just gets deleted. I still think a merge is a sensible solution.--Isotope23 17:33, 13 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 ck lostsword•T•C 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Douglas (footballer)[edit]

Steven Douglas (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None Notable, unknown, short footballer article with no references. Porterjoh 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just to add that I have tidied the article up a bit, added an infobox, and added some detail on him taken from the Linfield FC website. He was listed in the article as being "half Scottish, half Northern Irish, which I took out for now. No place of birth given though. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The league he is playing is a pro league and thus passes WP:BIO even though he doesn't seem to be well known for some outside of Europe.--JForget 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Who told you that this league is professional????????????????? Any sources that is professional????? As I know Northern Ireland is an amature league. I have heard that many times from media that irish competitions are amature. Also in a machine of trivia questions that u play for quiz I remember a question... "Which country with amature league, has a national team with great successes???" and the answer was Ireland (I know we are talking for North Ireland, however keep in mind that the north is even weaker than republic!!!!!!). So of what all of you have said THIS LEAGUE IS NOT AT ALL PROFESSIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--KRBN 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He has not played in a fully professional league. I remember when a cypriot team played against Linfield in UEFA Cup, it was said by a North Irish coach who has worked both in Cyprus and Northern Ireland, that two players of the Cypriot team are paid the total amount of all the Linfield players. And as a note, Cyprus is considered semi-professional! Also he has not played in UEFA Champions League but two matches in the First Qualifying Round of UEFA Champions League!--KRBN 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Actually, KRBN solicited my opinion on this one. So I toodled over to the Irish Premier website, and from there to Linfield's website. Lo and behold, the player profiles, each and every one, references the date they signed their most recent contract as well as their length in years; Douglas' as well: [33]. For my money, it's safe to call a premier national league which signs all of its players to contracts "professional." Frankly, I'd hesitate like crazy to rely on a bar trivia machine or Something I Heard Somewhere as grounds for a "Strong Delete." Do you have any actual documentary evidence for your position, KRBN?  RGTraynor  12:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About time to challenge that "all professional players should have an article" bit. Why should this player have an article, what can we write besides this from reliable source material? What's here that couldn't be covered at "List of players on X team?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing me to an inactive proposal doesn't answer my question. Why should we have an article on this particular player? That doesn't seem to be getting answered here, and "All X are notable" isn't a valid argument, whether that's "all schools" or "all pro athletes." (For a while, "all schools" worked, but it didn't stand up to challenge, and now schools are routinely deleted or merged.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, if you require that it be typed out here instead of reviewing WP:BIO, the relevant passage is: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league ..."  RGTraynor  19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't answer my question, either. If you need it typed out, from the box at the top of WP:BIO: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This, to me, looks like one of those exceptions—there's little to no independent source material available here for an article, so common sense (and WP:V) seem to indicate it shouldn't be an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhen you say that, "there's little to no independent source material available here for an article", there is easily enough independent source material available. A brief check found two uefa.com sources plus a number of BBC sources, three of which I have added to the article, one of which mentions how he was part of the Linfield team that last season won the Irish Premier League for a record 47th time. In addition there are plenty of sources about his appearances in the UEFA Cup for Linfield. And a number of other independent sources. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then if the articles we source from are primarily about the team, our article should be about the team, perhaps with a List of players on Some Team and splitoff articles about a player or two who've received sufficient coverage for a full article. (In this case, there is at least one article about him, but we'd still need multiples about him, not that just drop his name.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Well, y'know something, overwhelming consensus and precedent holds that any player playing in a fully professional league both passes WP:BIO and qualifies for an article. That you might disagree with that is apparent, but the point at which repeated "But WHY???"s become obstructive has been passed; that's the answer there is, and more probably won't be forthcoming. In any event, there's nothing in policy or guideline requiring an article to be several paragraphs in length. You've been quoted the passage upon which precedent is founded and supported by consensus, and you've been shown the links for talk pages where you can chime in to mold consensus more to your liking.  RGTraynor  04:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original message was, for some unknown reason, removed (check here), so, I restored it above. --Carioca 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For what it's worth the IPL is not a professional league and articles on players playing for pro clubs in the Football Conference (of which only about 3 or 4 teams are not professional these days) are routinely deleted on this basis. The Champions League comment is totally irrelevant. Players from clubs in countries like Andorra and the Faroes play in the CL, but it does not make them in any way notable. Number 57 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry but the comparison with Andorra and the Faroe Islands just doesn't hold up. Population of Northern Ireland - over 1,700,000 with three main divisions in their football league system. Population of Andorra, just over 70,000. Population of the Faroe Islands under 50,000. The two leagues do not compare to the Irish Premier League at all. The top team in Andorra, FC Andorra, compete in Spanish football as it is of a much higher standard and the Andorran league was only lauunched in 1995 and consists of a total of 8 teams. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that using the Champions League as justifcation for this article's notability doesn't hold up given the participation of those countries in it. Anyway, again the IPL is not professional. If this article is kept, all those ones on Grays Athletic players should be too. Number 57 08:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'll take the assertion on the various team websites that they sign players to contracts as proof of professionalism, thanks. Do you have any documentary evidence that the league is not professional?  RGTraynor  12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Signing a player on a contract does not make then professional - there are players in the Eastern Counties League on contracts, but they are still semi-pro. Many players in the IPL are described as "semi-professional", as Douglas was in an earlier version of this page and as Steve Collier is here. Linfield is also described as semi-pro here. Number 57 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A player in "nation" top division. At least FIFA ranking of NI not as low as Faroe Islands and Andorra, but no.29, which higher than Bulgaria, Israel, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Slovakia, Finland, Macedonia, Belgium, Austria. Although your can say national team ranking not relevant to national league ranking, but UEFA coefficients also not as low as Faroe Islands and Andorra. Matthew_hk tc 17:53, 11 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. Anas talk? 12:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Donkey Kong - Xiang Jiao Chuan[edit]

Super Donkey Kong - Xiang Jiao Chuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The content of this article does not look notable. A Google search of the article's current English name yields less than 300 returns[34]. The search of the mentioned Chinese name yields only 3400 returns [35]. (FYI: "Xiangjiao Chuan" literally means Banana split in Chinese). Voidvector 06:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:38, 5 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican American writers[edit]

List of Mexican American writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails all three criteria in WP:LIST: (a) it's not informative, it's just an indiscriminate collection of names and furthermore duplicates Category:Mexican American writers. (b) it is not meant for navigation. (c) it serves no development purposes. Punkmorten 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, contrary to the nominator's claim, this is not an indiscriminate collection of names. A writer's voice, style and content can be highly influenced by there ethnic group, and indeed the experiences of the writer's ethnic group can be the major theme of a writer's work, so this is a highly relevent intersection. I find the argument that this is "indiscriminate collection of names" that duplicates a category to be unusual. If the categoy is a valid category, how can the list of names be indiscriminate? I find it difficult to predict the intentions of article writers, so this list may not have been meant for navigation, but it can be used for such since it organized in the obvious way, alphabetically. Although the list as it currently stands is not being used for development there is the possibility that is has in the past. Luis J. Rodriguez was added to this list on July 21, 2006 [36]. The article for Rodriguez was not started until 10 days later. [[37]]. Dsmdgold 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant is that it has no inclusion criteria - other than the page title of course. It is not useful for navigation given that we have the category. Whether it has served development purposes in the past is totally irrelevant now. Punkmorten 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the title in and of itself gives a pretty decent set of inclusion criteria. For example Linda Chavez clearly belongs while Patrick O'Brian clearly does not. The fact that we have an alternate method of navigation does not negate that this can be used for navigation, especially given the number of redirects there are to this page. To improve its utility for navigation, I have included this on Lists of writers and the see also section of Mexican American. I'm not sure why you think that the past use for development is "totally irrelevant". If and when writers without articles are added it will serve that purpose again. Dsmdgold 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, list is merely a duplicate of the category and offers no further information. PC78 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad to say, but Category:Mexican American writers exists. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THere's no sense in having a list where a category better serves it's purpose. Calgary 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of no listed inclusion criteria. Does this include writers born in America with one or both parents of Mexican descent, or writers who grew up in Mexico before immigrating to America, or writers whose work focuses on some kind of Mexican-American experience? Looking at Lists of writers, I was initially concerned that there were so many other lists exactly like this one that I wouldn't feel right voting to delete it, but there are actually only three other "Lists of [Nationality](-)American Writers":
    • List of African-American writers, which survived AFD in January because it defines its scope and relates to an established genre of African American literature;
    • List of Asian American writers, which also has no clear definition and which I would vote to delete;
    • List of Irish American writers, which has a clear definition, but does not indicate the relevance of the Irish American heritage of many of the people listed, and which I would vote to delete.
So I'm cool with deleting this one. Propaniac 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep under the rationale used for List of African-American writers. Mexican American literature is an established genre, although it is most often termed Chicano literature. This is an established field of study in many Universities, and therefore the list serves its purpose, especially to contrast a list of Mexican American writers with those who choose to write about their ethnic experience. --Bfraga 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I re-renamed it. Changes shouldn't be implemented during the afd, and the changes have obviously confused several people above. Bulldog123 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Really???? I've participated in several AfD discussions where a worthy article was improved during the Afd process. Can you tell me where you got your information? Thank you.--Chicaneo 00:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Found it. --Chicaneo 00:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You silly, of course there is a Mexican American way of doing accounting - it's called bean counting. LOL ;-)--Chicaneo 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I follow the above reasoning either. Mexican American literature aka Chicano literature is an established genre. There are many types of literature that fall into this category. There is poetry which has a very old oral history in the corridos, or ballads, of the Southwestern United States prior to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (i.e., the region which used to be Mexico but is now comprised of the states California, Texas and everything in between). Rodolfo Gonzales', "I Am Joaquin" is a famous epic poem that traces the struggles of the Mexican American from the indigenous peoples, through the Spanish Conquest, through the aquisition of the lands and peoples of Northern Mexico by the United States, through modern day civil rights issues. There are calaveras - satirical poems. There is children's literature and Tomas Rivera is an author whose works mainly focus on the lives of Mexican American farm working (migrant) children. There is Mexican American fiction which focuses on the "insider/outsider" and "assimilation to the dominant culture/preservation of ethnic cultural identity" issues that most of us Mexican Americans find ourselves struggling with on a daily basis. There are many famous writers of Chicano fiction, Sandra Cisneros is one of the more contemporary ones. There is Mexican American non fiction which documents historical events and people. Just Google "Mexican American non fiction" for tons and tons of biographies. And if you were to Google "Mexican American literature" you would come up with [38] which is a US Govt website that has information about Mexican American poetry. And Mexican American literature is a subject taught in universities all over the United States. So I'm really not sure where any of the discussions above questioning Mexican American literature as a unique genre are comming from. I do believe however, that the article as it stands now is no longer a list. It is a stub on a legitimate literary genre and needs work. It also needs to be renamed. As it was when it was a list, yes it should have been deleted. But now, as part of a larger article, I believe it should stand per Evrik. --Chicaneo 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the same rationale used in the List of African-American writers. However, the introduction in the aticle should be rephrased with a clear definition of whom are to be considered Mexican-Americans. It would also be much better if there was a "List of Hispanic-American writers" which would include Hispanic-Americans in general and merge this list to it. Just an opinion. Tony the Marine 00:54, 12 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. W.marsh 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Wolter[edit]

Jan Wolter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability; software developer with a quote on Usenet who has written software for Unix. ck lostsword • T • C 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- on teaching/Prof. side -- no assertion of notability per guidelines here. Little to support that the software is important. And quotations don't = notability per DGG. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm fairly certain that this person is just not quite notable enough. If he is, there should be some non-trivial coverage of his software development work. Certainly, the quote cannot be relied upon as the sole indicator of sufficient notability. Adrian M. H. 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reference I was able to find was his MySpace and company’s website. This in itself does not make him notable. ShoesssS Talk13:14, 13 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. —Kurykh 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1 Litre of Tears episodes[edit]

List of 1 Litre of Tears episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article contains no "real" content other than a list of episodes with missing airdates. Series may be NN. I recommend delete or merge into 1 Litre of Tears Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the series article with a smaller box. The series is notable and this infomation somewhat helps to establish it as notable. The Japanese Wikipedia has the dates and ratings for the episodes. With a high rating of 20% and an average rating of 15%. (The Japanese Wikipedia, takes a very strict view of the GFDL when it comes to sourcing articles.) --Kunzite 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series article. A dozen episodes could easily fit in the article and look decent. Burzmali 14:21, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linde Potgieter[edit]

Linde Potgieter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable kid whose only achievement is to be head boy at his school. Contested PROD ChrisTheDude 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of non-notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hux (talk • contribs)
Delete as above. Burzmali 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fails WP:NOTE, fails Google test and from the tone of the article fails WP:COI. Pedro |  Chat  15:30, 5 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 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of significant platform games[edit]

Chronology of significant platform games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The scope of the article is not well defined due to the vague nature of the article conferred upon it by its name. "Significant" is not the best choice of words for grouping articles, especially when there are no sources cited to show that these games are significant to people other than the article's creators. Not only is it unsourced, but it is an opinion page. Also, much of the information found on this page can be found in the history section of the platform game article. In short, it violates no original research, and neutral point of view. bwowen talk.contribs 13:18, 5 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criteria A7. I get the feeling that the original author is using Wikipedia to promote his company MLB Web Design.-Wafulz 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bowman[edit]

Matt Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Non-Notable person. A vanity article. X201 12:56, 5 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. NawlinWiki 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fasha[edit]

Fasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced for over a month. Search for "Tammy Ventrella" returns only this page. WP:BLP issues. --OnoremDil 12:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - After a few more searches, stubifying the article may be enough. It does appear that "Fasha" was on the cover in April of '85, but the rest of the material would seem to me to be inappropriate without proper sourcing. --OnoremDil 13:12, 5 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 apparently Jmlk17 deleted it (check log) under G7. Non-admin closure. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maguire Kings[edit]

Maguire Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect this article may be a hoax as its style and content are similar to a series of gradually more elaborate hoaxes on the Maguiresbridge page. Does anyone know if Fermanagheditor uses one of the IP adresses (84.67.168.77, 84.65.47.220, 82.29.236.10, 90.242.18.43, 90.240.10.70) which were used to do this?

Also, the heads of clans were known as 'chiefs' or 'chieftans' (or its Gaelic equivalent), not 'kings'. The only references quoted are links to amature web-pages, one of which (according to Fermanagheditor's talk page) was created by him. Unknown Unknowns 11:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. p.s what has my IP address got to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermanagheditor (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: Quite aside from the article's lack of reliable sources (WP:RS), Wikipedia has a few pertinent principles. First off, no one "owns" an article, and every single edit screen contains the language "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." (WP:OWN). Secondly, removing a deletion tag before the AfD concludes is a serious offense, and can get you blocked; don't do it. I recommend going over some of the links we've given here and on your talk page to see what the policies and guidelines are here.  RGTraynor  16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Fermanagheditor has blanked the article and indicates he/she now wants it to be deleted. As he/she was the only substantial editor, I propose closing this as a speedy delete if there are no further objections or comments. --John 21:22, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Hanlyn[edit]

Jai Hanlyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, if not a hoax. A film producer who's friends with Johnny Depp and Jessica Alba would have an entry on IMDb and more than 6 Google hits. szyslak 11:30, 5 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. NawlinWiki 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like minded group[edit]

Like minded group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV rant about the alleged excessive power of human rights abusers in the UN. Appears to be based on this one web page; a Google search shows many usages of the term "like minded group", but they're all over the place. Delete as an essentially unverifiable POV rant. szyslak 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things: I've hardly even finished writing the page and have not put up the other refernces yet.

Secondly, I don't see how "The Like Minded Group" can be ignored since it is a named, existing group.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis EW[edit]

Genesis EW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is for a company. It doesn't reference anything other than it's own site or assert any notability. DraxusD 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user on nearly the same day, and seem to be related only to this company: DraxusD 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GenCOM Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Electronic Order of Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COMINT metadata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous brahmins[edit]

List of famous brahmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT an indiscrimate list of information. What is considered to be "famous" is Original research. None of this is verifiable as there are no reliable sources. POVs can also develop very easily with an article as fragile as this. GizzaDiscuss © 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was a consensus [the indian topic noticeboard] that supports lists over categories (in terms of jati. Lists by caste, are large and unwieldy and fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.Bakaman 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The imprecise confusion brahmin class and jāti (caste) has already been mentioned. I cannot see how this article can be maintained without difficult POV issues. I also see no need for a category to track this information. Buddhipriya 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the previous discussion User:Bakasuprman linked to. Unsourced, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list with POV problems. Abecedare 02:14, 13 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSpirit[edit]

SilverSpirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Confirmed conflict of interest on the COI noticeboard. Non-notable band, has not released an album to date. Unsourced article. MER-C 08:41, 5 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. Anas talk? 12:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Jocić[edit]

Dušan Jocić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For all I know, this is either a hoax, or an unreferenced semi-attack article about NN person, (supposedly) BLP. Virtually no ghits; those few relate to a pupil, a cameraman, a forum member, or mistaken name of Serbian minister of interior Dragan Jočić. No related cyrillic hits either [46], alternate spelling. The article initially created by a SPA [47]. ZOMG, we had this stuff for 2 years, with many editors fixing the formatting and spelling???Duja► 08:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check under WP:HOAX, in the links section. 68.39.174.238 04:10, 6 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 Ships of Navy Field and Weapons of Navy Field into Navy Field (already done by Wkcp (talk)), no consensus to delete Navy Field, although a cleanup and hack-back is suggested in this debate. Daniel 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Field[edit]

Navy Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources for verification, no evidence of passing WP:WEB and it seems to be an indiscriminate dump of instruction manual information. Also bundling in two other articles, one a huge list of weapons from this game, the other a list of ships. DarkSaber2k 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles being included are:
Ships of Navy Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weapons of Navy Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cheers, cab 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I can't read Korean, I have to say that those headlines seem to be just press release style (WP:WEB does state that Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. which is what these appear to.) DarkSaber2k 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After running the sources through a translator, it's obvious even through the mangled translation that all 4 of those are just trivial mentions of the 1st and 2nd types mentioned above. The first 3 sources are all just 'These changes will be made at these times' articles, and the 4th gives Navy Field about a 4 word mention in a 'This company which runs this game is going to be working with this other company' style. DarkSaber2k 11:16, 10 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. Over and apart from the bad-faith single-purpose meatpuppeting of this discussion by the keep votes, the sources added to the article establish that Plecnik is notable within conservative youth circles. But not outside of them yet. If and when a non-conservative media outlet gives him some non-trivial coverage, then we can consider recreating this. Daniel Case 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Plecnik[edit]

John Plecnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a complete and direct copy paste from the subject's personal website [50]. The statements come directly from the site and aren't sourced. The topic does not demonstrate notability, it appears to be a vanity page. Edit - Also copyvio, thank you Tdmg. Chris M. 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are this users only edits on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is this users only edit on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is this users only edit on wikipedia besides removing the notability tag I put on this article without any other changes. Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is this ips only edit on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search on John-Plecnik+|+John-T-Plecnik google throws back 10,700. I have verified a number of the facts in the article; the other facts can all be verified to sources which are not independent, so I have tagged them with ((fact)) as Im pretty sure they are accurate and possibly verifiable to reliable sources, but there are a lot of google results to wade through. The text still resembles the text is it a copyvio of, but that isnt reason for deletion. His essays are widely republished, with Rush Limbaugh reading one of his essay over the radio being the most notable in my opinion, so it is a weak keep from me. John Vandenberg 08:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is this users only edit on wikipedia other then the one to remove a notability tag without discussion or an edit summary. Chris M. 07:33, 8 July
Ever heard of Assuming good faith? Your blatant attack on my character is not appreciated. I stated I "have not met him" hence I have no reason to hate him as someone's baseless claim stated. I have heard the name yes or I wouldn't have clicked the link. Chris M. 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at wikipedia standards, notability cannot be assumed, it must be demonstrated. The complete lack of sources of the article when I re-added the tag after it was removed twice (by these people who seem to come to wikipedia only for this article) had absolutely no sources. Again, you ridiculous claims that I have some kind of agenda are laughable. As you can see above, I'm not the only person who thinks this way as a few other established wikipedians thought it was worth deleting. As the article stands now it has sources of which I haven't been able to look into, but I do not appreciate assumptions of bad faith. Chris M. 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that anyone can easily look to, i.e., using a simple google search. It seems that HoboMM and John Vandenberg were able to back up all the facts in the article, and demonstrate the subject's notability very easily. Why didn't you just google plecnik and add the cites instead of trying to delete the article if you don't have a bone to pick? It just seems suspicious to me.CollegeGOPFan 7:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I put up a "citation needed" tag for almost week and nothing was done, then when this afd comes up, 6 brand new users come out of nowhere to oppose it. An article needed deletion because notability was not proven when the article was first copied. Having google searches and having your name stated on sites does not alone make you notable, many of the references only mention him in passing. That being said
This is this users only edit on wikipedia 64.252.120.229 05:40, 9 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. Anas talk? 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Vanity[edit]

Scotty Vanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:N. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:50, 5 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 nothing, or rather, there is nothing to do. The page is already a soft redirect. —Kurykh 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements[edit]

Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Gallery of flags; transwikied to the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just want to ask why we should move the page to Wikimedia Commons and delete the page in wikipedia. Is there a policy guild? Should we also move all the gallery like Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms to Wikimedia Commons? I just find it strange if some galleries of national flags are at Wikimedia Commons and some are still at wikipedia. Salt 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on that goal. Anyways, I have put up pages similar to this before on AFD, because Wikipedia is general not used for galleries. But, the reason why some still exist because I am looking at specific pages and see what should be kept here and what should be moved to the Comnmons. I hate to do batch nominations, since many times I participated in those, they tend to be screwed up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, it can and should be stored on Commons. However, the article itself should remain accessible via 'Pedia, referencing Commons. Acroterion (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done, using Commons:Flags_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements. That is what we did to the Template for the list of flags when I moved stuff to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why the AFD is being done; pages like this cannot qualify for speedy deletion (once the AFD is done, then it can be speedied) so this is mainly just a formal procedure, like the others that I have done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main driving force is WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which is that if the page is pure collection of images with little to no article text, then it should be shifted to the Commons. As for why there was no discussion is that, from my dealings with Wikipedia, you just cannot move everything to the Commons with one swoop and mass-nominations always fail. So that is why I am doing this one by one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but commons is only a repository, so galleries there are be solely for image finding purposes. I think this gallery is intended to be more than that. I appreciate that you are only nominating one gallery this time (and a gallery of marginal usefulness at that) but I am not convinced that commons even wants this gallery, in which case we would need to discuss whether Wikipedia wants this gallery, which is what responses to this nomination have discussed. John Vandenberg 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons have not told me to stop yet; I admin the place! Anyways, galleries were currency images, audio files, paintings and other things exist at the Commons. We have galleries on various painters, showing all of their work, while Wikipedia shows an example of what they did. I moved other galleries there before in the past month and other than a few complaints here, pretty much not many either cared or had an issue. As I told others, this nomination is only here for procedure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:36, 9 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 discounting the Single-purpose accounts. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaxFlame[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DaxFlame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A former AfD has taken place, and I originally deleted the article. After further scrutiny, I've decided to relist the article because although the article may have other concerns, it is cited with sources. This AfD is to confirm that this article is legitimate (or not) and to confirm consensus. Sr13 07:44, 5 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 speedy deletion criteria A7.-Wafulz 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. White Productions[edit]

M. White Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio of a musician, although it is hard to tell if the article is about the artist or his company. Either way, there is no evidence of notability. Has a sufficient assertion of notability to miss out on a speedy deletion. Kevin 07:27, 5 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. I didn't quite like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in some of the keeps, but Corpx's arguments seemed to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with other appropriate arguments to cover it. However, both sides had good arguments overall, hence the "no consensus." —Kurykh 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin slang[edit]

Mandarin slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list of Chinese words and their definitions - Clear violation of WP:NOT which says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Corpx 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that its not found elsewhere on the internet should not be a reason to keep this article. This is also a list of neologisms, in Chinese. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms advices against creating articles about neologisms, coupled with the fact that this is a list of foreign language neologisms in the English wikipedia makes it worse. Also, I dont see how any of my contributions are relevant in this AFD nomination. This AFD should be judged on the merits, not my contributions. Corpx 07:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, how are these neologisms? Lu Xun called "Ta ma de" the "national swearword" in 1925 (famous essay [51]), that's a bit old for WP:NEO. "Wang ba" goes back for millenia [52]. The fact that the page is about a foreign language is neither here or there; enwiki is an encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia restricted to Anglosphere topics. cab 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that those 2 words on that page may not be neologisms, but what about 99% of the rest of the list? From the 2nd word's URL, it seems like a dictionary service where you looked up the item. I think it should be there, not here. Corpx 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that humor, or are you just making this up? Cool Bluetalk to me 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR refers to novel, unpublished interpretations, not "I've never heard of it and I don't want to look for a source". The above phenomenon is heavily documented. Start from page 1-2 of Chou, Wah-Shan (2000). Tongzhi: Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies. Haworth. ISBN 156023153X., which mentions the first usage of the term with the meaning "homosexual" and the controversy it provoked. cab 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find a dictionary with most of the current Mandarin slang article content (which is largely definitions), i would be more inclined to say delete. The matter of the fact is vulgar elements of a language is rarely documented, and scarcely studied. --Voidvector 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt mean to twist your words, so apoligies if I interpreted it the wrong way. I also dont "like" the Latin profanity article for several reasons. It is an attempt to categorize words from a language. We dont want an article on every group of words from Latin - Latin metaphors Corpx 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original position was "move to Wiktionary", as you can probably see in the edit history, but I changed to keep after seeing Latin profanity, I think it is well written. It is something worth striving, although I am not sure if there are sufficient resource on the vulgar elements of Chinese. --Voidvector 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me also state that I dont like those articles either. I think they're all in violation of WP:NEO, because they "attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest —without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" and "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. " These pages cite examples of use, but per WP:NEO that's not enough Corpx 17:06, 5 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.-Wafulz 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO[edit]

ZEDO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Closenplay 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shalom Hello 06:31, 5 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.


Relisted November 20, 2007 because article continues not to meet encylcopedic criteria
Please add new comments below this notice.69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Also, article does not provide any relevant information for people wishing to learn more about the company or its "advertsing" services. I was disappointed with the quaility of this article when trying to learn more about ZEDO as were others (ZEDO talk page).69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel my edits are inappropriate and the content that I removed belongs in the wikipedia, please feel free to revert my edits.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this article is not in the early stages of editing, its been in existence for several months.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations from the New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Stein[edit]

Jeffery Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an autobiographical article about a businessman who has a series of successful ventures, but is borderline, leaning not notable. Specific google search reveals an article about Convene that makes mention of him for several paragraphs [60] and another article on the same company that barely says anything about Stein [61]. The two preceding sources are good for an article about that company. However, the potential NPOV and OR problems introduced by an autobiography prompt me to request deletion.

On a personal note, I don't like deleting this article, as the author sent me an email gushing about wikipedia, and even offered to pay people to help him become a good wikipedian. He's a nice guy, but he's probably not notable and the article about him has serious potential policy problems (its hard to know if there are real problems without more sources). Chaser - T 06:12, 5 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, while the original deletion reason no longer applies, several editors pointed out that this does not meet the notability guideline for books.--Isotope23 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Run (book series)[edit]

On the Run (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No plot summaries, please. Falls under WP:NOT. Shalom Hello 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is odd is that tons of other book articles have plot summaries but they aren't up for deletion!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna F C (talk • contribs) 16:57, July 5, 2007

I agree with Anna F C, many book articles -- like Harry Potter have rather longer plot summaries than this article does. -Lemonflashtalk 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amend this article with sections on criticism and praise; controversy; awards and honours; commercial success; translations; cultural impact; and future adaptations, and I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. Having a long plot summary is not a reason for deletion; having almost no meaningful content BESIDES the plot summary may be a reason. Propaniac 23:24, 5 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. Sr13 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole bourne[edit]

Nicole bourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If there is a notable costume designer named "Nicole Bourne", the IMDb hasn't heard of her. There are also no relevant Google hits for "'nicole bourne' costume designer". szyslak 05:49, 5 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. Neil ╦ 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Toby[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Save Toby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The nominator's rationale in the first AFD, which closed a year ago ("no consensus"), was as follows:

  • Delete Website for a man who pretends he will eat his pet rabbit seems to exist primarily to drive Internet discussion. Succeeded in getting a listing in Snopes describing it as a hoax. Alexa says rank 90,757. Google says 70,900, many of which are promotional pages created by the SaveToby folks (such as CafePress pages selling their merchandise, any many blog posting pimping the page). Never achieved meme status. I don't see why Wikipedia should be part of the failed promotional efforts for this not notable website. Uucp 11:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he got it right, but at the time the meme was semi-active and users were able to find articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere. 1.45 years later, in the perspective of hindsight, this seems to be a forgotten meme with no significance and probably no truth behind it. It's time to take another shot at consensus.

I'd appreciate it if someone would add one of those "AFD is not a vote" templates. I think it will be helpful here. Shalom Hello 05:48, 5 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 as copyvio. Morgan Wick 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani pop music[edit]

Pakistani pop music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been around since Oct 2005 I believe. No attempts have been made to do anything with this article. Its complete nonsense (in a non speedy delete way). ~ Wikihermit 05:46, 5 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, plot summary is too oversized to condense into anything useful. Sr13 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Rurouni Kenshin[edit]

Plot of Rurouni Kenshin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Like the countless deleted anime plot summary articles before it, this article is in violation of WP:NOT's rule on plot summaries as overly-detailed, almost to the point of copyright violation. Real-world impact of the plot is already covered at Rurouni Kenshin. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:31, 5 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. Sr13 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challan[edit]

Challan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MKoltnow 05:10, 5 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. Sr13 08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaySpring Presbyterian Church[edit]

DaySpring Presbyterian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 04:37, 5 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. Sr13 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous hipsters[edit]

List of famous hipsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Someone put this on the AFD log, possibly with WP:NOT#IINFO in mind, so I'm making a procedural nomination here. No opinion from me. Shalom Hello 06:11, 5 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 Corpx 08:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas You Missed[edit]

The Christmas You Missed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ... something. Outreach program? Corvus cornix 04:30, 5 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. NawlinWiki 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Monsters Attack Japan![edit]

Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment, and WP:CRYSTAL. Parker and Stone are notable, but an hypothetical and future movie without sources is not. — Coren (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given an external link (and working on getting more). Is that good enough?--Swellman 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's to be noted that the two external links specify that not even a start of production date is estimated, and no other information is available beyond "men in rubber suits". — Coren (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've given some external links and have added some more info. The movie is not speculation. It has been confirmed. I say keep it. It'll just be re-created later on, anyway.--Swellman 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of "changing the release date", it's a question of whether it will be released at all. And you can't provide the slightest assurance of that. --Calton | Talk 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo link fixed SkierRMH 04:38, 9 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. Sr13 08:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs specifically targeted to treat premature ejaculation[edit]

Drugs specifically targeted to treat premature ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article exists only for spammers to attach advertising. Should be deleted with redirect to Premature ejaculation. Merge discussion has gone nowhere. edgarde 04:19, 5 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 as copy of http://www.woccu.org/_assets/documents/ICUDay/OperatingPrinciples.pdf - Tangotango (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Credit Union Operating Principles[edit]

International Credit Union Operating Principles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Either a copyvio or belongs at Wikisource. Corvus cornix 03:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It's a copy vio of this page. I went ahead and tagged it speedy. the_undertow talk 04:07, 5 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. The reasons to keep are weak, and not much notability is asserted. Sr13 08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Purdon[edit]

Stephen Purdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable bio, and seems to be a vanity page containing nothing of interest to the world in general or knowledge seekers in particular docboat 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverted from previous unvandalised edition. Still seems non-notable docboat 03:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guy was only in one episode of that show, hardly notable still as you said. Kwsn(Ni!) 03:40, 5 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. Sr13 08:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gransden[edit]

Tom Gransden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. No real assertion of notability and no sources. Article creator admits he/she doesn't know of any other than (undocumented) eyewitnesses. Ford MF 02:22, 5 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 suprime. Sr13 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish language films[edit]

List of Spanish language films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant and hopelessly incomplete list. Category:Spanish-language films contains almost 2000 articles; this list has less than twenty. PC78 01:48, 5 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 IAR delete. Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA. I close this with no prejudice towards expanding the section in the main article, transwiki of contents, etc. —Kurykh 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Les Misérables[edit]

Plot of Les Misérables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Masaruemoto 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little more looking around: Wikipedia has a whole category on Les Miserables, for crying out loud. With three subcategories for the books, plays and six movie adaptations based on the book. We have about a dozen between two and three dozen articles in all, with only one or two of them more important than this one for an understanding of the novel. And doesn't the play take, what, four hours? Five hours? Six hours to run? There's a reason for all this. It might be that there are a lot of readers interested in an article going into the plot in more detail.Noroton 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (edited to get the correct amount of articles on Les Mis Noroton 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • In looking at some of those other articles, frankly, a bunch of them ought to be deleted or merged too. The stage musical adaptation is certainly notable but every song from the musical isn't and the entire contents of the songs subcategory should be deleted. Pointing toward other Miz-cruft doesn't justify this article, which is again a blatant policy violation, existing. Otto4711 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How sad: You're saying that you support having an article on a musical but (as your vote shows below) you would delete this article, which is so important to the better understanding of an important subject, and all because one meets a bureaucratic rule and another doesn't meet another bureaucratic rule. You're letting adherence to bureaucratic rules hurt Wikipedia, a classic situation to which WP:IAR is supposed to apply, for the better protection of Wikipedia, which your adherence to these rules would trivialize into something pretty philistine. You argue your point well, and that's helped me to try to refine mine. Please see my comment at 00:52, 6 July 2007, below. Noroton 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, I do support having an article on the musical adaptation of Les Miz, because the musical adaptation of Les Miz is notable. I would not support having an article devoted to a minutely detailed plot summary of the musical adaptation of Les Miz, because such an article would be a plain violation of WP:NOT. Sorry if you find that sad. I find your "sadness" and your general attitude patronizing. Otto4711 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a regular in deletion discussions. Somehow I think your skin is thick enough to endure any "patronizing" from me. Rather than get in a huff and ignore my objections, you could instead address them, but you haven't. Noroton 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections amount to, basically "Les Mis is really important" and "this article violates policy but let's overlook that and keep it anyway." Your objections have been dealt with, repeatedly, in probably thousands of AFD discussions. Otto4711 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your response amounts to, basically, saying "I don't care how important the narrative of Les Mis is, it violates a Wikipedia rule to have an article on it, so we must delete it." Your description of my argument still wasn't answering the objection, and neither is waving your hand at other deletion discussions. If the "save" arguments here have been destroyed elsewhere then it should be easy to use those arguments from other deletion discussions here. Noroton 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay settle down, both of you. I'm not picking sides, nor will I be seen taking sides but this is a debate about the article, not a critique of each other. -WarthogDemon 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, each of us is critiquing arguments, not personalities, but it's not leading anywhere so I'll stop. Noroton 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can certainly try to nominate a new policy that would address this situation, but AFDs would be pointless if we dont follow the policies in place now. Corpx 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn the question around: If we're just here to follow bureaucratic regulation, you don't need discussions: We can just have administrators delete. The rules and guidelines concerning plots really are seriously messed up, and I will look into changing them. But no matter how you vote, you've got to admit that we're tightening the screws hard on a valuable topic while the sheer volume of articles on unserious or miniscule topics is unchecked. Serious topics like this one deserve serious coverage. We're making Wikipedia trivial.Noroton 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to this article because of the minute detail to which it descends. Who really needs to know that Valjean's sentence was extended "three additional years for each of four escape attempts, and two more for resisting arrest following the second attempt." Who cares a sou that he stole exactly 40 of them from a boy? I am reminded of A Tale of Two Cities, which was at one time similarly bloated; it went so far as to tell the reader exactly which floor of a building a character was on at one unimportant point! Fortunately that was reined in, and so should this example. The main article describes the plot quite well and concisely. You accuse us of being bureaucrats, but they are the ones most likely to try to puff up the importance of something by loading it down with minutia. Clarityfiend 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with instant deletion is that these articles have usually been up for a while and a lot of users have made contributions to it. An administrator just wiping it all out just like that doesnt seem fair (to me). WP:FICT describes plot summaries as "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them." I dont think it is an encyclopedia's place to go through chapter-by-chapter (or episode-by-episode) and describe the happenings of a book or tv show. If it were up to me, I would keep the above mentioned plot summaries to less than 10 sentences. Corpx 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and merge - WP:NOT#PLOT. It really doesn't get much clear than that, and it's policy, so it applies to every article. While Les Misérables is one of the most famous books by a French author, WP:NOT#PLOT applies to everything from The Cat in the Hat to Romeo & Juliet. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to have to pull an IAR keep, too. I agree with the undertow. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that to be true. After all, the power to veto does not make Congress obsolete. This is the first time I have ever seen IAR used in an AfD, which shows that it is a policy that most people respect enough to use sparingly. the_undertow talk 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If we let this article be an exception to the plot summaries due to IAR, then all the tv show plot summary people will invoke the same rule in those articles' defense, which in effect renders the "no plot summaries" rule unenforceable. Corpx 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arkyan, you've completely missed the point of WP:ILIKEIT and I suggest you reread it. That section deals with nonnotable bands and the like. Nobody anywhere disputes the notability of Les Mis. WP:ILIKEIT has nothing to do with arguing that something is of recognized excellence. The justification of the plot article is that we should treat Les Mis with an article just on its plot because this ultra-notable novel has an ultra-long plot. Feel free to be a slave to bureaucratic rules. I'm challenging you and everyone here to justify the value of the bureaucratic rule in this case, which seems to me a harder thing to do than to justify an article on the plot of Les Mis. Noroton 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "A" in WP:IAR stands for "All". So it is exactly a free pass to do whatever we want (after all, we can only do it here by consensus, and anything we do can later be overturned by consensus), and, since the "A" in WP:IAR stands for "All", it does apply to WP:NOT, as one of those rules included in "All" because WPL:NOT can work as a rule -- if IAR works for rules, it works for guidelines, suggestions, definitions, everything. Here's the entire text of WP:IAR, which I think is useful to review: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Now, why would this rule be so hallowed if it wasn't meant to be used now and then? Noroton 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. WP:WIARM. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review points 2, 3, 4 and 6 under "What Ignore the rules does mean. I think those all apply here. I see nothing we're doing here, in a consensus-based forum with a specific mandate for deciding on whether to keep or delete an article that would misinterpret WP:IAR, but perhaps you could point out something I missed. Noroton 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you have missed is that you have not presented a valid argument for why the article should be kept and you are attempting to use WP:IAR to tell people they can't argue with you and that it doesn't matter that you are wrong. WP:IAR is not a defense to take. That is "Keep - WP:IAR" is not a valid argument. Jay32183 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see first paragraph labeled "Comment" below, because it addresses this point and a point made elsewhere in this discussion. Noroton 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyvio of a work first published in the 1860s. Wikipedia has a template for works (in the United States, at least) published before 1923.Noroton 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the text of a public domain work is being copied exactly, it belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see even quote in the plot summary article, does anyone? Noroton 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's saying that it's a copyvio of Les Mis, but rather of a Cliff Notes or SparkNotes-type book that would contain such a plot summary. That may just mean that enough effort's been put in that it reads like a professional job, but that's still not grounds for keeping it. Confusing Manifestation 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't every encyclopedia worth its salt overlap to a degree with Cliff's Notes, Spark Notes, etc? And I repeat, those booklets are longer and more detailed than our articles. We can, you know, create the encyclopedia we want (and we have and we do, all the time). We have permission to do that.Noroton 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (add additional sentences. Noroton 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Since the book is out of copyright, would it justify us putting the entire text up on wikipedia and let the readers come up their own interpretation to the meanings etc? Corpx 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurt is a very subjective word. I dont think having plot summaries like this hurt wikipedia. I dont want to set a dangerous precedent of citing WP:IAR to keep an article you like, especially if you have the numbers. This basically would mean any popular article violating the rules would be kept as it would have the numbers to flood Keep votes based solely on WP:IAR Corpx 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a bit dramatic. My own personality is of the type that does not fear setting a precedent. If everyone was afraid of such, we would have no judges on the benches. Wiki has a way of correcting itself, and I think such a concern could mute voices that share your fear. Like more cowbell, my thought is the 'really explore the studio here' and place faith in my fellow editors that an IAR keep here will not have a negative result. the_undertow talk 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the relation of deletion discussions to rules, Edison makes the opposite point at 16:07, 5 July, which I think is a valid point: If a rule actually is harmful, then WP:IAR encourages us to ignore it and it should be a precedent, and that may lead to changing the rule. In any event, Wikipedia rules by consensus, and if a bunch of deletion debates indicate the rule should be changed, then we have a new consensus that the rules just haven't caught up with (see point #6 at WP:WIARM and see Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy, neither are rules or guidelines in any way). I don't regard that kind of precedent as "dangerous" I think it's a feature, not a bug. It's one way that, corporately, Wikipedia thinks and makes decisions. You make another point: "I dont think having plot summaries like this hurt wikipedia." I think that's the pivotal issue here, because if you're right, all my arguments collapse. I think it's self-evident that not having this plot summary hurts Wikipedia, along with some others. Noroton 01:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, it's not self-evident that not having this plot summary hurts Wikipedia, because a number of editors whose powers of observation appear to be on par with yours disagree. Otto4711 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're scoring debating points by exploiting chinks in my language, not addressing the issues. Your position so far is to simply ignore what's important out there in the world Wikipedia is supposed to cover. I don't see any arguments that Les Miserables is not important enough to have an article on its plot. Instead your arguments concentrate solely on applying bureaucratic rules that don't deserve to be worshiped as sacred. In fact, the delete argument here so far has simply been to apply rules, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I've argued that we have a broader duty here than just applying rules. Noroton 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your argument hinges upon the supposition that literary works that are "important enough" should have plot summary articles. I'm not going to poke fun at this argument but it's no stronger than Otto's arguments based on a strict reading of the rules. If anything I would say his argument is on stronger grounds - it's based on a policy that has been written and refined rather than an invented supposition. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we do indeed have a broader duty as editors than simply reading and applying rules, but nevertheless when WP:IAR is invoked it requires sound reasoning. What is the reasoning given here? Where has it been demonstrated that "highly important" works of literature must have a plot summary so detailed that it must be split off into its own article? I don't feel that relying on WP:NOT is a slavish devotion to rules. NOT is a pretty simple guideline, after all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One does not expect to find intricate plot summaries on an encyclopedia. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the reasoning given here?" The reasons have peppered the discussion top to bottom: The novel is of uncontested importance, the plot, which is important in itself, is unusually long and complex and to adequately describe it takes more space than merely part of an overall article. Three or six or 10 paragraphs fails to capture enough of the substance for anyone truly interested in finding out more on the subject. What is unsound in this reasoning? We usually resolve questions of the "importance" of a subject by the standard of notability: multiple, independent, reliable sources giving substantial coverage to the subject. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, we have those sources. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", you say, but just as important, Wikipedia is an enormous electronic encyclopedia that can cover many times more articles than a regular encyclopedia, so one DOES expect to find many, many more articles in this encyclopedia than in any other, as you well know. Train stations, lighthouses, neighborhoods, high schools -- you would expect none of these in nearly all encyclopedias, and yet all are here, consensus won't allow deletion of most of them, and it would be hard to make the case that any of these articles covers a subject of more importance to our readers than this plot summary. There is nothing particularly unencyclopedic in plot summaries per se. We have them all over the place in Wikipedia. Noroton 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really dont like this safety blanket. If you disagree with a policy, start an initiative to change it instead of claiming WP:IAR. I, along with 20 of my friends, could go through the items up for AFD now and just vote KEEP, per WP:IAR and we'd have "majority vote". I dont think there's a consensus here to to claim WP:IAR. Per my count, there's just 4 WP:IAR votes here, with 12 Delete votes, which is far from a consensus. Corpx 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On second thought, I would not support the revision of the article as I have mentioned it, because it would just be a regurgitation of what is (or would be potentially good content) on the main Les Mis article - societal impact, allusions to other works, historical significance, and so on. My opinion to delete it stands. bwowen talk.contribs 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cosette, by now eight years old, is sent out to the forest by Madame Thénardier to fetch water on Christmas Eve. She is alone and afraid in the dark, when a man helps her carrying her bucket home. He takes lodging in the Thénardiers' inn, not taking his eyes from Cosette. He spares her a few punishments from Madame Thénardier, pays five francs so that she needn't work and even buys her a magnificent doll.

God knows that nobody could possibly have any sort of conversation about Les Mis without being cognizant of what precise errand Cosette was doing in the forest and how much the stranger paid Madame Thénardier. Propaniac 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an amusing point, Propaniac, but most of the article isn't that detailed and if the article were a third of its present length it would not contain that level of detail, yet it would still be too big to fit into the main article, so your quote is beside the point. I think your other point, that the article lacks criticism and discussion of the plot, is interesting, but the first place that discussion should appear is in the main article. Only if that discussion gets too long should it go into a separate article, possibly this one or possibly its own article. This article does not do a lot of things (for instance, if it were a ham sandwich, I could eat it for lunch, which is equally beside the point). Noroton 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no evidence presented that the much, much shorter summary at the main article does not meet the needs of an encyclopedia. Also, the dispersement of information across multiple articles should not be simply about length; by that logic, if an article gets too long we could just chop it anywhere. Articles should be generally self-contained. By creating a separate article for the plot, you are asserting that the plot is a distinct topic with its own notability, and therefore any information supporting that notability--such as proof that the plot has been discussed and referred to on its own terms--should be contained in the article dedicated to the plot. Propaniac 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the plot is established, under WP:Notability as multiple, reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject of an article. The link User:JulesH already provided on 15:44, 6 July to the Amazon page shows four published sources that focus on the plot or at the very least offer substantial coverage of the plot. Therefore the plot itself, as a subject considered separately from the novel, meets Wikipedia notability standards for subjects of articles. We can certainly add a sentence or two at the top asserting notability by using those books and, I'm sure, many more sources, although I'm not really sure that helps the reader.Noroton 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important works is a very subjective inclusion criteria. Anyone who wants to keep any plot summary here would argue that their article is also important. We shouldnt be able to keep/delete plot summaries based on importance Corpx 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we're suggesting using WP:IAR to make an exception to a rule, so in each future deletion discussion the precedent would have to be argued anew. I don't think it's a big deal. DGG's last post, above, and his addition to the bottom of the article suggests that we could assert notability by pointing to multiple, reliable sources that themselves give substantial coverage to the subject of the plot. The Cliffs Notes, Sparks Notes and two other "Notes" books cited by JulesH at 15:44, 6 July would be a way of providing some limitation to plot summaries, using WP:Notability. How many literary works are covered by more than one of these kinds of books -- 200? 400? Maybe we should insist on something more. Anyway, what exactly is the objection to having a ton of plot summaries in this huge encyclopedia? Noroton 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not comply with the existing policy now and try to change it? If the policy is changed, an admin can bring this article back (or somebody can recreate it). As for the articles about plot, I would guess modern day TV shows have much much more multiple reliable sources that discuss the plot. Every article up for AFD could be justified by saying "what exactly is the objection to have this article in this huge encyclopedia" ? Corpx 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not encyclopedic coverage, it's only a plot summary. Encyclopedic content includes analysis and can't come solely from primary sources, which plot summaries do. Jay32183 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is. A basic plot summary is a core part of encyclopedic coverage of a fictional subject, with the amount of plot summary necessary being proportional to the complexity of the work. Les Mis is not only really long and complicated, but one of the more important fictional works of all time. A split-off of the plot summary is therefore completely justified for stylistic reasons as a sub-article. That, as Deckiller notes, the plot of the work is probably an encyclopedic subject in and of itself due to its influence on literature, further strengthens this. (The scary thing is that I'm having to explain this to anyone.)(WP:CIV, WP:CIV, WP:CIV...) --tjstrf talk 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or even just a few paragraphs on legacy/creation/critical reception of the plot. There's plenty that can be written; it's just a matter of finding the sources. — Deckiller 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because a few people here on this AFD have agreed that IAR should be applied and that WP:NOT#PLOT should be amended does not at all mean that the policy should or will change. There are still dissenters on this page and there will most likely be people who disagree in the main debate. We, as editors, should not be assuming that this revision of policy will automatically become "common sense" and apply the policy as it currently stands. If it is changed after the fact, then the place of this article on Wikipedia should be reconsidered; as it currently stands, this is an article that does not have encyclopedic content and should be treated as such. bwowen talk.contribs 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was moved to user space and then back to article space when done, that should preserve all of the edit history. -Chunky Rice 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course not--the original work is over a thousand pages long in most editions, and few people approach such a monumental novel without wanting to et some idea of what its about. And most are likely to need a certain amount of help keeping everything straight. The plot summary is not long because it is over-detailed --unlike some video episode summaries--it is long because it is a very complicated plot. Please do read the book, and see for yourself. DGG (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corpx, I think you have a point. If we let in this, what won't we let in under the same principle? But the question is better addressed over at the discussion page of WP:NOT, and this discussion is about this particular deletion decision. I certainly think THIS article should stay even if the rule is never changed -- if that happens, it will simply be an exception to the rule. That might actually be the best course, and we may have as many as one or two dozen more exceptions to the rule of similarly long, intricately plotted classics. Or we could let in all plot summary articles. But that decision and discussion is mostly for the rules talk page. If this sets a precedent, I don't care, I think saving this one is worth it. Noroton 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either all or almost all plot summary sections in Wikipedia contain information taken directly from the book, which is, after all, the best source. I suppose you could take plot summaries from Cliffs Notes, etc., but what's the purpose? The writer did what had to be done to accomplish the goal of having a plot summary. It's pretty straightforward and it's what we do when we take information from any source. Noroton 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A purpose of citing to Cliffs Notes would be to comply with Wikipedia's original research policy. Had the writer complied with WP:NOT#PLOT, there would be more motivation to cite reliable sources independent of the topic. The book itself is not independent of the topic, so it is not the best Wikipedia source. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. -- Jreferee (Talk) 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, all three of these are monumentally important books of truly high levels of literary excellence and significance. I agree with Corpx. bwowen talk.contribs 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. But the point of Wikibooks is not to be a repository of plot summary articles. I thought it might be an option until I looked into Wikibooks further. The Atlas Shrugged article is far more detailed than a plot summary, the Lord of the Flies is something very like the Les Mis plot article we have here, and the Of Mice and Men article is broader than the plot. The point of the Les Mis plot article is to present a summary of the plot that tries to balance depth with conciseness (if someone wants something even more concise, they can go to the plot summary in the main article). Although the Lord of the Flies Wkibooks article looks very similar, I think that's only because it's at a rudimentary stage for Wikibooks. If we send this article to Wikibooks, eventually it would become something much more vast, and we lose the plot summary as a discrete thing. Noroton 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding more information is a good thing, like for the Atlas shrugged article. I dont see any way we "lose" the plot summary. Atlas shrugged has a plot summary with some additional info. The plot summary is still there. Lord of the Flies looks exactly like this one, but I would judge it to be better. Corpx 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also like to note that wikibooks has a "Fictional Annotations" section that's perfect for something like this. Corpx 04:32, 10 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 (CSD G11) —Xezbeth 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going Cyber... Without Going Bananas![edit]

Going Cyber... Without Going Bananas! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a workshop being given at a conference. It makes no claim to any significance beyond that conferences and provides no independent sources. (Further, based on the username of the original editor, the editor may be one of the presenters.) It doesn't fall into any category for speedy deletion, but it is extermely non-notable, non-verifiable, and without a clear path for how to make it notable. I nominate with a strong delete recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 5 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 original research. Sourced content can be merged back into the original article. As tempting as it is for perceptive editors to write about themes in fictional works that may seem obvious, it's still OR. Any such critical analysis needs to be meticulously sourced. Erik, if you can't find the original sourced edits in the article history, let me know and I'll get the text for you from the deleted versions. Daniel Case 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes in Blue Velvet[edit]

Themes in Blue Velvet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork from Blue Velvet#Themes, and some Original Research. This topic is already discussed in enough detail in the main article, no need for a seperate article. Masaruemoto 01:16, 5 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, but expand plz. Sr13 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idrees Bakhtiar[edit]

Idrees Bakhtiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable journalist. No assertion or justification of notability. Ragib 01:14, 5 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 by consensus and the author's request. Yomanganitalk 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam (The Band)[edit]

Spam (The Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability. A band who is not signed, and has self-recorded only one album which it is giving away on its own website. This is, in my opinion, borderline spam. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:06, 5 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. Sr13 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake plant in popular culture[edit]

Mandrake plant in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Laundry list of loosely associated topics which have little to do with the mandrake plant in popular culture and more to do with listing any mention of the word "mandrake" in popular culture, or any fictional character named "Mandrake". Crazysuit 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, knowing that Dr. Strangelove has a character called Group Captain Mandrake really helped me understand the plant's alchemical uses. Crazysuit 05:14, 5 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, there is clearly no consensus to delete here though I note that sourcing is a problem and the article could use some editing in that regard.--Isotope23 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man match[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Iron Man match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    An unneccesary restatement of information from List of professional wrestling match types, as well as POV information. Calgary 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but what information does (or did) the article include that isn't included in List of professional wrestling match types? The details of the rules of the match are just a restatement of the summary, and the reception section is entirely uncited, and a very probable NPOV violation. After you take that out, all you're left with is a list of Iron Man matches that have occured in the past (assuming you replace the ridiculous "Judgement Day 2000" section, and that's just supplementary content, which is hardly grounds for it's own article. The topic itself may be notable, but unless there's actual information (say, for example, a well-cited history of the match, or equally well cited details about the effect of the match on professional wrestling), you don't really have an article Calgary 13:24, 5 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. Reviewing the discussion below, it seems it is being asserted by those suggesting retention that this meets our web notability guidelines, but I simply see no evidence of that provided. This deletion is simply on those grounds and is without prejudice against recreation or undeletion if someone wants to provide reliable sources of non-trivial coverage demonstrating WP:WEB (feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you have something you'd like reviewed).--Isotope23 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudopod (podcast)[edit]

    Pseudopod (podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Notability is not asserted nor established. No non-trivial secondary sources. I seriously can't see a Wikipedia article for every podcast...just because it's a podcast shouldn't mean notability is automatically conferred. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:40, 5 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. Sr13 07:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of references to Xanadu in popular culture[edit]

    List of references to Xanadu in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    WP:NOT loosely associated topics and indiscriminate information - a list of anything in the world that contains the word "Xanadu". Plus, someone said a sentence containing the word "Xanadu" in an episode of Veronica Mars once. Crazysuit 23:32, 4 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. Sr13 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PTDA[edit]

    PTDA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A Google search for this [70] shows no relevant results, so I don't believe that the organisation really exists. The references section has only commercial links that don't back up the article. Kevin 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That link is in the article as well, but seeing as anyone can submit an acronym I don't consider it a reliable source. Kevin 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DGG removed the speedy tag noting that under CSD criteria A7 this does not qualify because it is not a company. I would argue that an association qualifies as a group, but it is an interesting point. Kevin 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd thoughts[edit]

    Upon re-reading the article, I've found some historical value to the content. Although the article might as well be tagged as a stub if it is not deleted, there is still something about the content that reminds me of Traffic Safety developing around the world, and the efforts of law makers to assist organizations willing to take steps to improve driver education. StationNT5Bmedia 03:58, 5 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. The problem with many of the arguments below is that a source that merely describes something as something is not really a source of information; it's a source of wording. For all intents and purposes this list is merely a collection of links to sources, which have in common only that they share a particular, exceedingly common turn of phrase. In short, Haemo's argument that it is "excellently cited" is not convincing to me, and Carcharoth's intelligent comment that the association between the members is too loose and that the list as it stands is essentially original research is quite convincing. Chick Bowen 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people known as father or mother of something[edit]

    List of people known as father or mother of something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. It is simply a list of people loosely connected by the concept that they have been referred to as the "father" or "mother" of something, which isn't encyclopedic within itself. Coredesat 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's incomplete becase it's indiscriminate. 'Father/mother of' is just a figure of speech. We might as well have a list of people known for being the genius behind something.--Nydas(Talk) 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, it's not even indiscriminate as it stands right now. WP:NOT#INFO lists five types of unacceptable lists (FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics and news reports); this one does not fall entirely or tangentially underneath a single one of those. Second, the list sets out the criteria well: it's someone who's been described as a father/mother of something, and it has to be sourced. While I admit some of the sources are dubious, we don't delete articles for having fixable flaws. --Hemlock Martinis 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. As for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, all one has to do is look through "What links to here" to see how many articles reference someone being the father of something. There is a common thread, and that's being called the father of something. I'll yield that it's indiscriminate as to what people can be the father of, but it is discriminate in that they all have to be the father of something. It's the same kind of list as List of premature obituaries and List of HIV-positive people, both featured lists; the people in those two lists have nothing in common EXCEPT what the list links them together with. --Hemlock Martinis 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, unless Jimbo penned it himself, it's still just an essay. That means it's just an opinion. Not a guideline. Not a suggestion. Not even an indication. Just an opinion, one which STAYS an opinion because enough people disagree with it to prevent it from becoming anything else. --Hemlock Martinis 04:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::::The perfectly good reasons is that it doesn't do anything or add to the encyclopedia. I just don't see how this helps the project out in any way. A category, maybe, but this list really isn't serving any purpose. CaveatLectorTalk 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Helps the project? What an unquantifiable criteria that is. Almost as bad as "uncyclopedic". --Hemlock Martinis 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you may have noticed, many of the references are from reliable sources. A brief glance yields the names Encylopedia Britannica, The Telegraph, BBC, New York Times, as well as scholarly papers and university publications. --Hemlock Martinis 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure Brittanica has called people a lot of things. (I doubt they frequently use "stupid", but I bet you'd find "hard worker" appearing in it more than once.) The fact that some reliable sources use an adjective or metaphor frequently doesn't mean we need a list of everything or everyone referred to in that way. If it's frequently said "X is the father of Y", and we can source that, that bit can go in their article, with a lot more context. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's even more of a reason to delete it. Add the sourced info to the individual's articles as appropriate, sure. But there's nothing that ties all of these people together other than a synthesized point of view. Tarc 13:03, 11 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. Sr13 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "The_Fore_and_Aft"_Regiment[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      ((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/%22The_Fore_and_Aft%22_Regiment))
    "The_Fore_and_Aft"_Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The page is an extension of the "Fictional Regiments of the British Army" page that is full of links to articles about other fictional regiments. The article contains information about the regiment mentioned in the story "The Drums of the Fore and Aft" and there are other fictional regiments so profiled, some from TV shows or movies with less provenance that this article. I say that if the main page and its other sub-articles stand, then this should stand as well. The "Thursday Next" series of books, for exaple, has a healthy representation there, and they detail units from an alternate universe that hunt werewolves and vampires with hovertanks! Hotspur23 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article referred to is List of Fictional British Regiments. Personally, I think a list is just the thing for this information--or articles about the work or the author. DGG 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is about a fictional group, cites nonsensical notability, no references to assert notability, patent nonsense in my opinion, even if it is something by Kipling it does not belong here Tdmg 07:41, 5 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. Chick Bowen 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce G. Klappauf[edit]

    Bruce G. Klappauf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The subject of this bio of a living person has complained about this article, stating in a message to the Oversight mailing list, "I am not a 'widely published quantum optical physicist'. I am a barely published experimental physicist -- if that." ➥the Epopt 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The way I see COI, is that scientists and other people are divided between the excessively modest and the excessively self-important, and no one is a good judge of whether they themselves really are important--in either direction. But this is at most still borderline by our usual standards, so I think having him decide is reasonable.DGG 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with that in most cases except for use as a deciding factor when its really borderline, as here. "Papers on the subject" is not the criterion, and does not meet WP:PROF--all science PhDs who expect to get a job in the academic world publish at least 1 or 2 papers as a minimum qualification along with the thesis. DGG (talk) 23:10, 6 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 by TerriersFan. Sr13 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurst Hill Primary School (Coseley)[edit]

    Hurst Hill Primary School (Coseley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a stub about a primary (elementary) school. Elementary schools are inherently non-notable. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with you on that one, DGG. As for not all elementary schools deserving the chop, I am in agreement: nearly all elementary school-related articles do have little place on Wikipedia (and this comes from a non-deletionist,) but a few, which have some notability other than their being elementary schools, deserve to stay. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 22:23, 5 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 by TerriersFan. Sr13 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mount Pleasant Primary School (Coseley)[edit]

    Mount Pleasant Primary School (Coseley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is an article about a primary (elementary) school. Elementary schools are inherently non-notable. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:44, 5 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 by TerriersFan. Sr13 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    St Mary's Primary School (Coseley)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    St Mary's Primary School (Coseley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a stub about a primary (elementary) school. Elementary schools are inherently non-notable.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hispalinux[edit]

    Hispalinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    7,000 members is not an assertion of notability, yet that's the best this article manages to do Misterdiscreet 16:35, 5 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. — Scientizzle 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Habari[edit]

    Habari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    it's always a bad sign when an article begins with "[this is] a new [insert name here]. fails WP:SOFT, WP:N, WP:V, etc Misterdiscreet 16:44, 5 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 unless notability is shown. Sr13 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mephisto (software)[edit]

    Mephisto (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    fails WP:SOFT Misterdiscreet 16:54, 5 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 and Keep. Several of these individuals had varying levels of "notability" but most of them fall well short of WP:BIO. Despite what one contributor asserted below, notability isn't merely determined by IMDB credits. Many of these articles contain WP:BLP violations and original research as well. Taking out the unsourced personal info, most of these articles are just reduced to a list of shows these individuals appeared in. I note that there is a consensus to merge these, but most of the logical target articles are not currently laid out in such a way that there is a logical place to merge the usable information from these articles. For this reason I am enacting a series of redirects here with comment that if someone wants to rework the target articles to include a brief biographical blurb about the participants, the information on them will still exist in the page history. The lone keep here is Mary Beth Decker who has a (very slight) claim of notability outside this series of interrelated television shows, making her a subtly different case. It's not a strong claim towards WP:BIO and someone may feel it necessary to boldly redirect this article as well, but for now I will leave it intact.--Isotope23 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina Barta[edit]

    Tina Barta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Wes Bergmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kina Dean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mary Beth Decker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Katie Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Brad Fiorenza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Robin Hibbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ibis Nieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Articles about reality stars who've done nothing notable outside of MTV Irk(talk) 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, as I read the notability standards, I fail to see why this cannot qualify. The articles are required to be of interest to more than a few people. More than a few people watch MTV. 72.145.84.130 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Something to consider. I do not use this webpage much, but my teenage son does. I think notability is relative. Many American entertainers are unknown in Europe and vice versa. I do not like or watch porn, so any porn stars are unknown and thus unnotable to me. Ditto for MTV. However my son loves the shows these performers are on and can't get enough. So if I can vote, I think you guys should keep the pages. Hey, it can't hurt any worse than Paris Hilton. --Tori

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of notable sopranos[edit]

    List of notable sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a long list of singers without any selection criteria and without any defined purpose. Similar pages such as List of famous tenors, List of famous baritones, List of famous basses, are redirects to relevant categories. Perhaps this one should be as well? Kleinzach 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately this Afd notice has just been removed from the article. -- Kleinzach 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Afd notice has been removed as it was a personal opinion, and there was no consensus. -- Operalala(talk) 17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: Redirect to category. There's no reason for this to be a page, when it would work better as a category like the other examples given. Terraxos 21:06, 5 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. Please note that sources for an article must be independent. Chick Bowen 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    KeepTalking[edit]

    KeepTalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:NOR and WP:V Misterdiscreet 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    your opinion that an argument is very good is also irrelevant. if it's a good argument, his argument stands without you needed to bolster it by calling it out as "very good". if it's a bad argument, your opinions to the contrary aren't really going to factor into it, anyway.
    and as for your assertion that it's very good. it isn't. it demonstrates the same flawed analysises that has plagged this AfD from the start. it does not matter if the software goes back to 1995. my own life goes back to before 1995. what makes this software more deserving of a wikipedia article then me? longevity is, by itself, is not sufficient. web searches revealing the software existed in 1995 are also irrelevant. google has indexed public records that prove i was born before 1995. that doesn't make me notable nor does it make this software package notable.
    the alleged fact that it was pretty much the first to deal with smiley's and emoticons is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. that you say it is so does not make it so. i can say i invented the computer but that does not make it so. if you cannot back a claim up with evidence you have no business making it.
    and as for calling the company to confirm that it was created in 1995 and invented smilies or whatever else - that's absurd. you can call me up and i can confirm that i invented the computer, however, that does not make it so. what does make it so is proof and you have yet to provide any.
    as i said earlier, you and the other keep voter should go and read wikipedia's policies instead of trying to unilaterally rewrite them. Misterdiscreet 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i should point out that Joe User NY has a clear conflict of interest. look at his edit history. the only article he's contributed to is this in. same goes for 67.183.2.190 and 72.229.170.199. i'm going to recommend all of "you" be invested for violating WP:SOCKPUPPET. Misterdiscreet 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your actions are unbecoming an editor.
    If you want to prove your point, you prove it with facts, you DO NOT prove or disprove something by calling people childish or accusing them of sockpuppetry. You may have made your point, but it's worth noting that most software from that time cannot meet the burden of proof required. Does that mean we should ignore chunks of Internet history or look into changing the policies? You never responded to my other question. Where are the articles on winhttpd and website?
    Interesting how you all seem to edit articles at the same time. Yet more evidence of sock puppetry. About the articles on winhttpd and o'reilly's website - if you feel they should have wikipedia articles, create them and present evidence of notability. they may or may not get nominated for deletion. either way, i don't see the relevance to this AfD Misterdiscreet 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that I am 67.183.2.190 even the time of postings are in most cases hours apart. It's obvious that you do not like having WP policy quoted back to you and you took it personally. I find your behavior despicable. I created the article to fill in a missing piece of Internet history and when asked to defend the article I was instead attacked. Joe User NY 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last edit looked as though it had been made by two people. Specifically, I thought (apparently incorrectly when looking at the edit history) it was made by two different people. I see, now, that I was wrong on that count and apologize for that Misterdiscreet 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. All I want is an open debate on the merits of the article and the policy surrounding it. If we can go back to that, I would appreciate it. Joe User NY 01:19, 9 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. I will gladly give a copy upon request. Sr13 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaura[edit]

    Kaura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    WP:NOT the place to promote upstart and non-notable bands Misterdiscreet 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked and saw that the first author of the article wasn't notified. That is not nice. Would the deleting administrator kindly allow at least that person to respond or let him/her know that the article is in jeopardy and, if necessary and possible, correct the article? Fineday 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that Sagedrummer doesn't edit much. If the deleting adminstrator wants me to look after the article, I am willing to look after it for 30 days and relist it for deletion on August 1, 2007 (so that some of the contributing editors will have a chance to look and see the deletion tag).Fineday 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be courteous to notify an author, but it is not a requirement for AFD. This isn't an article that needs "looking after", it needs sources demonstrating notability or passage of WP:BAND, and while they apparently have some interesting friends and may well be notable in the near future, they aren't yet. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 6 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.
    More