< June 10	June 12 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Beaulieu[edit]

An article on a sculptor and artist who fails WP:BIO. Awards cited are not notable. The Meritorious Achievement in Art and Education is presented by the American Biographical Institute, a body with a record of selling awards and titles. The Distinguished Florida Artist of the Year Award receives a grand total of two ghits (this very article and a free artist portfolio site). Another, the Significant Contribution to the Arts in Education, is presented by the National Organization of Young Audiences, a body which receives a total of three ghits (this article being one of them). The other awards are equally minor - many are of dubious origin. Victoriagirl 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 747 Ghits, most of which directory entries. some prominent hits about a sex offender of the same name. Also violates WP:COI, and WP:NOT#SOAP Ohconfucius 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ohconfucius. Freshacconci 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Per comprehensive nom, although she has missed:"He holds a B.F.A. (1985) and a M.F.A. (1990) from Shaftesbury University, London, England" - SU has 911 ghits, of which this is #3. Johnbod 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people national football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma people national football team. The objection to the article was the fact that the team hadn't played a single match. The article was recently recreated, after the team's first match. This article was nominated for speedy deletion per G4, recreation of deleted content. I have declined the speedy nom, because the main objection has been addressed and the article is sufficiently different from the deleted article. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sports-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the 1st nomination the deletion of the article was based in the fact that those team had never played a match in their history, that situation isn't true anymore, as you can see in the article, these team played their first match during this week. Calapez 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if they represent "Roma peoples around the world", they cannot be a National Team in the normally accepted sense of the phrase. They've played one game, against another side that doesn't represent a recognised country either. - fchd 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The team they played their first match against Southern Cameroon national football team has a wikipedia article as does the Nouvelle Fédération-Board, to which the Roma team are apparently now affiliated. Not representing a recognised country is surely then no reason therefore for the article to be deleted. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yes, I'm aware of that. I don't think any of the NF Board teams are notable enough to deserve an article, this one even more so. On whose authority do they represent the Roma people of the world? - fchd 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have to disagree with fchd. While some of the NFB-teams really have borderline notability others, such as Greenland and Zanzibar were widely portrayed in the media and took part in televised tournaments like the 2006 FIFI Wild Cup. Malc82 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're not a FIFA national team, but apparently they are a Nouvelle Fédération-Board team, and most of the NFB teams have articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a team which represents an entity and has in fact (now) played a match. The question of whether or not it's a "national team" (which relies on a different definition of "nation" to the one FIFA seems to use) can be hashed out elsewhere, but that's not a reason to delete the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recognised by Nouvelle Fédération-Board and as teams they recognise have articles this is no different and therefore is notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Borderline notability, as of now they don't seem to have sufficient notability. I'm only supporting Delete because of WP:CRYSTAL, it's very likely they will play more games and become notable in a few months. As of now the NFB's inclusion standards just look too open for them to be enough of an authority. Malc82 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. There is no independent evidence when/if this match took place (the source has no date for the game) and there are no independent sources per WP:RS. What is the organisation of this team? How do we know they represent the Roma people? Sorry, at the moment there are too many questions and too few answers. BlueValour 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per calapez.IP198 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're gonna have to find sources for these types of things. (→zel zany - fish) 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source, but the match is mentioned on the forum of the official website of the NF Board: [1]. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a note on a discussion forum doesn't seem very definitive. The main pages not only doesn't mention the date but neither source says what the competition was nor include any of the basic details such as players to check the teams represent who they say they do. BlueValour 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They played and there are corroborating sources. Whether the article is 'important' or not is irrelevant and by personal judgement.mercator79 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but when did they play; the source doesn't say? Why are there no newspaper reports if the game took place? The one source, could be a WP:SPS and certainly isn't a WP:RS. BlueValour 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not matter if it is or not a recognized national team, especially for NF-Board team. It is around a world, however it is a national team. For some people it is a national team and I think this is an encyclopedic article for national teams that are not recognized but exist.--KRBN 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry again, but who do they represent? Which spokesperson for the Roma people says they represent them? Who selected them? etc. BlueValour 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As said above, borderline notability. However I am given the impression that in the coming months/years they will have sufficiently gained enough notability to be included. The Filmaker 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - where is the evidence for this, otherwise it is just Crystal balling? - fchd 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Cab[edit]

A large fleet but no special features and no secondary sources to establish notability. Nothing to differentiate from other large taxi firms. Delete. BlueValour 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's to distinguish it from, say, City Cab of Eureka, California?--Ispy1981 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say speedy, unless someone wants to construe their claimed number of taxis as an assertion of notability. Someguy1221 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article started as an advert. When that element was removed there was virtually nothing left. The business may be large enough to be notable, but if so, a propert article should be written. Therefore do not salt. Peterkingiron 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some feasible way of expanding. The article doesn't cite any sources. Also, per WP:NOTABILITY, as a Google search reveals only the company's website.Bwowen 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sank[edit]

Non notable unsigned band, fails WP:MUSIC, zero ghits Rackabello 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless claims of releasing five number one singles and four number one albums can be substantiated (which I doubt). The article reads like bad gossip, with some very dubious claims. --Wingsandsword 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable. The only ghit I found was an Eastern European mp3 site.--Ispy1981 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verify before deletion I mean, how many unsigned bands get five number one hit singles....if it proves to be true they deserve a "Best Indie of all time" award dont they?

Delete. Non-notable band, info about singles and albums seems to be a hoax. Not a cult band, barely mentioned even in Estonian media - and even then as "unsurprising pop-rock" about their only high-visibility performance - youth band festival, 2005. DLX 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed, borderline G1 Speedy since "most successful unsigned group" is surely an oxymoron. A1octopus 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone shows up references to support notability. The site mentioned in the article as what looks like a list of participants in some band's contest where they entered - «Noortebänd 2004» finalistid - so they exist(ed). Notable, WP-style? I doubt it. - Nabla 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Finance. Note that Merge is a form of Keep, even though some who favored a merge also supported deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial system[edit]

This article forks from article with identical subject matter (Finance), but its content seems to be based on the point of view of the author(s).Originally proposed for deletion, but template has been removed. --Gavin Collins 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's a large overlap (sections 2 through 5) with Finance and probably little of the content from those sections needs to be merged with the main article. However, the first section, Financial system#Payment system, would be more appropriately covered in an article on banking, but based on a quick check, I note that the topic isn't covered in the main article, Bank, nor was I able to locate an article covering the payment system. The payment system is certainly important and needs to be discussed; it should be merged into Bank or a related article. Sanpete Slim 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially unsourced; the two sources cited only tangentially address the information in this article. Financial system#Payment system is simplistic and in some cases confused or wrong. Perhaps a new article should be written on payment systems, which would describe and contrast the role of various systems such as Fedwire, CHIPS, BoJnet, SWIFT, et al. But that would be a new article, with little to salvage from this one. Sections 2-5 are simplistic, and redundant with the Finance article.--Work permit 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see that much information overlap with Finance. The lack of references is not a reason for deletion - the test is far higher, that article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, and/or all attempts to find reliable sources have failed. This article may not (in its current form) be the best of wikipedia, but it presents useful information and can be improved. Deletion is not justified.--Gregalton 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem isn't just lack of references. The problem is it's WP:OR. Worse yet, it's WP:OR and wrong in too many places to just fix with a few edits and citations. A better outline and definition for financial systems is given by the (sourced) article on the Japanese financial system. This article also has many factual errors. For example, in just the first paragraph of the first section, he states The payment system operates to settle transactions. A transaction is settled when the seller has supplied the specific item and received the agreed amount of value. This is the general definition for a clearing and settlement system, not just a payment system. The problems just go on. Even the outline is wrong. --Work permit 03:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per a combination of WP:OR and WP:SOURCE. The lack of sources and the arguments made by Work Permit suggest that it's original research. I don't really know anything about finance or the system, but in terms of the guidelines and the arguments already made, I think deletion is in order.Bwowen 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research is never permitted on Wikipedia. You're gonna need to find reliable sources. Optionally, merge to Finance. (→zel zany - fish) 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be rewritten to be verifiable and have references though. --Android Mouse 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Original research overlaps with Finance page. The Filmaker 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was created by a spammer sockpuppet, is OR, and if that isn't enough, I guess snow would also be applicable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Research[edit]

Contested prod. Reason for prod was "Essay, OR, title has little or nothing to do with content of article". Creator of article, User:Webmantork is probable sockpuppet of User:Yummytork, who was given a 48-hour block on June 6 for spamming on behalf of clients. --Finngall ^talk 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-encyclopedic Rackabello 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — in addition to problems mentioned, most of the text is almost certainly lifted directly from other sources. I stopped looking after finding [2] and [3]. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the opening of the article, this is admitted orignial research. Someguy1221 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how do they figure that yuppies capable of investing in an iPod + computer are the ones most most desperately in need of health education? ~ Infrangible 02:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 blatant advertising. E.g., passages such as "About.com has launched a six-part series to educate consumers on how to cope with heartburn and acid reflux disease. The series, sponsored by AstraZeneca, is featured at http://heartburnpodcast.about.com. It will provide listeners with in-depth knowledge on topics such as: What Causes Heartburn; Acid Reflux and Your Diet; How to Talk to Your Doctor about Acid Reflux; Exercising with Acid Reflux; and How Stress Affects Your Acid Reflux. “Podcasts provide an exciting new format for delivering trusted health information. Users can now choose to listen online or take the information with them,” said Marjorie Martin, general manager, ABOUT Health." don't read like an encyclopedia article, they read like a press release. —David Eppstein 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geodemography[edit]

Is this article contrary to Wiki policy on neologisms, or has there been a paradaigm shift in the way organisations club together to create a spammy article? In the spirit of geodemocracy, let me know what you think. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, no doubt, but with quite a few Google hits.--Ispy1981 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but how about getting some editors together that care about wikipedia and are motivated to do the hard work of research and writing, as a counterpoise to this deletionsist thing that seems viral and rampant. Wikipedia can cope with this type of subject if it wants to keep up to date, but yes, it is harder to be an inclusionist and get it right, against such a tide of surgeons. Maybe the ostrichs out there are happy with not looking at the reality of life, geese do it to, i chased them and they simply put their head behind a tree and pretended I wasnt there. Until i picked them up. whatever, its not gonna make that much difference out here, enjoy being right for a few years until you catch up with the rest of society guys. This term is at least 5 years old and used by many people on a daily basis, including me. its up to you to verify that, or pretend its not actually happening and take the path of least resistance. i am amazed at how much is lost in this space.. I have no knowledge of the conspiracy so I think tahts a red herring designed to support the delete case. The New Zealand Government has used and given to the world this style of data for at least 5 years online and twice that on desktop. see here: WEBMAP.. moza

Keep – The term is now widely enough used that I don't think avoid neologisms is applicable. The term appears in some business/marketing dictionaries (for example [4]), and in the title of at least one published book (George J. Demko, Gregory Ioffe, and Zhanna Zaionchkovskaya, Population Under Duress: The Geodemography of Post-Soviet Russia, Westview Press, 1999). It also appears to be widely used in scholarly articles—a search in Google scholar yielded 163 hits [5]. The article isn't very good, but it satisfies notability criteria and there appears to be plenty of source material available. The solution is to improve the article, not to delete it. Sanpete Slim 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. moza and Sanpete Slim make great arguments. Indeed, it does violate WP:NEO, but, in light of the hard work that has obviously been put in, I think this is a case of WP:Ignore all rules if it involves improving the encyclopedia. I think that it could use some citations and expansions, but it's a good starting article.Bwowen 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mango juice^talk 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relative price strength[edit]

Originally ((prod))ed as a WP:NEO, prod removed by creator and only editor. Even if it's not a neologism, there's nothing more that could be said than what's there, so it should be redirected to a (new) section of Stock valuation or some similar article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for this term returns over twenty-thousand hits as of June 3, 2007. While the term was first penned by William O'Neil of Investors Business Daily, it has since become relatively widespread terminology in market discussions. I do not have a problem with it being merged but I think a valid point could be made to keep it as there are numerous websites that refer to this term outside of bill o'neil. Chantoke 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because its a common stock concept that shouldn't be ignored. Chantoke 03:38, 6 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, W.marsh 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a WP:POV fork from Beta coefficient which is the common stock concept that this unreferenced article is trying to emulate. --Gavin Collins 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is a stub, but no compelling reason to delete.--Gregalton 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Counting up Google hits isn't gonna solve anything. Make sure those websites that you might reference here (or better yet, in the article) are reliable. (→zel zany - fish) 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 19:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Bundles[edit]

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

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

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

NN. seems to be a local rapper at best. --Philip Laurence 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE* With all due respect to the deceased, he does not appear to meet the standards for widespread notoriety that are a key to being posted. plus the article didn't exist befopre he passed. and it is clearly written from a bias standpoint -- like a tribute page. Great for MySpace or the like, NOT WIKIPEDIA.[[user:jtoddthemighty|

Comment. Article didn't exist before June 11 2007. Thus, he was NOT NOTABLE, prima facie. Enough said.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is an artist who has worked with major rappers like Jim Jones,Joe Budden,Fabolous,Dj Clue?,and Jae Millz. He even own his own label "riot Gang". since his passing we should keep his memory forever. please keep this page!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.75 (talk • contribs)
Keep: he was associated and worked with platinum selling rappers. no need for wikipedia gestapo here. Thismightbezach 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to both of the above. Working with famous rappers is not a proof of notability. Notability is not inherited. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Stack Bundles was on the come up with some of the most notable rappers in the New York hip hop scene. Lyrically, he was stronger than the vast majority of his contemporaries, and with the correct marketing, may have become one of the more successful hip hop acts of 2007. The article is both relevent and important to the hip hop community and should, without a doubt, stay. SquadUpKid 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Diff)[reply]

- Comment. Without secondary sources to back this up, this is OR and crystal-balling. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did he do anything to establish notability? Lots of rappers work with more notable rappers but don't/haven't established themselves. Also, there's the speculation factor--he "may have become one of the more successful hip hop acts of 2007". As it stands, article looks like nothing but an obit. --Ispy1981 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable rapper who released an album. Although affillated with rapper Jim Jones, Stack Bundles is not a popular rapper (is more less a local Byrd Gang/Diplomat rapper). Sorry I am with the rest. This article is not notable. LILVOKA 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not a famous rapper nor is he a hip-hop artist who made any impact. This guy did NOT have an article yesterday or the day before that. As soon as he dies, a wikipedia article pops up. If he had any REAL fans or was considered "somebody", this article would've been here the minute he started his career. There's no need for this article here. It's just another "gangsta" rapper who's dead now. Nothing too serious here. Delete & Move along. J Anyaoha 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, though he fails WP:MUSIC anyway. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article states "he hadn't yet attained widespread popularity", nor did he have a recording contract. WWGB 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I fail to see how a recording contract is the litmus test. Mixtapes are and always have been the lifeblood of hip-hop. Plenty of pages on deceased rappers who have made but a splash in both mainstream and underground hip-hop exist. There is precedence to keep this page. Also, see Rule 11 under 'Musicians' for the Rules of Deletion: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - I'd say Hot97's 6-month love affair with "We Fly High" qualifies. DrobD 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)(Diff)[reply]

Keep Enough said. 71.180.186.33 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Even mixtapers can become notable, there is no evidence given of such in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I don't entirely agree with you Dhartung. Rappers such as Saigon, Tru Life, and Red Cafe (amongst others) have their own wikipedia entries, and all have not, as of yet, released albums. Their pages were written and maintained while they experienced success (equal to that of Stack Bundles) on the mixtape circuit. Perhaps a more close parallel is the persistence of Max B's page. I do not suggest that Max B's page should be deleted, but more reference the fact that sucessive mixtape releases are a reasonable proxy for album releases. DrobD 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)(Diff)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. His death seems to have attracted a reasonable amount of coverage from the media as shown in the sources. [6]. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dying might confer press coverage, but not explicit notability. It's already been said, but bears saying again and again: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to clearly violate WP:BAND; his death does not lend him the noteworthiness he lacked in life. Bigdaddy1981 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable before death, nothing notable except he was '24'. Even birth date missing. Article admits he had not yet 'made it.'

Keep. --Paukrus 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly, a vanity article. Millions of people die every day.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DrobD. The article does need more sources and a great deal of improvement though. east.718 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have changed my vote. east.718 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete-from the article "While he hadn't yet attained widespread popularity..." Indeed. Chris 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Sad that he died, yes, but his notability is lacking at best. DangerousNerd talk contribs email 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep-from the article on Mixtapes "The mixtape format is becoming increasingly popular as a way of generating hype for hip hop artists." Having tried unsuccessfully to avoid hip hop since about 1979, I can assure you that mixtapes have been a primary outlet for young artists – and some relatively established artists – since the beginning. Queen Latifah and the Wu Tang Clan's RZA would not be where they are today without them. I'll be patient if anyone denies a bias against real African-American culture in the coverage of Wikipedia articles, but the reality is this is one area still where there is considerable misinformation and omission. Stack Bundles was notable in a small circle of influential people who are influencing pop culture. So was Nick Drake. This quick "delete him" sounds to me just like, "He's not one of ours." Jplatt39 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this is preposterous, but gee, thanks for getting racism involved. The dispute here is a simple one of WP:BAND and no secondary sources. Almost becoming a notable person doesn't count. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although not many people knew Stack Bundles, I enjoyed listening to his tracks and so did many other people, I know that for a fact. Someone doesn't have to be well known to be a good artist. And if people wanna use the fact of him not being well known, I see a whole lot of people on wikipedia pages that I dont know, although I like the type of music they make. Just because I wouldn't know a person, doesn't make it a valid reason to remove a page. If real fans of Jim Jones don't know this man, they obviously hadn't listened to A Dipset X-Mas, where Stack Bundles featured 5 out of 10 tracks, not to mention the tracks he featured on Jim Jones' The 7 Day Theory mixtape. Carlols 88 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "I like it" is generally considered an argument to avoid in AfD debates. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Granted there are two sides to this issue, but I believe the purpose of the entry to be more central. Wikipedia is, by definition, a "free content encyclopedia project". It is a source of information free from much of the bureaucracy a regular encyclopedia is subject to. Stack Bundles was a significant player on the New York mixtape circuit, and Wikipedia should be able to provide accurate and verifiable information about him as the masses demand it. To do otherwise violates the purpose of this project. DrobD 11:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (Diff)[reply]

- Comment "as the masses demand it" is not a cornerstone of this project. Verifiability is. And really all verifiable press on this guy just says "he rapped with some people who actually are notable" and "he's dead now". Also, the masses clearly weren't "demanding", since the guy didn't even have a stub until someone shot him in the neck. Ford MF 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you delete this article, he will come back from the dead to haunt you all...just kidding. Seriously, though, if you delete this, you show a great disregard to all the rappers who have been murdered (The Notorious B.I.G., 2Pac, Jam Master Jay, Soulja Slim, Proof (rapper)) among others. While not every rapper who has been murdered deserves his own Wikipedia article, this one does, because his murder has been mentioned quite often in hip-hop news (even moreso than Proof, I would bet). Plus, he had collaborated quite frequently with Jim Jones (rapper) and Dipset, whom you do have articles on. This is why I say Strong Keep. Tom Danson 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, collaborating with notable people doesn't necessarily make you notable. Notability is not inherited. Ford MF 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have never heard of him, it is clear he was a notable artist with in his artistic community. Being world wide famous is not the defenition of notability. FancyPants 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons stated above. Zerbey 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but I'm unsure on that. His article isn't harming anyone though. An article on his death is currently on the AP Wire: http://www.mail.com/newsarticle.aspx?catId=1&articleId=1098836. He also was an up-and-coming rapper. My final decision is based on the fact that since we have articles relating to lesser-known minor sports figures, we should keep this too, I figure. Guroadrunner 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely minor, non-notable rapper failing WP:BAND. There was no article (and virtually no coverage in secondary sources) before he got killed, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. There's a reason all of the news coverage of his death begins with "Dipset associate Stack Bundles" or "Jim Jones signee Stack Bundles". Otherwise no one would have a clue who this dude is. Ford MF 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i doubt anyone commenting on stack has any clue who richard alexander was. you said it - wikipedia is not a memorial. should we delete that too? these entries are less notable than stack's. there is no internal consistency on wikipedia. give it a rest. this entry is important and relevent to many users of both the hip hop and new york communities and should be maintained, cleaned up and verified (just as richard alexander is to you).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.228.11 (talk • contribs)

Comment sorry but that's a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and thus not a legitimate argument. Bigdaddy1981 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stack Who?? GoodDay 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT about strike-outs. Those two "keep" arguments, ostensibly from two separate registered users, were both posted by the anon IP 207.162.228.12, while another IP, 207.162.229.10 posted a second comment by the ostensible DrobD (Diff). The diffs are listed next to each strikeout. Ford MF 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT. Oy, a third "DrobD" comment was made by the anon IP 207.162.229.11. (Diff). Ford MF 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable rapper, and WP:ILIKEIT doesn't count as a guideline. Wildthing61476 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Homer Simpson once said "If he's so great, why is he dead?". NN rapper when alive. Even less notable now. Lugnuts 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Rayquon "STACK BUNDLES" Elliot was a young man with a very bright and promising future. He has gained a significant amount of popularity since he was introduced to the music world. Two hours after his passing he already had over a thousand dedications on myspace, supporting the argument that he had enough notoriety. He has been featured in several music videas as well as main stream songs. Hot 97, at one point, featured him every monday night on the Monday night mix tape. Both VH1 and MTV have featured him on their new updates. Many radio stations across the U.S. have also taken must interest in his passing. He was not a un noted rapper and was signed to a major label. Rayquon was dedicated to positive change and with his success had plans of changing the lives of so many unfortunate people who grew up around him. Please continue to promote that with hard work and dedication even those who come from the "hood" can overcome diversity and be remembered. Please strongly consider his memory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.62.226 (talk • contribs)
Delete There are barely even listeners on last.fm. I know it isnt a great source, but it should give a general overview of the artist.Buffalodan 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Buffalodan[reply]
Delete Agreed with others, a non-notable rapper. He only got an article in the first place because of his death, which doesn't warrant an article. --RandomOrca2 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is always sad when a young person's life is cut short, and people want to remember this person, however Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he does not pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC so this is a no brainer to delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might have become notable, could have become notable, but died before he could become notable. If he becomes notable posthumously, like Nick Drake, the article can be recreated. But he's not notable at this moment. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^Rule^/^{Contributions} 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's very sad that he died young. Yes, he may have had some following on mySpace or similar. But none of this makes him notable. Wikipedia is not a tribute site. And as for the person suggesting that those who want the article deleted are being racist, there is no basis for that claim. The fact is whether he was white, black, Asian or navy blue with pink spots, he is in no way notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.Smurfmeister
Keep - if the media is covering his death then he must be notable in some way or another. He seems worthy enough for an article in my opinion. Fighting for Justice 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due respect to the man and consolation to his fans, he is non-notable. A lot of people receive press attention when they die, but that doesn't confirm notability. It's great that he was dedicated to positive change, but this is an issue of encyclopedic content, not a referendum on whether or not he was a good guy or not (see WP:ILIKEIT). Also, despite the fact that he may have become notable had he not been tragically killed, Wikipedia isn't for speculation as to whether or not that would have come to pass (see WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). (Sorry I forgot to sign this.) Bwowen 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're gonna need lots of reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to establish notability. Otherwise, as others have said, this is original research and speculation. MySpace isn't gonna help. (→zel zany - fish) 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditionally -- All this article needs is one *twit* to go out and find two articles to put into references. I know this can be done. (I, however, am not going to do it because I hate this guy's music like Herbert Lom drawing gauntlets across a chalkboard in a bad Pink Panther sequel.)--Mike18xx 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local rapper (at best), mix-tapes do not appear to be notable enough, notability is not inherited. The Filmaker 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - blanked by creator. -- RHaworth 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation Theory[edit]

Contested prod. Original research advancing a new scientific theory. --Finngall ^talk 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating a similar article containing some of the same material:

Delete as OR. JJL 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR by synthesis. There are lots of refs, but they all look like support for specific issues within the article, not the idea of the article itself. Need some very specific citations for the actual "coldcreation" theory. DMacks 23:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A very long article with no references to back up anything, no equations, no reputable scientists supporting or even just commenting on it - no chance. It doesn't even say who came up with it in the first place. WP:OR for sure. Clarityfiend 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on both; it does not appear that there is any way to save these totally naive articles.DGG 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article has blanked the page, and is asking for advice on how to write a properly sourced article. See User:Coldcreation for details.--mikeu 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^talk 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merit (band)[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:BAND on a non-notable local label. One article in a daily college newspaper is the only reference, and even that is questionable as a non-trivial published work (see WP:BAND). Closenplay 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It is likely that in the future the band may warrant their own article, but as for right now it fails the notability standard for bands. Firestorm 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article lacks merit. (Sorry) JulesH 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If you will note it does have an outside source, see here. Second if you read WP:BAND close it says, A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Number one is It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did note the outside source in my nomination (see above). And if you read a little closer, you might notice WP:BAND says "…been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". "Multiple"; not "one". It also says "An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis", which is what I was alluding to in my nomination. Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me. Stop trying to delete everything from Wikipedia. Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it. Xanucia 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you going to spam every AfD with keep !votes that offer no rationale for said keep !vote? Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't want to take this the wrong way, so please clear this up for me—are you saying that I'm "trying to delete everything on Wikipedia" or are you saying "let's all of us stop trying to delete everything"? Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't you. he posted a very similar message to four or five AfDs in succession. Resolute 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Phew! I was afraid for a second there that I was gonna have my feelings hurt. Closenplay 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Band and is also crystalballery. We don't do up and comming unless the band has been discovered by a giant of the music scene, signed to a massive label and is certain of future success. A1octopus 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 3 Syracuse newspaper references and a web news article to assist in notability. Removed some of the furure-isms to address crystalballery. --Bren ^talk 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wavering a bit on my nom due to the additional info. Still, does local notability cut it? It looks like the new references are two album reviews, a press release-type thing about them playing a hockey game, and an article about them getting their music on purevolume.com. I'm not swayed enough to rescind my nom, but I did want to credit the additional work done since my nom. Closenplay 10:38, 9 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, W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to sources being added late. --W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, some notability is established through a couple sources but I'm not certain if it's enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND Rackabello 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet criteria.--Svetovid 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to come down on the inclusionist side of things. I think that the added references are enough to meet WP:BAND—multiple non-trivial references. Closenplay 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re the two deletes after the AfD relist: can I get an explaination of why this article fails WP:BAND? Point one states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The article has now been modified to meet this criteria, so I'd just appreciate a little more on your reasoning. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it still doesn't fit the criteria. Seems to me like most of this stuff comes from a primary source, which is the band's website. You're gonna need to get more secondary and tertiary sources. MySpace doesn't count. (→zel zany - fish) 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to WP:BAND, it doesn't need to meet criteria (plural)—only one criterion, which it does: [s]ubject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: Most of the Post-Standard articles are indeed non-trivial, combined with the article from the college newspaper (which WP:BAND says should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis regarding triviality, and that is too long of an article to consider trivial) certainly fits the bill. I also see on the band's website (and it could likely be backed up with old club schedules online) that the band did an East Coast (New York through Georgia) tour in February (which would cover another of the criteria). Closenplay 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The well put-together layout of the article makes me overlook the "soft" notability. Unless we're running out of trees to print the hardcopy Wikipedia, this is way, way down on my list of things that should be chucked.--Mike18xx 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Grove[edit]

Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE. Seemingly a local band, with no real press coverage outside of Albuquerque[7] CA387 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New Mexico media coverage passes the "reliable sources" test, and hence the band passes WP:BAND. There is an allmusic.com listing at http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=EDITH%7CGROVE&sql=11:wxfwxqqgldde~T2 The article doesn't menbtion which label the albums are on, though, suggesting that they may be self-released. --Eastmain 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the link I gave doesn't really justify a keep vote, per WP:SPS. A Google news search returns zero results,[8] while a Google search returns a mere 350—none of which merit inclusion under WP:MUSIC.[9] --CA387 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. I'd like to note that the article is not about a band, it's about a woman. This woman appears to have been mentioned in the albuquerque press somewhat and thus seems to meet one of the criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:MUSIC, unless local newspapers don't count. --Leon Sword 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Says who? The only source I can find is her webpage: something we can't bring into the AfD per WP:SPS. --CA387 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly local only, plus there's only one real source, which is primary. MySpace doesn't count as a source. It's gonna need nationwide coverage of reliable sources, in which that will establish its notability. (→zel zany - fish) 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new name and Cleanup -- Creator of article needs to look at Merit (band) for good pointers. (I suggest he create a new article named Edith Grove (band), and move the work so far over, then turn this one into a redirect.)--Mike18xx 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability by lack of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, and I don't see any redeeming factor. Only two wikilinks to the article, and one refers to a different subject. If it's kept it really ought to be moved to Edith Grove (band), since Edith Grove is apparently a place in London. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. If local town press is all you need for notability we'll have 1,000,000 band articles at Wikipedia. Local press coverage doesn't prove that she is notable for anything, unless it asserts that she is notable for something. So as is, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See You Dancin'[edit]

I'm simply completing a malformed nomination here (I admit, the AfD directions are well hidden), and therefore I abstain from a vote.. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article looks awkward, but "junior jack" + "see you" gets 73.900 ghits, incl. some good ones. Malc82 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:42, 7 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, W.marsh 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John. It's a single from a notable artist, linked from the artist's page. YechielMan 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N396JS[edit]

Do we really need an article for every single helicopter ever built? I see nothing notable or remarkable about this one. My preference is to delete. Philippe 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if an individual aircraft has participated in a significant event then it is notable. This one, however, has done nothing signifcant beyond the normal job it and all others like it have been designed to do. This is not notable and should be deleted. StudierMalMarburg 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to assert notability per WP:NOTE. No third-party reliable sources are discussing this aircraft specifically. I'd also suggest adding County Rescue Services aircraft N202LF and N135CR to the AfD; the first crashed (like seven other aircraft in the US on that day alone [10]), but it's still not notable. --Charlene 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn beyond rescue - it doesn't even have a nickname. Clarityfiend 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pages are notable and should not be deleted. Each aircraft has saved hundreds of lives and are therfore notable by hundreds of people if not thousands. If we can't speak of notable aircraft, why don't we delete Air Force One and Marine One off WP too?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The300WhisperGuy (talk • contribs)
- Comment These aircraft do not pass the criteria set out in WP:NOTE. No independent, non-trivial third parties are writing about them specifically as aircraft. Notability is not subjective. Air Force One has significant third-party notice, with unrelated parties writing articles and even books about it. These haven't gained notice from outside, and therefore they are not notable. I'd also add that they are only three of likely tens of thousands of aircraft being used for the same purposes worldwide. They're not that unusual. --Charlene 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge part of article into Bell 206. -Fnlayson 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability must be attested to by second- or thid-party verifiable sources, which the page fails to do. - BillCJ 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does nothing to show why this particular helicopter is notable. There are a LOT of helicopters being used worldwide for EMS purposes - what makes this one special - where are the sources that talk about this particular helicopter - or even its operator? Nigel Ish 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely not notable. If it were, I'd write an article about N401MA, which has a lot more history than this one! But even it is not notable, so the only place you'll find it is on my user page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. IP198 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Box Interactive[edit]

Non notable game studio, fails WP:ORG, seems like main purpose of article is for advertising Rackabello 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely. —METS501 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable yet because it hasn't released anything major! I own this company and I can say we are developing a major game, Killerman. Samrulez91 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once you release the game, if it's truly outstanding, you might become notable - but just development doesn't do it, sorry. Philippe 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above, and no sourced claims of notability. Someguy1221 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Dynamite (character)[edit]

Copy-paste job from the main article Napoleon Dynamite. Except for some very minor formatting changes this is essentially taken word-for-word from the "Characters" section of that article. Additionally it's been tagged for cleanup since March with no help. Nothing to merge here as the text is already identical, no need for a redirect as it's an unlikely search term and only one incoming link aside from the parent article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ispy1981 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete redundant Rackabello 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philippe 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it had additional/different information, it may have been interesting, but I agree with the nomination; it's unnecessary. María (habla conmigo) 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a fictional character from a single film. Real-world context for this character can be established on the film article itself. Preserve nothing; it's basically personal observations from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to film article. It's not like that character is popular to the extent that professional analysis on the character has been performed and published.--Kylohk 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jac_roe 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't good enough for a delete. If you could choke an article, that would be good enough. -_-. Toasty! | Available at your local store 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Redirs are cheap; Otto said so. Sr 13 06:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter from Mars[edit]

There is one source for this future film and it's an unreliable blog run by someone not associated with Pixar. This is crystalballism to the extreme. There is no need to have this article this many years in advance of the film without any concrete knowledge of the film. Metros 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Carter of Mars (film). This is describing the same film and there's no reason why this stub should exist in light of the extensive article. This is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Otto4711 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur that this is a plausible search term, and this article is nothing in comparison to the other, though I do think the John Carter page needs work. FrozenPurpleCube 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Otto. Philippe 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Otto4711. JJL 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am the creator of the article, and I did not think there was an article on Wikipedia for it, but I see that there is now, so I say redirect it. ANNAfoxlover 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Quest c&h[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide Corvus cornix 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A1, lack of context (so tagged). I don't even know what part of the game this is trying to describe. 64.126.24.12 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Trivia[edit]

Delete - Article looks like spam. All information (and there's a ton of it) is taken direct from the website. There is no independent source for any of the information, no indication that it meets any of the WP:WEB notability guidelines, and tags pointing out that the info reads like an ad and lacks sources have been ignored by active editors, who appear to be affiliated with the site. I don't think this meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and the tags haven't led to any improvement, so now putting up for deletion. DreamGuy 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails W:WEB. I'd have said give the editors more time but if they've ignored tags I guess they've had their chance. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search for news coverage and the like, but nothing came up. Unless someone comes up with some reliable sources... this is a delete for lacking notability. Polenth 02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on the age (websites from 1994 are pretty much the foundation of the internet). Assuming that factlet can be verified, that is. The article is highly advertorial in tone, and way too long, and contains too much trivia. >Radiant< 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how age gives it any sort of notability. In fact, in this case that might be a stronger argument that it's not notable. It's been around since at least 1996 (according to archive.org -- though I don't know if it's the same site or just one that was there at the time under a different owner) and never managed to get any reliable third party sources etc. (per WP:WEB to acknowledge its existence? Wow. And the Wikipedia article itself only sprung up a few months ago. DreamGuy 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's age is fairly notable, if true, because most sites die only after a few years. Eleven years is a long time, especially on the internet. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- now that I look back on this comment, I wonder where I got the number 11 from. Maybe I misread it as from 1996, or my poor math skills are shining through :p --Android Mouse 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sites in the 10ish years age bracket. It really isn't that rare. We'd have thousands of articles on minor personal homepages if age made a site notable. Polenth 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, we have a thing here called WP:WEB we have to follow. This article pretty clearly doesn't meet it as it stands now, as it has no reliable outside references, etc. If the age of a site made something notable, that'd be in WP:WEB, wouldn't it? Why do we have two people here just kind of making up their own reasons off the top of their heads what makes something notable when we have criteria to determine that? DreamGuy 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two non-trivial reviews, both from magazines: [11] [12]. The traffic ranking of ~5k isn't that bad either [13] --Android Mouse 20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are exactly the definition of trivial reviews as listed on WP:WEB "Trivial coverage, such as [...] 3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site" -- those aren't real articles, they are just extremely brief summaries, a paragraph or less. In order to meet WP:WEB you need to find "newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" that aren't short clips. DreamGuy 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", it's also a review. --Android Mouse 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that we should have articles on all websites over a certain age. Rather, I claim that being (one of) the first major sites to do something in particular is probably a sign of notability. >Radiant< 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep. per radiant. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam. Groupthink 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source there is in the article shouldn't even be a source, which is the website itself. There needs to be reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Furthermore, it's written like an ad, which isn't allowed. (→zel zany - fish) 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deklete - unsourced spam. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pink as the canned spam, but possibly the subject is notable regardless of how crappy the article is -- anybody voting Keep should scrounge around and just fix it. (Note: I've been on the internet almost every day since 1994, and I've never heard of this site until now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Carney[edit]

Non-notable producer of a small independent film. Lack of reliable third party sources that establish notability, the biographical paragraph is copied from IMDB. Does not meet entertainer criteria for WP:BIO. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO DreamGuy 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~disregard per [[14]]Tstrobaugh 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

That's just an essay, you have no standing to get votes discounted, and the essay is laughable to be complaining about such an inherently good reason to delete an article. DreamGuy 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above--Ispy1981 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~disregard per [[15]]Tstrobaugh 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Again, just an essay, no standing, and, again, the essay is wrong on this point anyway. DreamGuy 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lacking reliable sources to verify any notability claims in the article (also known as a failure of Wikipedia:Attribution). Also, to User:Tstrobaugh: wikilawyering does not invalidate opinions made in an AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Philippe 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A debate not directly pertaining to the article in question has been moved to the talk page to keep this AFD easy to read for the closing administrator. —Ocatecir ^Talk 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baguley[edit]

Contested prod. Footballer who has never played a professional first-team match, and therefore fails to meet WP:BIO. Oldelpaso 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO DreamGuy 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no first-team appearances, not notable. NawlinWiki 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Philippe 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played first team football for any League club as yet, and has no club at present. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article infobox says that he made one first-team appearance for Oldham - is this true/is it also enough to keep him? GiantSnowman 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true according to soccerbase. It was changed to 1 by a user who keeps blanking the AfD tag (diff). Oldelpaso 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Delete. On a side note, can someone warn/block the user please? GiantSnowman 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nawlinwiki & Oldelpaso. Qwghlm 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Redshaw[edit]

Contested prod. Youth footballer at Manchester City who hasn't played for the first team, reserve team or even the under-18s. In fact I'm having trouble verifying so much as his existence, as match reports below under-18 level are not published. Take your pick from WP:V or WP:BIO. Oldelpaso 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Philippe 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oldelpaso, fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Riana ⁂ 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarboro City Cab[edit]

Local taxi company with no claim to notability - thousands of taxi companies around the world use adapted vehicles for people with disabilities. This is a multi-nomination with Able Atlantic Taxi, Royal Taxi, Toronto Para Transit and Wheel Chair Taxi. Delete all. BlueValour 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. Bearian 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - this is so short of information it doesn't even have a spam link to the firm's website! (Or tell you what country they're in...). Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into WheelTrans. These private contractors are orphans when alone. If listed together underWheelTrans, the public transit provider who contracts with them, they would appear consistent with other articles in Category:Accessible transit services. Canuckle 06:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to WheelTrans, probably as a table. If they become larger articles in the future, the articles can always be recreated from the resultant redirect. Peterkingiron 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry , but what is there encyclopaedic to merge? The reason that they do not merit an article is their failure to meet notability requirements not the absence of information. Even if the table becomes larger it would not be a basis for recreation. WP is not a directory of taxi firms. The only justification for a merge/redirect is if there is a reasonable likelihood fo the firms becoming notable. BlueValour 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if it's merged, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. This applies to all the articles listed in the nomination. (→zel zany - fish) 00:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akela (film)[edit]

Possible hoax, or at least crystalballing. Article is completely unreferenced, and I can't find anything on Google about this supposed remake. Incidentally, several other horror film articles (including A Tale of Two Sisters and Phone) have mention of alleged Bollywood remakes, but again no refs and I can't find any evidence for it. PC78 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from the article, it looks like the alleged film hasn't even begun shooting yet. When it can be referenced, the article can be re-created. Grease Bandit 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure admitted crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as soon as humanly possible. RFerreira 05:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this film doesn't exist, and there's no indication of notability. zadignose 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no reference to back the claim that this project even exists. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Connecticut Chordials[edit]

I can't tell that this university singing group is really all that notable. The article is an orphan in need of extensive cleanup. I find really no sources through google or google news on this group, other than their web-site. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, much of the page text is straight from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~chordial/about.htm. My understanding is that this may or may not be copyvio...its not a commercial site, but rather an academic/university. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Ante lan ^talk 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable college group, fails WP:MUS. "Winning a second place" is a contradiction in terms. 20 unique Ghits, mostly events listings Ohconfucius 06:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is deleted, please tag the image as well, as it serves no other purpose than making this article look pretty. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the rest of these things, they never pass WP:MUSIC, or even come close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete College bands would need fame outside their colleges to be notable under WP:Band and I cannot find any evidence that this one has any. A1octopus 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS 03:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faye A. Paynter[edit]

Looks like someone posted a version of their CV online, amounts to a vanity/ advertising page. WP:NOT violation Rackabello 19:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person, fails WP:BIO Davewild 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments; resume spam. --Evb-wiki 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defies WP:BIO. Willow177 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Philippe 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rusch[edit]

This biography appears to have been written by the person it is about, it contains no reliable references, the only link is an advertisement for his professional services. Much of the information contained in this article has been debated both on wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet and appears to be non-factual or embellished by the author for purposes of self-promotion. Chewabo 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I've added tags for POV, etc., as noted on the article and its talk page. It needs substantial editing, but I'm voting for a weak keep due to alleged notability. Bearian 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have edited this article before. This person is not a notable figure in the arena of fitness modeling or styling and all information included in the article is unverifiable. If it's OK to add links, I am doing so here: http://www.alldude.net/recordkeep.htm this person operates pornographic websites, and is listed as the custodian of records for these sites. The company that he references in the article (of which he is president) is the same company he lists on this adult website, and is only known for producing softcore pornography, not fitness-related products. Additionally, Rusch was never a fashion stylist, he was an assistant to another fashion stylist but never went out on his own. 76.170.6.228 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable figure, no referenced or reliable sources. Agree with bearin's comments but this wiki entry does not pass the 100 year test even with major editing. Jdspazz87 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the LGBT WikiProject talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies working in Technopark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of companies working in Technopark

The article is a simple directory of 108 companies, only 8 of which have their own articles. There is only one article that links to it. Ronz 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory of businesses. The Technopark, Kerala article can link to an external site if somebody desires such a directory. FrozenPurpleCube 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. The list of companies can be found on the official website -- include a link to it in the article on Technopark, if you wish. utcursch | talk 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this linkfarm. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK prohibit this sort of list. (Requestion 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, it's a directory. --Tone 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use of the term 'Technopark' is not limited to a location in Kerala, too. Pavel Vozenilek 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other Technoparks or Delete- Technopark is not limited to Kerala. R 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Technopark, Kerala Standalone article is cruftesque.--Blueboy 96 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not suitable for merging. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. (→zel zany - fish) 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete: --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, it also filled with what appears to be non-notable companies. The Filmaker 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, on the strength of arguments. I will rename the article, but that's me acting on my own, not a result of the debate. A category may be a good idea, but "categorize" is a bit much to ask in a debate. If someone thinks a category would be worthwhile, make one, and then you can try to argue that this list duplicates the category. Mango juice^talk 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports lists[edit]

Contested prod. It's a list of lists. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of these "lists" don't even have separate entries in Wikipedia. Too many redlinks for my taste.--Ispy1981 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - red linkfarm. Otto4711 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adds valuable information for those looking for information on sports lists players are placed on-- --Josh 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a red-link farm is, in this case, not useful; furthermore, the blue-link lists do not even point to lists, but to articles. --Iamunknown 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's a useful article that just needs a better title, such as "Lists in sports". Every sports league has a "list" or lists. I think it's useful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... WP:USEFUL isn't really valid you know. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you are quoting an essay not a guideline. An essay that makes it clear that "useful" can be valid in some circumstances. In this case, it's a widely used term that has many applications in the sports world. I just think it has a poor, misleading title. Doesn't necessarily mean that the information should be nuked. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - "List of lists" is a misnomer. It is a list of different classifications for players in various sports. The fact that the sports all classify the players as on the xyz list does not make this article a list of lists, in the way that the term is normally bandied about here at AFD. The designations implicit in each of these lists is verifiable, and not original research. Is it good to lump all the sport lists together like this? Probably not. Is it a deletable offense? I doubt it. A better way to write the article would be to mention how each league maintains different classifications/lists of players for teams, and (possibly split into new article) go on to explain those lists. Expanding to cover similar lists in non-US leagues would be good as well. Neier 09:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, this could do better as a category, but that's just me. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Neier. This article badly needs a lead and maybe a rename to explain what it is about: Official player designations in team sports where there are often different rules regarding players with different designations. This topic is probably notable. I don't know the most common name for it. The "lists" in the title has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Lists. Some of the redlinks should probably be changed to unlinked bold text. PrimeHunter 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have added a short lead [16]. PrimeHunter 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the point that this is not a list of lists in the Wikipedia sense (which would be an article listing articles which are lists), it is simply an article which is a list. No clear policy-based case for deletion has been made, and although not much has been put into this article, I think it is a valid stub and should be kept. I would say the ideal progression of this article would be to have fully developed sections for each sport, of a paragraph or so per sports list. From there it can be split into a separate article per sport, and if and when a specific sports list entry grows considerably, it can be replaced with a summary and have the typical canned "main article" link to the full article. I concede that red links should be removed from this list except where good judgment suggests that there are enough sources available to develop more than a stub article. BigNate37_(T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it should be noted that the main contributor to this article, Josh (SportsMasterESPN), has asked the following users to contribute to this AfD discussion: Vikreykja [17], Ebryns427 [18], Phoenixrod [19], Woohookitty [20], BigNate37 (me) [21], Kelly_Martin [22], Kfrogers [23], Burntsauce [24], Sebastiankessel [25]. This could be construed to be canvassing... I'm a little rusty on policy, so could someone please see if there's anything to this? BigNate37_(T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could read Wikipedia:Canvassing, where it says that limited posting with neutral tone to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing and, considering that his or her messages certainly qualify as such, it could not be construed as canvassing. --Iamunknown 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err... dunno. I'll admit, they are neutral thankfully. But it's borderline as to being "limited" from my point of view. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - add-on er... looking at the people, it is actually. Kfrogers hasn't edited in all of 2007, sebastian since the end of may. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Canvassing says an arbitrator wrote "... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." None of the 9 people have edited it and they were all asked to comment. The identical messages said "I was hoping you would take part in this, and voice your opinion on this issue". PrimeHunter 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting. Incidentally, was that "I was hoping ... you would voice your opinion on the issue" a call to arms for deletions or for inclusionists? No. Please, spare us the grief. It wasn't canvassing. --Iamunknown 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll admit, it's sort of borderline. I do think that should be cleared up though, what's an "acceptable" number of people to ask for their opinion. (please, no more comments after this, I'm moving this particular discussion to the WP:CANVAS talk page) Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have not edited the article because it was up for deletion right when I created it. They did edit articles about the Disabled-list and ect. which is included in the article.--Josh 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that makes sense. In that case, I think the solicitation was warranted, and I hope my raising the concern didn't distract the debate from its main subject. BigNate37_(T) 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn to Category - I don't think we should lose valuable info, but maybe a category is a better way of grouping those articles. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. At the moment, there are only a few of those that actually exist. Once more are created, categorify. --Rory096 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think this was intended to be a list of articles, and I don't think it should be. It is the start of an article by itself and only has "lists" in the name because it is about real-world lists. The creator chose a list-like structure and made too many redlinks so it looks like a Wikipedia article list. Some of the mentioned real-world lists (and the connection betweem them) seem worth mentioning in this article but not suitable for their own article, so categorization could not collect this information. PrimeHunter 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an indiscriminate list of information. (→zel zany - fish) 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While this article's subject(s)' notability may be questionable, I don't think any of the criteria at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information match the article being discussed here. The statment that it is an "indiscriminante collection of information" is false because there is a discriminating quality for inclusion in this article. Even if the quoted statement were true, it is too generic to qualify under this policy's specific list of consensus-based descriptions of what an article should not be. BigNate37_(T) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Convert to category -- the phrase "Sports lists" is highly generic and likely to be typed into the search-box by a lot of readers. I haven't even looked at the article -- it could be total garbage -- but something should be done with these two words. (In fact, "sport lists" and "sports list" should all merge together.)---Mike18xx 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. People "invent" this game at least twice a week, its deletion has been discussed many times in the past. Also, no sources, ASR, etc. >Radiant< 11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia games[edit]

This article has several things wrong with it. Firstly, it, more or less, is a self-reference in the main namespace, see (WP:ASR). Secondly, it seems to contain original research/weasel words and most importantly, it doesn't really deserve an article of its own as it has only a few sources, and the sources used include postings on a message board and a blog, which are not reliable sources (WP:RS). The article is redundant within the main namespace but this text probably should be copied to another page in the Wikipedia namespace.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this some time ago with similar concerns to those of the nominator. This topic is already covered pretty well in the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Wiki_Game so there's not much need to merge any text. - Ehheh 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DreamGuy 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can have articles on Wikipedia and criticism of Wikipedia both of which are self-references, we can have an article on this. Voortle 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the difference between this article and the others you mentioned is that the latter have reliable third party sources. RFerreira 05:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete First, note that ASR is a stylistic issue. It in no way means we cannot have articles about Wikipedia nor does it say that we should not. However, this is completely OR so it should be deleted. JoshuaZ 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ehheh. We have deleted articles about 19 different versions of this game before. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4. I doubt this varies much from the 19 different closed AfDs that Metropolitan90 catalogued, thus making it a repost of content deleted by AfD discussion. Natalie 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. Numerous previous discussions have consistently found that this game isn't a notable topic. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh no, not this again. I guess we've established by now that unless we get sources, we can't have the article, and even if we do, it's probably best discussed in the appropriate article as a very small footnote. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, didn't notice this is discussed in that article. No sources, but I do agree that's a much better place for this. Even more reasons to delete this article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Metcalfe and Son[edit]

Notability is not asserted or apparent. There are no secondary sources (reliable or otherwise) substantiating its notability. Why is this publisher notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the CUPressis a standard & reliable secondary source, but I think we'd need more than just that they lost the contract. DGG 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of my children are beautiful! :-) On the more serious side, this information is difficult to put together and is useful to build the web. As a result, I request that the closer moves to here rather than delete. I will stay out of this Afd discussion. John Vandenberg 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful is not enough. It must be notable for inclusion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep on the basis of information provided, unless there is more information. I do not think that repeated listings in tour guides is relevant for notability, although it might provide details. What information is in the history of the Press--just that they did not win the contract? It's a standard & reliable source, but I think we'd need more than just that.DGG 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC) DGG 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the text is available via Google Books; the two quotes that have been used are:
page 329: "Parker was elected Printer on 16 November 1836. Within the Press itself, the elderly James Twitchett, overseer since 1807, put his own name forward, and placed on record his long service to the Syndics.(ref 9) But in the final round Parker's opponent was the local printer William Metcalfe. As both men issued handbills appealing for support (Metcalfe's was a lithographed circular), the affair was not just a formality. The choice between a London publisher and a local printer of fifteen years' standing was a distinct one, though experience of the University Press weighed heavily in favour of Parker.(ref 10)"

page 337: "Not all these books, and others like them, were printed by the University Press. William Metcalfe, at this time in St Mary's Street, became an accomplished book printer, and John Hall, near Pembroke College, though less skilled, was a competitor almost opposite the Pitt Press itself."

John Vandenberg 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These rather brief references still don't seem to me to establish notability. Who says it is important and why? --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if there was controversy, it must have been in the relevant news publications of the period, perhaps even in the traditional form of letters to the Times. DGG 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to have been a minor publisher, but the fact that a 19th century printing company appears in a 21st century history makes it notable enough for a stub. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to assume that the history of the CU Press relied upon earlier sources, some of which were independent of W. Metcalfe and Son--given the period we're talking about, it's unlikely that these would show up in a Google search. Also, W. Metcalfe and Son is mentioned in the 1972 article in Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, so that's at least 2 independent sources; unfortunately that journal doesn't have full text available online, so I'm unable to see how extensive its coverage is. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough reliable secondary and tertiary sources in the article to establish notability, all of which are independent. (→zel zany - fish) 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect[edit]

The article is about a neologism coined by a non notable blogger as a joke. I believe this topic is more suitable for Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. The list of "Notable cases" of the "Streisand effect" all look like original research to me. I have no doubt that censorship sometimes backfires, but from now on are all such events to be referred to as examples of the "Streisand effect"? A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary, or Wikipedia. Pixelface 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not just being used some blogger, the effect is being quoted in reputable publications such as - [26], [27], both of which agree that this has become a real term. Davewild 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A couple of references repeating a recent neologism do not establish true notability. Maybe in a few years if it's still in use elsewhere and has a number of real sources. Content of article is currently unsalvageable except as minor mention on Streisand article or perhaps elsewhere. DreamGuy 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Forbes article - [1] above - even has the same title as this article. I agree, it's not the best-written article I've ever read. But we don't have crystal balls to know whether this will still be mentioned in 5 years. All we can say it is being mentioned now by more than one well-known source. I think it therefore scrapes in as notable.Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, encyclopaedic. The origin isn't important here - it's been adapted into the mainstream, apparently. Wily D 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is easily established by the Forbes article linked above. — brighterorange (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I buy it. Forbes is good enough for me. Philippe 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sounds familiar, hasn't this been in AfD before? At any rate, I remember seeing some notability here, thus my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1) The phenomenon exists (see the list of notable cases), you can't deny that, no matter what you call it; 2) the name has stuck and slowly going mainstream (Forbes et al.) -- Wesha 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another reference from Slashdot, and although the name may not be perfect, the effect is real. If someone can point to a better-named article with better sources, I might change my mind. - Tor Pettersen. 03:08, 14 June 2007 (GMT)
Keep. This is common usage beyond a few bloggers, it is most definitely useful. --Nicklinn 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WiccaWeb 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a full-blown cultural phenomena. Wikipedia is the right place to document it. Besides, if this article gets censored, I'll post it all over the internet ;) Kenheut 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting it will only confirm that powerful and well-connected people can have their way over lesser people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.253.95 (talk • contribs)
Well of course they can -- that's why what makes them powerful after all. ;) Oh yeah, and Keep. — Feezo (Talk) 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if I'm not sure if all the examples fall under the definition, I found it a useful article.-- Adriaan Renting 14 June 2007
Keep - Term might not be perfect, but phenomena is important (this might be even larger than current scope). -Yyy 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It's a common term for a real phenomenon, and the article is well-referenced enough to prove that. Rob T Firefly 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough for me. Forbes is a good reference. Eoseth 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the effect is real and the article is well-sourced. Whether "Streisand effect" is really the best word for it isn't as clear to me (the effect long pre-dates 2005 and even predates the internet depending on how broadly you define it). But that's not a reason to delete the article (unless perhaps if there is another article under another name which covers this subject, which I didn't find, and I did look at Censorship). (Oh, and yes the article could be better focused and well-written but it doesn't seem so hopeless that we'd delete on those grounds). Kingdon 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. But I'm going to just redirect instead; no harm in the redirect itself, and no harm in allowing people to work on more merging to the Cumberland School of Law page, although it does already talk about the center in what I think is approximately appropriate detail. Mango juice^talk 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Law School's Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics[edit]

non-notable academic center at university; most of article is trivialities, what is notable could be easily merged with the law school's article. Brianyoumans 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing, rather than deletion would solve the "trivia" issue. Also the above comments are conclusory statements that are not supported by any reasons or facts. The center is notable according to Wikipedia standards for several reasons that are easily verifiable: 1) its academic production in law journals easily exceeds the recognition required by Wikipedia, 2) the center is unique in the U.S., particularly amongst law schools for its emphasis on researching methodology 3) in approximately 5 years the center has effectively attracted a numerous experts in a variety of fields to write upon and meet about national issues, 4) it is not an academic center, it is a research center, therefore its sphere of influence will generally be limited to the academic and research community. Sweetmoose6

- In general, academic or research centers associated with universities are covered in the main article, unless they have significant notability on their own. This center is less than 4 years old. There is a list of graduates, but none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or indeed any information on their notability. No associated faculty is mentioned other than Smolin, the director, who has his own article. The accomplishments of the center seem to consist of holding a series of conferences, and I don't think that good claims of notability are made for the conferences. I don't see any claims that the center has been influential - had its curriculum copied by other institutions, produced scholars who have started similar programs, etc - and indeed it would be surprising if such a new program was influential. Brianyoumans 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak keep but aggressively edit, especially section 2 onwards - these symposiums (symposia?) can be summarised very briefly without giving full details, and we really don't need the lists of individuals or of courses unless there is anything remarkable about them. Alternatively, merge into Cumberland School of Law per suggestion of Brianyoumans. Barnabypage 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The notability has little to do with the conferences but rather with the volume and quality of scholarship produced by the Center. The reason it is notable is because there has been a lot of it and hardly anyone is doing it. If the conference information reflected that then maybe there could be a compromise here. Sweetmoose6 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is always difficult for one not in the field to measure an organization or individual's prominence within it. However it is notable that there is no mention of this Center in the National Institute of Health's listing of bioethics resources, including their list of academic centers and educational sites. The Georgetown University law library has a short listing of bioethics research centers; this center is not one of them. The Hastings Center, which seems to be rather prominent in the field, has a more extensive list of links, but Cumberland is still not included. The University of Pittsburgh has a rather extensive list of bioethics resources, but does not list Cumberland anywhere that I can see. Etc. In fact, searching on "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" gives you around 80 unique Google hits, most of them directory entries, Wikipedia mirrors, and mentions in the CVs of presenters at the conferences. By random comparison, "Cleveland State University" and "bioethics" gives you over 18000 ghits, 576 unique. Brianyoumans 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - COMMENT: The center studies the ethical and legal implications of biotechnology, not just a broad application of bioethics like all of these other places you mention. That is, in part, what makes the Center unique because it is devoted to biotechnology research and not general bioethics, which could mean just about anything. I also think 80 unique google hits is more than enough to satisfy Wiki notability, but it seems obvious that a state school would have many more hits related to bioethics than a law school would. Cleveland has about 10,000 undergraduates and the Cumberland has about 500 students. Sweetmoose6 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And because CLS's Center consists of one faculty member and his students, and the Cleveland State center has 5 faculty? And I don't think it is particularly notable for a bioethics program; it isn't mentioned in the Cleveland State University article, for instance. Brianyoumans 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The point wasn't about the size of the center but that the terms of the search were much more likely to produce innumberable random references. Sweetmoose6 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And my understanding is that the question is whether this Center is notable by Wikipedia's own standards and not how notable it is in comparison with something else, however closely related.[28] Sweetmoose6 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way this you seem to allege that this falls into questionable notability is under Wikipedia's "Significant coverage." You noted at least 80 independent websites in a google search. Isn't this enough? And this also reaches only purely online resources. What about off-line journal citations? Sweetmoose6 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are presently no secondary sources concerning the Center listed in the article, except for two articles in the college newspaper (Cumberland Law School being part of Samford University). There may be 80 unique google hits for "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology", but as I pointed out, the quality of the pages is very poor - 5 of the first 10 listings are either Wikipedia or mirrors of Wikipedia, for instance. Many of the listings which are not Wiki mirrors or directory listings are in fact pages where "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" simply happen to occur in the same page, and are not references to the Center. I was not able to find ANY news articles or even blogs that discussed the Center or its work, even briefly. Brianyoumans 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they are not in the article does not mean that they do not exist at all. As for news articles, many newspapers do not keep articles online because of natural limitations, and articles are only available in print.

I'm also not certain a biotechnology research center would be a highly referenced source in your typical "blog." I'm not sure the "blog" audience is the targeted audience here.Sweetmoose6 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of the information in the article--

1/N is claimed merely on account of "only one of its kind in the United States, focusing on the ethics and legal implications of biotechnology, rather than an emphasis on general bioethics. " which is really straining after a distinction. 2/It consists of an "office and library at the law school. Two fellows, and several assistant researchers serve for one year terms." (see #4--they are just law students, not distinguished scholars) 3/ It makes a big deal out of its speakers at the conferences but " Center for Biotechnology, Law, and Ethics, Cumberland Law School, Samford University, the Cumberland Law Review, and Cumberland Law School's Chapter of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA)'--various parts of the same university. Later ones had additionally U Alabama Birmingham. 4/to make up enough content for an article, it reprints the program for the conferences and the name of the individual law students who were the fellows. 5/ their notable scholarly output is published only in their own journal. 6/A consistent pattern of very distinguished speakers makes for notability . One or 2 a year for 5 years doesn't quite qualify. The only one always present is the director. He's listed once or twice each year DGG 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:05, 9 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, `'юзырь:mikka 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence has been produced that it is a/notable by the standards of anyone not at the School, b/ has a particularly high production ain terms of either quantity or quality c/has published anything at all of particular notability or held a single separately notable conference. This is a mere attempt to get a second article for a throughly undistinguished law school. This sort of article is what merge is for. DGG 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While these are fine opinions, I don't see any reference to Wikipedia's standards in them at all. I think it has been established by the critical evidence offered that this center fits with Wikipedia's standard for notability if not maybe individual user's personal standards. This is a purely technical issue about standards. If the article needs editing that is a different matter. User:Sweetmoose617:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - quote: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

User:Sweetmoose6]]17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

notability means having attracted notice, and we usually ask for it to be more than local. That larger organizations will attract more notice is part of the nature of things, not bias. In general, separate research units are kept only for the most important organizations in the most important universities, for the others are--well, just not noticed all that much except on their own campus. DGG 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge a small portion into Cumberland School of Law. Samford University is notable; the law school is notable; sub-units of the law school are not notable. If it was an arm of Harvard or Yale law schools or something, maybe; but Samford U and Cumberland are relatively obscure entities. The entity has two fellows, which I guess means it has two employees, basically. I've never heard of the any of the people who have spoken there, which may say more about me than about the article, but it's not like they're getting UN General Secretaries and so forth. There is a limit and this is under it. Herostratus 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are multiple secondary and tertiary sources to establish the notability. (→zel zany - fish) 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaeneto[edit]

Lack of notability and a vanity article. A search on kiaeneto.com returns 422 ghits, and the company's myspace page features prominently in the results. Antonrojo 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even give much of a clue to what the company does. It seems to exist merely as a vehicle to get their website URL onto Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam for non-notable apparel company. Bearian 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -Yupik 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert/spam. Jacek Kendysz 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as A7. Natalie 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communication confusion[edit]

Nonnotable webcomic. The search ["Communication confusion" + webcomic -wikipedia] gives 126 hits -- I'd say way too few for a web thingy. `'юзырь:mikka 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Letterle[edit]

Few films, no awards, references or information to assert notability. Does not meet requirements for WP:Notability Ozgod 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:00, 7 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, W.marsh 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He played a few bit parts in a few low-interest films. Not notable. YechielMan 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lead in two feature films, one of which (Camp) has developed a cult following - qualifies as notable under People:Entertainers. There are certainly less notable people on Wikipedia. AUTiger » talk 17:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're gonna need to find reliable sources, which without sources doesn't meet WP:BLP. (→zel zany - fish) 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've updated the article, and there are now two interviews and two bio's. Daniel is in most of the online databases of actors, and there are plenty of Google News results, of which a few have actor interviews (e.g. [29]). John Vandenberg 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Luke[edit]

Considered an A7, but might be notable. Might be. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is to merge into British small press comics. Andrew Luke is a fairly big name in a fairly small pond. I don't think I've ever met Andrew, but I could be mistaken. There's certainly not enough for a single article, but Andrew's work probably merits a mention in the article on the British small press comics. Hiding Talk 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger seems prudent here if some reliable sources can be brought into the article. JodyB_talk 21:36, 15 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, W.marsh 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no sources whatsoever to even think about merging. Furthermore, as this is a living person, it fails WP:BLP. (→zel zany - fish) 00:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither "Andrew Luke" caption comic convention nor "Andrew Luke" Transformers produce any reliable sources. John Vandenberg 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, nominator's concerns have been addressed and the consensus is unanimous. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against All Authority[edit]

Not notable, unreferenced Mdbrownmsw 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote will depend on one thing: is Hopeless Records notable as well? If yes, then I'll cast a keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question seems to be "yes". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a couple of references, including an All Music Guide entry. They've done multiple tours on both sides of the Atlantic, and released split records with Anti-Flag and Common Rider. Oldelpaso 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oldelpaso. Hopeless Records is a fairly known label. Punkmorten 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because AAA kicks ass and Hopeless Records is pretty well known. Vozzon 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above users, article is well sourced and act is on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my note above and per the discussion. If the label is known and they have multiple records, it's good enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esc 2009[edit]

Is this really nessacary? Textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL, a competition that is two years away and has little information on it other than the fact that the winner of the 2008 competition will be the host. I say delete until more details about the 2009 competition have been determined Rackabello 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL until nearer time when more details can be written. Davewild 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as noted above, or otherwise tag it viciously for "Future event", "verify", "current event", etc. Bearian 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, borderline speedy in fact as a larger entry (titled "Eurovision Song Contest 2009") was deleted recently. This is manifestly the poorer cousin, but should be dealt with in the same manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esteem[edit]

Dicdef which isn't even close to being a proper article, if one could even be written. PC78 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with, or re-direct to, self-esteem. Bearian 20:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DicDef. Herostratus 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created in 2003 and nobody noticed? How interesting. But to get to the point, it's a dictionary definition and should belong at the proper entry on Wiktionary. (→zel zany - fish) 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why cant this become a useful article? It is linked from a number of articles, so I think calls to delete this dictdef would need to consider how to fix all of those. I dont think self-esteem is an appropriate merge/redirect target as that meaning isnt what is meant on dignity. John Vandenberg 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are actually only seven articles that link to this one. That's not a lot, and those links can easily be removed if necessary. PC78 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont have a problem with a delete outcome, but my original question still remains: why cant esteem be an encyclopedic topic? if it is an encyclopedic topic, yet the current article is just a dictdef, then the current article should be expanded rather than deleted. John Vandenberg 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps it could be expanded into a useful article, but after four years it's not like it hasn't had its chance. At present it's a redundant dicdef, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. PC78 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed it could become an encyclopedic article. A vast opus on differences in esteem among cultures of the ages. But without any interest, I agree it may as well be deleted for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect to self-esteem seems pointless since it is an off-shoot of esteem, but we're still looking for esteem. Wikipedia is not dictionary. The Filmaker 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Walton[edit]

No evidence of subjects notability, looks a lot like a vanity page. ornis 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, Fails WP:BIO --ROASTYTOAST 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, other than as a footnote--Ispy1981 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "one of the first 100" to have paid for a trip into space. Definition of non-notabilityDGG 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes we have to look beyond the article. This man is notable as a businessman in biotechnology and there are many ghits for him. I'm going there now to try and sustain the article. JodyB_talk 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jody is right, and there is absolutely enough. The material she's been adding is certainly quite sufficient.. Professor of macromolecular science at Case Western Reserve, honorary degree, member of US advisory committees, Chairman or President of several companies, etc. Ref from NY Times. I'll add some of the academic stuff. I'm glad she knew about him, and I wish the guy who started the article had thought to use even Google. People have been putting on and off tags for almost a year, but nobody tried to improve it until Jody did. I congratulate her on the rescue! DGG 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. Uh, I guess I should say that I am a man -- and a pretty ugly one at that! JodyB_talk 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above two keeps. --Android Mouse 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some edits, the article has sources to establish the notability. (→zel zany - fish) 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notability seems proven now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. (without prejudice, if further sources are found). Mango juice^talk 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hodgson Liddell[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability in the article and no sources. Sparse GHits with no distinctions, awards, or honors. Clarityfiend 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Clarityfiend; also unsourced. --ROASTYTOAST 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Member of Royal Society of British Artists, which seems important--Whistler was a member, and certainly is a assertion of notability. We need some more time on this one.DGG 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix I have no problem with obsure articles on obscure artists from way back in the misty days of yore when some talent (rather than grants for "phart" hacks) was actually necessary to sell one's work. The mere fact that you can still buy this man's book 98 years after its first publication ought to account for SOME notability.--Mike18xx 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Filmaker 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak ~~delete~~ keep - I added one ref. There is very little on him outside of a couple ghits, some of which seem to be genealogy-related. I can't tell if it could ever pass WP:BIO, especially as I don't expect much of substance about him has been published in reliable independent secondary sources. I could be wrong though. However, he's a deceased painter, his stuff being for sale sort of passes a test-of-time test for me personally, and I think it's perhaps part of Wikipedia's mandate to have at least a little information on very obscure artists of the past. I've looked up very minor painters myself, and was disappointed to not find anything on them here. I admit my argument is weak, but I feel better advocating a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect. Nothing merged, so no need to keep the history; on the contrary, I can think of a number of reasons not to keep it. Daniel 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber[edit]

Much like the Crystal Gail Mangum article, [30] this is another WP:COATRACK dressed up as a biography. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article if you can call it that offers very little encyclopedic value and ultimately fails the 100 year test. Suggest deletion on grounds of WP:BLP and human decency. Burntsauce 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move material into an article about the incident. This non-public person is not notable for anything outside the incident so we do not need an article on the subject. This is covered by our BLP and deletion policies, and our notability/biography guidelines. FloNight 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP she is newsworthy on her own accord and her life goals afterwards the alleged incident, for example as Tawana Brawley. Bnguyen 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a non-notable 18 year old when the alleged rape by Kobe Bryant occurred. Other than that criminal case and a related civil case, she is not notable. This is adequately covered in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. Per WP:NOT and WP:BLP the stand-alone bio about her can be deleted, however many independent reliable sources have substantial coverage about her to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a supermarket tabloid. Edison 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, should be moved to article about the lawsuits. --Rajah 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no reason for a separate article from the trial. DreamGuy 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not a biography, but a detailing of rather awful, embarrassing and potential harmful (personally and professionally) personal events; I also agree the mention of the circumstances focusing on the event and not the person is appropriate. I thus suggest that the page be deleted and a redirect created pointing to the trial. --Iamunknown 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Newsworthy person involved in a major story about a major sportsstar. --IvanKnight69 04:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a biography. Details related to the assault case are already covered in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case making this largely unnecessary and repetitive. RFerreira 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She was a big part of the news and wikipedia is not made to just list celebrities and famous things. It's made to define and explain things in our society that we have encountered. -User:Unknown 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete however notable the issue may be, the individual is not -Doc^g 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual is absolutely non notable except for one incident, which is largely independent from her personality. The contents of the article, about criminal procedure etc., should be in the relevant article about the assault. David.Monniaux 08:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT and my tireless argument on WP:NOTNEWS. Temporarily newsworthy does not equal permanently encylopedic. Zunaid 09:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the redundancy, excessive detail, poor balance, poor sourcing and other biographies of living persons-related problems. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. The current article could be trimmed and adequately cited, but because this subject's notability is solely related to a single, well-defined event which itself has article coverage, a separate article is functionally a content fork. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to delete the article without leaving a redirect, nor to redact the name from the target article (which itself could also do with substantial improvement). Serpent's Choice 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a biography. Any relevant content that's not already in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case should be moved there. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is a much better relevant article, though some later developments need to be merged in. The present article is a disaster with repetition and unsourced statements to an extent rare even on WP. How this can have lasted since 04 puzzles me. WP standards have been better than this even at the start. DGG 23:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This page is very helpful to those looking for information on the person, DO NOT DELETE!!!
Redirect, per above.--Mike18xx 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Walton^talk 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gohar Shahi[edit]

This page has been deleted several times, usually as a copyright violation from this religious leader's web page. It seems the followers of Gohar Shahi are determined to add a page on him to Wikipedia (article creator, Iamsaa (talk · contribs), is apparently "the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet"[31]). An AfD may sort this out further as to whether this is a topic to be covered (perhaps by editors with far less of a conflict-of-interest) or deleted and salted.

The article (completely copied at User:Iamsaa) fails to have any semblance of sourcing beyond the groups own websites. There's 170 unique Google hits for "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi", and a cursory look at some of them indicate that it may be difficult to find any source from which to base a neutral article. The current article is most certainly not neutral. I'd argue that this article should be deleted based on failing verifiability policy, lacking independent reliable sources, and may be an unsalvagable case of POV (spam-ish, even). — Scientizzle 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "In 1994, in Manchester England, some people pointed out the image of Gohar Shahi on the Moon. Thereafter many eyewitness accounts were reported from different countries. Photographs were taken of the Moon by using video equipment. Photographs of the Moon were then obtained from different countries and the Space agency NASA. In the beginning the facial images on these photographs were light. For the last two years the images on the Moon have become so clear that they can be seen without the use of binoculars or computer equipment" I was going to suggest rewriting this from a factual viewpoint, I realise now that might be tricky. Nick mallory 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite... — Scientizzle 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and lock page so no new article can be recreated - if the article has already been deleted in the past, especially several time, and a new article created ignoring previous deletes, then this thing can be speedily deleted and the earth salted. DreamGuy 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I with you all the way, but I avoided speedy deleting it myself because it is plausible that this man is a subject worth covering...certainly not in the way the article currently stands, of course. Additionally, I'd prefer to have a gauged consensus to justify any future deletion/salting rather than act unilaterally in opposition to an editor determined to promote his guru. Of course, if someone does speedily delete and salt this article, I won't lose a wink of sleep. — Scientizzle 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should not be salted if there is still the possibility of creating a legitimate encyclopedia aritcle. If that possibility exists, the present article should be replaced by a better and more encyclopedic one. This therefore comes down to a question of notability -- first off, is this guy notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? If so, then there should be one even if this ain't it. Otherwise, then yes, it would probably be a good idea to both delete and salt the page so it can't be used for all this biased tar. mike4ty4 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

May I take this opportunity to thank all guys on Wikipedia, yes, I have tried many times on Wikipedia to add article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi with no success. Let me tell you though we are Muslims but extremist and anti-sufi groups are after us in Pakistan. Strong lobbies are working against His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi even the Government of Sindh itself involve against His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Getting justice through Pakistani courts is nearly impossible. Media in Pakistan is producing wrong picture of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in public as a result the public in Pakistan consider us as a new sect or religion due to yellow journalism and negative propaganda by extremists Muslim groups. The teaching of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is based on spiritualism without any discrimination of cast, creed or religion. That’s the reason people of all sect and religion attracted towards His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and enlightened their hearts with his blessings. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi says "In order to recognize, and to be able to approach the essence of Allah (God), learn spirituality (Ruhaniyat), no matter what religion or sect you belong to"

Let me tell you that I don’t know much about computing nor about English. English is not my mother tongue and its very difficult for me to read in English. However, I am an office bearer of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and whatever text I have copies is from our own website and I can take full responsibility of its content.

May I request you guys to kindly add this article of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi into Wikipedia and help me to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. I have add resources section in this column and try to provide you as much as I can.

Thank for your help & support.

Regards,

--سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (Iamsaa (talk · contribs))

To User:Iamsaa: Trust me, you will not want Wikipedia to have an article on your beloved imam. Why, all I can find of him from newspapers on Factiva is that anything he writes is of late banned by the Pakistani government and to be destroyed immediately. Beyond that I cannot find any information on the imam himself. I take that as a good sign that we should not have an article on this religious teacher. Resurgent insurgent 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However if he is notable enough he still should have an article -- that's what an encyclopedia is for, no? mike4ty4 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to warn the supporters of keeping this article that if their wish to keep it is granted, they will not be able to keep any reliably sourced negative information about this person and his followers out of the article. Tidbits such as:
"Sindh Government has imposed ban on circular of Urdu Poster "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi - Imam Mehdi Al-Muntazir" purported to have been issued by Anjuman-i-Sarfroshan-i-Islam found pasted in some parts of Karachi. According to an official handout released here Saturday, the poster calls upon people to recognize Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as Imam Mehdi and contains material causing resentment among Muslims. The government has therefore declared that all copies of the poster are liable to be forfeited to the government with immediate effect, the handout said."

So think very carefully, according to WP:COI. As far as the rest of the world goes this person appears to be some sort of Islamic crackpot. Resurgent insurgent 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iamsaa (talk · contribs) has added some sources. — Scientizzle 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: All,

I have added the article on Wikipedia because in my view the Wikipedia should have an article on world famous spiritual personality His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. I am still working on this article as this article is not complete yet, I am trying my level best to make it as an appropriate article for Wikipedia but it will take some time as you all can see that developments are coming in for this article and I am sure that once when this article is completed you will surely find it a source of information about His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

Meanwhile, may I request the administration of Wikipedia to kindly remove this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, so that I could work with concentration.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Kind regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 05:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as for all verifiable religious leaders. There are published sources for some of this, and from the discussion it looks like there should be more. Iamsaa could usefully find sources, but based on the present article he has COI that will prevent NPOV editing. I will however help him out by some very large deletions once the AfD is concluded.

It would of course be almost equally easy to start over again. But it would be totally incorrect and intolerant to salt, for the subject is notable. There seems to be some animus against his view, but WP does not base an article on agreement with the subjects theology. An attempt to show why he should not be covered because banned in some countries shows rather why he should, for it highlights the opposition some of his teaching has received. DGG 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify. I suppose this guy has some followers therefore he probably rates an article. The current article is an insult. Cut it back to two declarative sentences (or one) and let someone write a short neutral article as befitting the person's likely marginal notability. If keeping the article in line proves too difficult, the stub can be protected and other protective measures taken. Herostratus 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this idea and will volunteer to stubify it myself upon close, if nobody objects...— Scientizzle 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be an effort by one user[32] to make sure there is Wikipedia coverage of this individual by the repetitive creation of new articles on him, using marginally different variations of the name. This user created five such articles so far, all now speedily deleted. There is a "profession of faith" from the same user also appearing on the talk page of the subject article, and similar statements by others. Given the persistence of the followers, enforcement of policies requiring encyclopaeic content will require some effort. Kablammo 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soak the wood with gas, but wait a few days before tossing the match. If this article is still a glass-eyed proselytization rant on the 20th, char-broil it.--Mike18xx 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per DGG. But note there is no shortage of SPAs promoting this imam and his foundation - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehdi Foundation International and the MfD for its creator's user page. Resurgent insurgent 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suppose that, if the opposition from the Pakistani government that he has faced is well sourced, we could have an article on him; surely such sources would state that he was a religious leader of a non-standard religious group. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the article remains NPOV, and that any related articles are as well. Nyttend 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have drastically stubbified the article...I'm not too familiar with many of the ins, outs and what-have-yous of Islamic law, so I hope I've made a fair stub. I trimmed links and cats as well. — Scientizzle 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider the article much improved--it is now appropriate, & I urge re-visitng it to see the improvement. I note that the article on his group was deleted primarily as a hoax, because of their truly extraordinary belief that there is his image on the moon and the Black Stone--but it seems they do actually believe that. DGG 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite okay although I suppose first-timers to the article will be surprised why this guy is so disliked by the Pakistani govt. Resurgent insurgent 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, personally, that seems a good reason to keep, too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Lose the gold border around the pic, and it looks good.--Mike18xx 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything about the yellow border without actually modifying the picture (something I'm uninterested in doing). I suppose a little more information about the alleged crimes would be appropriate--I'll dig up something.

I've noticed there seems to be a broad edit war between two separate factions of Shahi disciples, each promoting a different website. Anyone have more info? — Scientizzle 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: DGG has already offered to clean up the article. I'd say if he's banned in Pakistan, that makes him notable by virtue of the fact the government cares enough to ban him. However, I'd suggest DGG locks the page against new users - this page might need to be on a watch list to ensure followers don't re-introduce a COI problem. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per numerous sources.--Sefringle^Talk 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take this opportunity to thank all WP members who had been very helpful for me. My article has been drastically stubbified, however, I am of the view that this article should contain complete information about His Holiness Gohar Shahi. The current version of the article doesn’t state much about him, however, I would like to request the administration of WP to kindly allow me to provide you a complete profile of His Holiness Gohar Shahi, I will leave decision at you whether you will ad that into this article or not as I don’t want to violate the policies of WP.

Moreover, the present article depicts negative image of His Holiness Gohar Shahi for its readers. Let me tell you that His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is our Imam and we are proud to be his followers. As you must be aware the religious situation in Pakistan, fundamentalist and extremists have a very strong lobby and the Pakistani blasphemy Law is one of the instrument which can easily used against innocent and hundreds of people of different sects and religion have been brutally ruined and thousands of families have been suffered because of misuse of blasbhymy law, same was done with His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. So many false cases were filed against His Holiness Gohar Shahi and his followers as an attempt to stop the holy mission of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi has hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and around the globe. If you want I can provide you the evidence of the fact. Because of the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, which is for all humanity without any discrimination of cast, creed or religion, he was invited by almost all Muslim sects and non-Muslim religion to deliver speech and bless them with the divine love of God. But the Pakistani religious extremists targeted him because of the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi because people of all sects and religion have started to become the followers of His Holiness and the so-called Islamic clergy was afraid that His Holiness Gohar Shahi’s follower will become uncountable soon because the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi were attracting everyone we speedily. Regarding the images of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in the Moon, Sun, Black Stone and many other sacred places, please be informed that these sacred signs show that the God is with Gohar Shahi. The images are very clearly visible and everybody can see the images of Gohar Shahi especially in the Moon and the black stone of Kaa’aba. In fact we have appealed to Government of Pakistan as well to investigate this matter and bring the truth before the public.

I would like to further inform you that www.goharshahi.com doesn’t belong to His Holiness Gohar Shahi, which is being operated by Mehdi Foundation a self-made platform of anti-gohar elements. In the light of aforesaid facts may I request you to kindly limited the rights to amend the article on His Holiness Gohar Shahi.

In last thank you all for continuous help and support and look forward to an affirmative reply on above.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement--including religious beliefs--so I am skeptical of attempts to provide a "complete profile" of Shahi. In fact, if the profile is anything like the previous version of this article, I can guarantee that it will only end up looking like my stub version in short order. This is an encyclopedia that seeks neutral coverage of notable subjects, not propaganda (for or against). Inclusion of small, cited (from reliable sources, please), biographical facts may be appropriate, but any attempt by any editor to turn this article into sycophantic flattery or malicious disparagement will be reverted. Please understand this: the dedication of editors to maintaining a neutral point-of-view may be preventing you from painting the most favorable picture of your Imam, but it will also prevent his apparently numerous enemies from creating a more negative image... — Scientizzle 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability and context are asserted.Baka man 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus/keep. On raw numbers, the keepers have an edge, but not a great one.

As to the policy issues, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE was repeatedly cited as a reason to delete, with varying sections referred to. That policy is clear that consensus only exists about the ten numerically listed points. It's not clear from this discussion that it fails any of those points. My own opinion is that a plausible argument could be made it fails 7: plot summaries, but there was almost no discussion here of that point, so I won't delete on those grounds. The argument based on the directory section of the same policy is not persuasive. There were also several guideline-based arguments, mostly regarding WP:TRIVIA. TRIVIA doesn't apply because it is about trivia sections in articles, and (as indicated at the end of the intro) not whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. What's more, the guideline was meant to address unorganized lists of facts (trivia sections), which this list is not, since it has clear criteria for inclusion. Besides those issues, the debate is mostly about whether deaths are important enough to the Sopranos to justify having this list. That is a question of opinion that policy doesn't, or hasn't yet, clearly addressed, so the numbers carry the day.

I'll leave the derivative work issue to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--Chaser - T 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in The Sopranos series[edit]

While I am aware that death scenes are notable within the fan community of The Sopranos and that they are noticeably grim and realistic. I fail to see how this list contains useful information. At this point, nearly every character who has had more than two lines on the show has been profiled on Wikipedia. So if reader seriously needed to know when and where a character died, than they could search the corresponding article. It also contains information on non-notable deaths and trivial statistics that are unsourced (and would be difficult to cite). These inclusions of trivial characters should be removed per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a valid reason for a delete --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is. An article that poses no useful information (or "no point") should not be kept on Wikipedia. The Filmaker 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. You can't just say "pointless" and think that will cut the mustard. Maybe you should read up on what to NOT say when voting on a deletion. It's a discussion. Discussions aren't based on 1 word. ELABORATE, and EXPLAIN why you THINK it's pointless. In that case, I can just vote on every single AfD with "pointless". C'mon now... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe the act of simply stating "pointless" was not the correct route for the voter to take to state his opinion. However the point (no pun intended) of the article being pointless (i.e. lacking useful information"). The Filmaker 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information about who died and how is available in the various character and episode articles. An exhaustive list of deaths is something more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge I agree with sumnjim; this list makes it easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died, thus making it easier to find such information since it's all on one page. Also, what if a reader does not know the name of the dead character for whom they are searching? They could find their answer much quickly here with the images provided. Cliff smith 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well first, sumnjim never actually stated his opinion on the deletion, just his opinion how the use of the single word "pointless". So there's nothing to agree with him with. If the reader does not know the name of the character, than it is most likely that the character is non-notable. Thus the information is trivial and should not be included per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Finally, it appears that images will soon be removed per the free-image policy be enacted on the article. The Filmaker 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say about agreeing with sumnjim. As far as the pictures go, perhaps they should be moved to their respective characters if they will be removed from this list. Cliff smith 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given how notable Sopranos is and how important the deaths are to the show, I vote for a keep. Obviously a 'Deaths on Seinfeld' wouldn't have the same effect.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is notable or true does not warrant an article. The deaths on the show are notable, however the article offers no commentary or reception information for the deaths. Just non-notable statistics and facts that are present in other articles. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps the article should be expanded instead of flatout deleted. Articles should only be deleted if there is no room for improvement.--CyberGhostface 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" thereby stating that the article is no more than a list. If it were to feature any commentary or reception than it would have expanded beyond it's purpose. It should than be titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" at which point it would be realized that a list of every single death is not needed and it would only discuss the notable deaths (such as Big ). The Filmaker 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the Sopranos has been an incredible show over the years. Deaths have played a major role in this series. --Dodge Dude 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This page is a very great suppliment to the other Sopranos articles out there. Wanting it deleted because it's "pointless" is just silly. If you want to be that way, I vote to delete Fart because I think THAT is pointless --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "pointless" comment was made by another user. Not by me. Please read my other comments before you vote. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you said it :) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you replied only to that comment and none of my own, implied that that was what you believed. I meant no offense. The Filmaker 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very useful navigation device, especially when you don't know the name of the character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft; if the character's death is important it should be in the main article; if not, it's just trivia. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it's a great navigation tool.--MistaTee 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are starting to stretch the extent of convenience and navigation. Should also place a List of characters that have appeared to Tony Soprano's dreams? The dreams are a notable element to the series. These are convenient but are they needed when the reader has an easy enough time finding the information in the first place? The Filmaker 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. Sfufan2005 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? It's pretty much me stating why I feel the article should be deleted and one man with one comment refuting one statement. Which I have responded to. What discussion? The Filmaker 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an immensely popular series, and the deaths are an important aspect of it. That this would be even nominated for deletion is absurd. MattHucke ^(t) 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the series is popular is not in question, nor is the notability of the deaths in the series. But, how is this list useful? The reason why the deaths are notable is not discussed within the article (and technically should not be as this is merely supposed to be a "list" of deaths) there is not useful information. As for navigation, it is unneeded as well, the deaths can be found in corresponding episode and character articles. The Filmaker 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I come to see this page frequently, this MUST BE KEPT! The Sopranos is a very important television show and the deaths are a very key point of the series, this page cannot be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.60.4 (talk • contribs)

This comment does not seem to refute anything I've stated above. The Filmaker 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have had so much interesting reading on Wikipedia about this series and this list is one of my favorites. I can't see a reason why it should be deleted. cun 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you have not bothered to read any of the my comments above. The Filmaker 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, or he just doesn't agree with them.--CyberGhostface 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostface is right. Keep this lovable and highly interesting list! cun 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Highly interesting" is not a criteria for articles to be kept. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Why not keep articles and lists that people actually do find interesting and useful? cun 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been reading any of the comments I have posted in reply to any of these oppositions? First, just because an article is somewhat interesting or true does not warrant it to be kept, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, how is the article useful, at most it can be used as a navigation tool. But it is easy enough for readers to find information on the deaths of key characters through corresponding character and episode articles. If you are speaking of trivial characters such as Man #1 than they should not be included for being non-notable and trivial, per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The Filmaker 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information. This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts. The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it. The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story (although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show). cun 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information.

But is not indiscriminate.

This list is not indiscriminate. That's an axiom. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains information every single death in The Sopranos series. Including every character such Man #1, little boy on bike, and even animals. How is that not indiscriminate? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I agree to a certain point that information like that is criticizable, but they do not destroy the overall impression. Animals are dealt with on a separate part of the list and therefore not interfering with the main list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we're talking about the article as a whole, animals an element of the list. So you understand that this information is easy to criticize, yet it does not deserve to be deleted.

"Easy to criticize" does not automatically mean worthy of deletion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase, easy to criticize, meaning there is a problem with the article. The problem needs to be fixed either now or later. The problem cannot be fixed now and it cannot be fixed later. Thus either some reorganizing is in order or we need to get rid of the problem.

This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts.

Interest is not criteria for an article to be kept, it does not contribute a huge source for navigation, trivia is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I never mentioned spam.

Common interest is of course a criteria for an article to be kept. We don't want to read articles about the ordinary Joe, but those phenomenons of art, culture, history, science etc that affect a lot of people. It does contribute a huge source of navigation and greater understanding of the power relationships in the show. Trivia should be allowed on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. As far as I'm concerned, first and foremost spam is the kind of thing we should concentrate on ridding Wikipedia of, not relevant lists like this.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is true or interesting does not mean it is relevant enough for Wikipedia. You believe trivia should be included, which as you said, is a different discussion. So I can't change your opinion on this.

- - - - I don't understand your animosity towards this list. I think the list is relevant enough for Wikipedia. Seems we are just in a fundamental disagreement.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you believe trivia should be allowed. I along with many others do not. But according to Wikipedia policy, this information should not remain.

I don't see that clearly through the indiscriminate stuff you linked to.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more WP:TRIVIA.

The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it.

The information is available elsewhere in better and more accessible articles.

No, it's not. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes it is. All of the relevant information within the article is available in corresponding character articles and episode articles, not to mention the main Sopranos article.

- - - - No article or list sums up the clear cut action that defines the overall story in such a short manner like this death list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the deaths are the overall story? Now we're just getting into philiosophy here. The overall story is not marked by the deaths. Yes, the deaths are a milestone, but they are not the only milestones. The information is available elsewhere.

The deaths are crucial in defining the overal story arc. Filtered information about something important as this is a great way to understand The Sopranos better.

Where is this defining information coming from? I see a list of characters who died, who killed them, in which episode, and how (nothing about relationships, the actual physical action of how they died). Unless this supposed act of defining the overall story is defined in the prose itself, then the act is not properly, if at all, being defined.

The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story

The fact that the deaths are important to the story has nothing to do with the deletion of this list. The list does not contain any commentary or reception on the "realism" of the deaths in The Sopranos. And if they were added, the article would no longer be a "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" in would now need to be renamed "Deaths in The Sopranos series" which would not require a list and would remove all of the non-notable characters and would discuss only the most notable deaths, such as Big . However, now we're getting into a totally different article. If someone wants to start this new article. Fine. But since it is a complete turn around from this article. This article should be deleted.

The list should shortly explain why the deaths occured in the commentary fields as a means of greater understanding of the power relations, as mentioned above.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information can be found in the character and episode articles as well.

- - - - Again, not in the same, clear way as stated above.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, the manner of death is specifically stated any character or episode articles you can find. Perhaps even more in depth then this current death list.

We beg to differ ^^ cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? The other voters? The majority of which have simply stated that The Sopranos is important and the deaths are important? I don't believe you can honestly speak for everyone here.

"We" as in you and me. We differ from each other in opinion cun 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to paint a picture of the vast realism of the Sopranos compared to other television. We're here to state fact. Realism is not mentioned in the article, if it's going to be mentioned it should be in the manner stated above. The Filmaker 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is encyclopedic in nature as it states fact within a fictitious world in a correct and concrete manner.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? I agree, how is that refuting my statement? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Well, then I don't understand your animosity towards the list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "animosity" is that it is filled with information that is available elsewhere, information that is trivial, and serves only as an unneeded navigation point and offers and could not offer any meaningful information without having to rename and totally revitalize the article (at which point a completely different article should be started). The Filmaker 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is unneeded, though. You have some good points, but I think Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where "house-trainism" is the norm. Be bold and make unusual and original lists, although they never would have surfaced in other encyclopedias.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you feel that it is unneeded, then how is it needed. At what point is there a need for this list. Not as a minor convenience. I'm saying, if this went away tomorrow would no one be able to find the relevant information that's stored on it. For that matter, is a reader actually looking for this article? Are they hoping when they are browsing the main Sopranos page that they can find a list of people who died? No, they are going to look for the character and the episode article. This list is only a minor convenience on those happen to find it when the majority of readers will be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sumnjim and CyberGhostface. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is repeatedly cited by the Filmaker but I don't believe any of the examples apply to this article. MrBlondNYC 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While not explicitly stated in the article example #1 is a good representation. Still, these are just examples and not specific criteria. The lines that more deal with the issue are "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to be very specific to me. I don't think #1 (FAQ's) remotely applies and I disagree that the article represents Wikipedia as "an indiscriminate collection of items". May I make a suggestion? Could you please stop with the "No one has bothered to read any of my comments" and the "Has anyone been reading any of my comments?" It's a bit condescending to say people are not reading or comprehending your arguments. People are reading them and...disagreeing with them. Capice?
    - No, actually I won't. Since the majority of people either do not bother to recognize the reasons for deletion or they simply type the relatively same sentence as everyone else "The Sopranos is famous and the deaths are important". Since no one until cun above as bothered to refute my statements, I highly doubt that anyone has bothered to read them. The Filmaker 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the Sopranos has reached such a level of fame then details concerning it become useful to people. People may often want to look up details of a series like this. This happens when a TV show goes from being popular to being regarded as creative and worthy of high esteem. Heliumballoon 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you believe that this page would be useful for fans............ how? I understand that some fans might like to look it up. But at what point does this page become useful? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For people interested in finding out details of the deaths in the series. And given how popular it is - very useful for them. To question usefulness here is very silly. Why is an article on mice useful? Only if you are interested in finding out mice. Why is an article about Bob the Builder useful? Because people want to know about it. If people deem something worthy of knowing about and reading about, then it is by definition useful. Heliumballoon 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, no, that is not the definition of useful. The definition is "capable of being put to use" at what point can I put the information that Man #1 was killed in episode 13 by Christopher Molasanti, to use? No, this information is trivial. An article on mice can at least feature information on how mice behave and allow the reader to further understand how mice are born, live and die. This only features a list of deaths (information which appears in other, more suitable, places). Yes, there is line between interesting and useful. Purely interesting information is allowed on Wikipedia. However, purely interesting articles are not. Especially when the information is present useful articles. The Filmaker 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very interesting and informing article about one of the most popular television shows in recent history. Salvag 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it's kinda fun. How is it useful information? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why mark for deletion now? This article has been up for at least a few years (that I can recall) and contains important information on the program. I find the timing of call for deletion . . . interesting. With all of the hype over the show in recent weeks, someone has decided they don't particularly like a certain wikipedia article they found looking for information on the show? All of the 'pros' listed above are valid points whereas the 'cons' seem to be nit-picky and overly concerned about narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. Not trying to rake on anyone with my opinion, it's just how I see it. Danno49 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, you haven't bothered to refute any of the deletion rationales other than that they are "nit-picky". Also, timing has nothing to do with it. I found the article and disagreed with it being on Wikipedia. The amount of time an article has been active as nothing to with deletion policy. The Filmaker 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much, is that it includes unusual lists like this. It would be a great shame if such original lists would be banished. cun 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These unusual lists might be fun, but Wikipedia is not simply supposed to be a fun source of information (that isn't to say that it's not supposed to be fun). This is why many editors have voted into policy the sections that this article violates. The Filmaker 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Has someone told you that Wikipedia is a nightmare to have a discussion in? ^^ I think the seriousness will damage Wikipedia and make it a greyer place, but that's another discussion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not saying that the project must be stone-cold serious. But it is referred to as a project, as in something that we want to be a quality source of relevant information. This article does not represent that. The Filmaker 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. --Tone 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally this would be part of The Sopranos main article but since including it there would make it very long, it is therefore reasonable to have a separate article. A1octopus 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that doesn't answer to any of the reasons given for deletion? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in answer to your nom, deletion under WP:UNENC, is not an appropriate argument for this list because this is not an indiscrimate collection of information - the inclusion criteria for the list is very specific (characters who died in a particular television programme). I would argue also that a nomination under WP:TRIVIA is also not appropriate since The Sopranos is an important highly notable TV series (even here in the UK the airing of it's final episode got a mention on national news) and, since it is about gansters, a list of deaths of characters in episodes is in order. As I said it would ideally be in the show's main article, but as that would make the main article very long it is reasonable to have a separate one (in the same sense the discographies for major bands are usually separate articles). A1octopus 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above the article contains information on the deaths of Silvio Dante and Big Pussy, but also on Man #1 and Boy on Bike, even animals. This is the trivial indiscriminate information that I speak of. The Filmaker 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you appear to be arguing for a cleanup rather than a delete, but that is something for the article's discussion page, not a deletion debate. A1octopus 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing just WP:NOT, I'm also arguing that the notable information is available in other articles, in more depth at that. This article serves only as a minor navigation tool. However, what reader is actually looking for this page? When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death, do they look up Wikipedia hoping for a death list? No, they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, Filmaker, but the above argument sounds awfully similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A1octopus 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Hello? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for users who arguing an article should be deleted simply because they aren't interested or enjoy the content. In other words, it would be like me arguing that I don't like/care about The Sopranos or the deaths in The Sopranos. Neither of which is true. I've provided a policy page and given my critique of how I believe that the user would react (not in the sense of whether they care or not, but in the sense of where they would look for this information first). The Filmaker 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nom about this as an application of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that this was an important and popular show and that a lot of people died in said show, but that doesn't mean that this list is Encyclopedia-worthy. As mentioned above, the potential exists for merging this information with all of the articles about every character who says more than five words in the series. I don't think that adding a list of deaths in any other mob movie, or important movie where people die would be any more relavent, and that's what I'm using to judge this. bwowen ^T/C 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What part of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE do you feel that this fails? Let's go over all 10 items. 1. FAQ - It's not a FAQ. 2. Travel Guide - Obviously not a travel guide. 3. Memorial - Not a memorial 4. Instruction Manual - Not an instruction manual 5. Internet Guide - Not an internet guide. 6. Textbook and annotated texts - Not any of these either 7. Plot Summary - Not a plot summary 8. Lyrics Database - Nope 9. Statistics - Nope 10. News reports - Nope. So yes, please, elighten all of use where you believe it fails WP:NOT --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find this disclaimer at the top of that list "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...." Thus these are only examples that have been, through consensus, decided that are specifically not what Wikipedia repersents. These two sentences represent what the article violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The Filmaker 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it says "..does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Where does it say "...automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" ? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it doesn't. To say ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is just ridiculous. What was your point here? The Filmaker 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a rehashing of List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series. Others have pointed out the other policies and guidelines that this article fails, and here is an example of previous articles that were already deleted. I've seen some "it's useful to navigate". That's why you create a List of The Sopranos characters, and then conform to the out-of-universe guideline when writing that. Also, you have to look at what a death list entails. It's plot points, major ones and nothing else. This means you have created a list that is a derivative work of the original copyrighted source, thus it's a violation of copyrights for that show. There is no encyclopedic information to justify its existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I have very little knowledge of this TV show, I can definitely say that a list of deaths can fall under trivia. Alientraveller 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this does not qualify as encyclopedic content. There is no real-world context to be determined from this kind of list. I would support a Death in The Sopranos prose article if there was media coverage about the level of violence in the series, and perhaps its controversy (if any was to be had), with specific cited examples from the series. This is not the case here, and there is no connection between the bits of information other than an occurrence that is obviously commonplace in such a series. Keeping this is bad precedent to create a list of jokes in comedy series or a list of characters who got betrayed in a soap opera. Like I said before, death in The Sopranos would be much more suitable in prose, especially if it has ties to real-world context. This list is pure trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, also noting that similar lists about The Simpsons and Star Wars have existed and been deleted in the past. Gran² 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this information should be accessible from the list of Sopranos characters, no need for this extra list. Judgesurreal777 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree, as many of the characters listed in the article do not have (or need) their own article, hence why this is ever so importatnt to keep track of all deaths --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. What encyclopedic foundation does this have? As a directory to find out who was killed and when? As some nice fan information? As being useful to a reader? Right now, the list is a derivative work of the source material, thus a major copyright violation. Don't care how "useful" something is, when it violates copyrights, and cannot justify fair use, then it must go. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge OR Delete per above. — Deckill er 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and material that lacks encyclopedic value. If information is already not mentioned on various other character/episode articles, then merge info that is noteworthy. María (habla conmigo) 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm in love with this page, and any pages that provide comprehensive cross listing for works of art. Yes, the info here in available on other pages - 86 other pages of episode recaps. But here, we have a body count. It's the same for music used in the episode, or cast lists, or any other cross lists. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.93 (talk • contribs)

Last time I checked, "I'm in love with this page" didn't constitute a valid argument to keep an article. BTW, music used in an episode isn't encyclopedic either. What is also not a valid argument is "there are other articles like this as well". Please, point them out...we'll make our way over there as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Dream Team. --Tone 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being indiscriminate information and not asserting out-of-universe notability. Like similar lists, this really isn't encyclopedic and indvidual deaths are better noted on individual characters' articles or entry in articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great navigational tool, important to the show's themes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, more specifically the "not a director" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we covered this already? It does not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and it's not a directory either. Directory is talking about like being a phone book. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, it lists every single death, no matter how minor...that's indiscriminate. It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well get rid of every one of these Click --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some are of living people, which isn't the same as of fictional people. Something like "List of Oz deaths", I assume that is the TV show, should be deleted. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, every article is subjective. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. The Filmaker 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this gets deleted it is only fair all of these get deleted: [33] I don't agree with it but it would be fair. MrBlondNYC 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, every article is subjective. I have not read these articles so I do not know for sure that they should most definitely be deleted. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deaths that in occur in the Sopranos are notable and as has been mentioned before there are many other TV show and movie death lists on Wikipedia Bamaman 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above: Yes, they are notable and are mentioned in corresponding character and episode articles. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see that other "death lists" is not a valid argument. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Erik has pointed out, "Death" in The Sopranos maybe notable, but a "list of deaths" is not. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then will the other "death lists" be deleted?Bamaman 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link above to another AfD that has like 4 other similar lists up for deletion, and I listed a link to one that was deleted alread. I think others have listed links to lists that were deleted that carried the same information for other shows/films. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it should have its own article, but I DO think it should be merged inside The Sopranos main article. 76.197.222.162 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I propose the article be renamed "Death on The Sopranos" and be expanded to more than a list. Other aspects can be listed and I will volunteer to expand the article.--MistaTee 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up before (incidentally by me). If you or someone else would like to write an article titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" than that would be more than welcome. It would have contain commentary and reception, but only to the notable deaths. However, this new article is a complete 180 from this article. Thus, if you want to create a "Deaths in The Sopranos series", create new article. And get rid of this non-notable, poorly formatted list that would not be acceptable in said new article. The Filmaker 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I entirely disagree with The Filmaker's assertion that "When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death...they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles." I have consulted this list numerous times, and I find it very useful, in the sense that any information about a fictional world can be "useful." If, for example, I want to determine the order of deaths on the show, I can consult this list, rather than wading through numerous episode-specific articles. Furthermore, The Filmaker has repeatedly said that he objects to the inclusion of "minor" deaths. I would argue, first, that no death is "minor," not even on TV. And, second, who decides which deaths are major and which are minor? The inclusion of statistics by season is useful in understanding the overall arc and direction of the show. For example, Season 4, considered the best by many fans, had the fewest deaths. This is useful information, no more or less useful than any other information about The Sopranos. I don't understand the distinction being made between "interesting" and "useful" in this case. How is a recap of the episodes "useful" but a list of the deaths only "interesting"? You could make the argument that the individual character articles are also unnecessary, since all of the relevant information is included in the episode articles. Why have an article about Christopher Moltisanti when all of the character's development, personality, characteristics, and history occur in episodes of the show? Anyone interested in this character's history needs only to read the articles about the episodes in which he appeared. An article about the specific character is nothing more than an extraneous "navigational tool," or, at best, a digest of information that is all included in other articles. Seriously. I don't understand the hard-on you have for deleting this article. Is there a shortage of space on the internet? Is Wikipedia about to reach its limit? Obviously, some people find this article useful (myself included). Why do you want to take that away from us? Mookabear 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between having an article on an episode recap and having an encyclopedic article on an episode. This is a good example of an encyclopedic article on an episode. Notice the short plot description, and abundant real world content. This is a good example of what not to do. The same goes for characters. This is a good example of what a fictional character page should look like. This is a good example of what one should not look like. It has no relevance to "usefulness" (that isn't a valid argument for keeping something) or being "interesting". It's about encyclopedic content and notability, both of which this article lacks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is completely awesome. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for keeping an article. WP:ILIKEIT. The Filmaker 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that same token all the "Delete as fancruft" argumments are invalid per WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "it should be remembered that Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion" MrBlondNYC 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay as well. Essays do hold some weight in the deletion process, however they are not policy. The Filmaker 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If deaths are significant events on The Sopranos, then this data should be merged into The Sopranos timeline (unfortunately the timeline is currently very wordy (proseliney?), so it would be obscured). If The Sopranos is ultimately a show about killing people in the same way that House is a show about diagnosing illnesses, then the data should be merged into two locations:

The episode list, as it is for House.
The episode infoboxes, as it can be for House.

Alternately, the data could be combined with a chronology of all characters, showing their first appearance and departure for any means on a timeline (cf Template:Doctorwhocompanions). Vagary 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths of the characters are not nearly as relevant to the show as diagnoses are to House. The Filmaker 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? You? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says not? You? The entire premise of House is built around diagnosing people. The premise of The Sopranos is built around the happenings of Tony Soprano which happens to contain deaths occasionally. The deaths are only notable because they are often of main characters that have been on the show for years and for their realism. Still, it's hard to say or give a reasonable explanation as to why the deaths in The Sopranos are a relevant as diagnoses in House. The Filmaker 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. They are still somewhat relevant. Is there objection to the deaths being merged into one of the resources I mentioned in a prominent way? Vagary 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is exactly the type of article we should be encouraging users to create. It's well sourced (to the primary source -- the episode -- which is a perfectly allowed source), it's presented neatly (tabulated) and deaths are a notable part of The Sopranos -- a highly notable television, thus it stands that this type of information would be of interest to our readers. A merge would be inappropriate (per WP:SS), and the list meets the criteria set in WP:LIST#Purpose of lists). Matthew 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment completely ignores all of the original a subsequent reasons for deletion. The Filmaker 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons for deletion? I can't see any other than "I don't like it". Matthew 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of out of universe content. No "new" content to establish that his isn't simply some derivative work of the copyrighted source material. It's a list of plot points. To name 3. Bignole 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing a valid reason to delete, other than "I don't like it, so here's some silly reason I invented." Matthew 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're a silly person (being jovial). Last time I checked WP:WAF wasn't that silly. Nor was WP:NOT, and I believe derivative works aren't considered too silly in a court of law (which, btw, Wikipedia is not above). So, what's silly is the fact that you call any opposing argument silly. Silly Rabbit, that retort is for kids. Bignole 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a non-silly reason (supported by policy) and I'll reconsider my keep. I don't think you can provide such a thing. Oh, you should probably read derivative work ← lolipops. Matthew 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT isn't policy? The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about WP:NOT#PAPER (which supports keeping the article)? I can't for the life of me think of anything there it would fail. Matthew 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The Filmaker 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which don't, of course, support you. Matthew 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think US laws supercede policy. Why does this constitute a copyright infringement, I guess you missed all that stuff at the top. What is this article? It's a list of plot events, those plot events are under the sole rights of HBO (or whoever owns the series). If they wish, they could make Wikipedia remove this list, because there is nothing on this page that says it is being used in an encyclopedic manner. There is no real world content that justifies the use of this copyrighted material. Read this, you can't even use a copyrighted character in a story that has nothing to do with the original material. What you are doing here is making a page that is nothing but a cumulative work of major and minor plot events. What the courts look at are: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and, 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work Guest what, the "potential market" for the show decreases because you are supplying potential customers with a list of every death in the series, for free mind you, and are not providing any critical commentary on that (Wiki even has its own criteria for that). If I were to read this page, it would ruin most of the show for me, because it reveals all the major plot events. I know they are major because any time someone says the deaths are not relevant, people start speaking out that they are. Also, part of what falls under the law: "Your work may be using an element from another work that is not copyrightable, like a story line.." Now, this area isn't as concrete a definition, but this is why Wikipedia created it's own fair use criteria, so pages would not fall on the line. Let's look at the article. What's on this page? Storylines. The story line of Emil Kolar's death at the hands of Christopher Moltisanti, or the 10 other story lines in that first season. This page doesn't even take the time to name the actors. It's entirely in-universe. If you want some in-universe, list of deaths, with no regard for third party sources, go to Sopranos Wikia (if there is one, create it if there isn't). Right now, the page is a walking timebomb of copyrighted material. I got who gets killed, who kills who, how they died, what episode it happened in. Could you call this anything other than a derivative work of the show? It doesn't have to be a word for word translation to be a derivative work, and if you do not have permission to create a derivative work then you are infringing on the copyrights of that studio. Bignole 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well (clearly) you don't understand copyright. A definition for you "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."

Now, feel free to give me a non-"I don't like this article so here's some BS I made up." argument, actually supported by policy. As it stands the closing admin would be well correct to close this as keep, as quite frankly the deletes haven't given any rationale to delete with any substance. Matthew 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If killing people is the key element in the series, maybe you can incorporate it into the episode list. Something similar is done at Lost episodes, where it is stated whose are the flashbaks. Just an option, I don't follow the series. --Tone 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested before. However, the deaths are not as relevant as the flashbacks are to Lost. The deaths are important in the long run of things on the Sopranos, however the flashbacks are a "key element" to the series of Lost. The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Keep votes above I'd like any administrator who comes by attempting to understand the discussion that is taking place, to keep in mind that these Afds are not a majority vote (although the Delete votes are not far behind), you may notice that the majority Keep votes are simply users stating that they either just plain like the article (WP:ILIKEIT), or simply state that "The Sopranos TV series is notable and the deaths in the series are important to the plot). Both of these statements, and any other Keep votes for that matter, have been refuted by myself and Bignole numerous times. Few of them have bothered to try to refute those statements (or even reply at all for that matter). At this point, I'd like to ask the administrator that is reading this Afd to carefully look at each comment and disregard any of the comments that are either unfounded or have been refuted. Most, if not all, of the above, have been. The Filmaker 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are making the case that the deaths in the Sopranos are not an integral part of the series, such as flash backs in Lost or a diagnosis in House, many of the keep comments have refuted your points very well.Bamaman 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we have refuted the points made by them. In the end, either I or Bignole have refuted most, if not all, of the comments made by the keep votes. For one thing, every single episode of House or Lost respectively features a diagnosis and a flashback. The entire format behind Lost is based around the flashbacks. House's entire premise is centered around the Department of Diagnostic Medcine. The Sopranos however is not a show about death or killing people. Yes, it is an element of the show, and it does occur often, but the does every week begin with an episode where Tony is wondering "Well, who am I gonna kill this week?". The Filmaker 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment The article was nominated for deletion per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, however, that reason is invalid because it lists EVERY death in the series. If some deaths were included, and some left out, that would make the list indiscriminate, however, since ALL deaths are accounted for, then this list is discriminate, and therefore, the nomination is invalid. If you also take into account a point brought up post-nomination, that wikipedia is not a directory, this too, is invalid, as this list is, in no way, trying to act as a directory. A directory, for lack of a better word, is like a telephone book. You look up something you need, and it tells you where to get the information. (ie: go to THIS location to find what you are looking for). This list has what you are looking for inside the same article, it is not telling you to go anywhere else to find the information. Of course, there are links to the episode where they died, but the list does not say "here is the episode, to find out who died, click here to find out". Because of this reasoning, that, too, is an invalid reason to delete. EVERY single list on Wikipedia, is going to have a blue link to somewhere else. That does not mean it is acting like a directory. True, there are people using WP:ILIKEIT, but there are also people using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. The fact of the matter is simply, that this list does not fail WP:NOT, and no other policy that I can find. To delete this list would be absurd. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. You've got it flipped. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, thus does not allow ALL information. The list, as you yourself stated, lists EVERY single death on the series (including animals and deaths are not even chronicled in the series). If we were to only keep the notable deaths, than the list would be "discriminate". As for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

And all of the refutes have been refuted? The Filmaker 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a middle ground. How about we rename the article to "List of notable deaths in The Sopranos" and clean up all the non-notable deaths (FYI Pie-O-Mie's death, though an animal is very notable). With regards to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, you fail to see my point. A directory is something that directs you to a different source for information. The premise of this list is not to direct you elsewhere, as the information is already contained in the list. As I said before, of course it is going to link you to the actual episode list, however every list in Wikipedia is going to have blue links to other sources. A list without blue links would just look funny. If we can agree on this, I think we can move ahead and make everyone happy --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise would make, how should I put it, happier' than I am right now. It would make the article a little more decent. However, we can't ignore Bignole's prime rationale for deletion. The list is only a replacement for major events in the plot. Thus can still fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE this time under the Plot summary example: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the article were to offer commentary and reception (as I stated above) than it would not be focused solely as a summary of the work's plot. However, than the article would no longer be a list. It would have to be renamed "Notable deaths in The Sopranos series", at which point people would realize that the list is unneeded and we need only discuss notable deaths such Big Pussy or Phil Leotardo. At this point, the new article is completely from the current article. Therefore, if a user wishes too, the new article should simply be created. The Filmaker 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is not a replacement of major events, it's a guide to the major events. It gives just the right amount of information, though the wording needs a copyedit. It is not a copyvio--they are he barest summary. Most lists are intended to be complete--keeping track of the deaths is not very useful if it doesn't keep track of all the deaths. The example used by NOT for indiscriminate would seem to condemn not this, but the articles on the episodes, which are generally 80%-90% plot summary. DGG 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be all in-depth to infringe on the rights. If I have a story that uses the character of Tony Soprano, that's an infringement on the rights of HBO. Having a list that does nothing but state plot elements infringes on the rights, because there is nothing else, outside the fictional element of the show, on this page. This is a list of fictional characters, their deaths, by who's hands, and in what episode. Not only are there no real world content, but it treats every like it really happened. Bignole 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh be quiet! As I've explained to you above "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." -- learn to grasp this, immediatley. Matthew 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Matthew, you are becoming quite rude with people, you should probably curb that, and I don't need your lack of understanding of US laws to tell me otherwise. If you think that you can copy concepts and facts without proof that it is your original work, you have a lot to learn. If I created some 7ft hair creature, that carried a weapon, only talked in animal grunts and basically looked like Chewbacca in every way that I didn't already mention, you had better believe I'd find a lawsuit in my mailbox. Because Chewbacca is a concept; he's a character on a copyrighted piece of work, just like all those in that list on this page. If someone can get sued, and lose the lawsuit, over putting Seinfeld quotes in a book, you can believe that more important things to a series like plot elements. Try this, go write a book that does nothing but list every major and minor storyline in a plot and see if you don't have a lawsuit. It's infringement because those are not just "concepts" they are the actual storylines from the series. You cannot publish a set of storylines, with not encyclopedic commentary, without permission from the owner. I feel I should explain this better, when it says "not intended for an actual idea, concepts, facts, etc", it is referring to fact that you can not copyright the "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and you cannot copyright the "fact" that there is gravity acting on the Earth. Meaning, someone cannot "copyright" a filming style, the way they place a camera in a shot, etc. You cannot copyright the fact that Tony Soprano is a person. But the stories are copyrighted, as are the characters in them. If it was as simple as "John killed Bob in "Pilot", that's not copyrighted. But this list lays out the details, which are apart of that show, and since it's laid out in a manner that lists every occurance of a death, that is what makes it an infringement on the copyrights. If you were writing a paragraph about a Sopranos episode, and you need to describe the scene to illustrate your point, then that is not a violation. That isn't what this list is doing. This list is nothing but a huge compilation of episode events, in detail. Like "Shot in the head. Killed during Christopher's drunk fury for not listening to his problems.". You're doing nothing but revealing events in a plot. Bignole 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the page violates copyright, please nominate it for a violation check on WP:CV. A deletion debate is not the proper place to debate this. Vagary 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't aware that we had that. It's already backlogged, so I'll wait till after the AfD is closed. There is no point in bringing it there if the AfD closes in favor of deletion. If not, I'll go there and see if others agree on its infringement status. Bignole 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this Afd was not originally started over the fact that the List violates copyright. However, true it may be. The Filmaker 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

I've enjoyed this show since day one, so my initial impression of this article is that it's a fascinating fan resource and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, my consigliere has pointed out to me that this is Wikipedia, not a Sopranos wiki. The question that has to be asked is: "Is this specific topic of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic?" Now before you fly off the handle, I am not saying that The Sopranos is an unnotable topic, or even that deaths on the Sopranos is an unnotable topic. The only relevant question before us is: "Does a topical concordance of deaths throughout the series meet standards for inclusion on Wikipedia?" This article's usefulness is irrelevant, its novelty is irrelevant, its enjoyability is irrelevant, and its cherished place in the hearts of fanboys and fangirls is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a harsh mistress which demands that we set aside our emotional attachments for the sake of being as objective, detached and fair-minded as possible. Sorry folks, but listcruft is bad for our thing. Perhaps this list can find a good home on a fan-wiki, but as far as its appropriateness for Wikipedia, I have to say: Whack. Groupthink 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I love this comment. You may be right. I have at least copied the content, so it won't dissappear with a deletion of this article. cun 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a television show. It is not real life. Therefore the amount of miscellaneous information about it that is encyclopedia is very limited. Herostratus 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a television show is not a valid reason to delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Because it's a television show, only a limited amount of miscellaneous information about it will be encyclopedic is SO a valid reason to delete. Groupthink 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed it is. I presume this AfD will be cited in future cases so it is important to make a precise decision on the case. One more thing. All the info from the list should be covered in the episode articles and that is enough. Too many redundant lists on WP, we should have stronger policy. --Tone 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge into an Episode list. Episode lists are an estblished precedent. Permitting one death list means there will soon be death lists for every action-oriented film or television series. And actor. Bleh. Trust me: Do you really want to know the names of every two-bit extra mutilated by Bolo Yeung?--Mike18xx 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Cleary stated why above 69.218.8.5 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can clearly state why, your comment is invalid. I can just as easily say "Clearly stated why not above." The Filmaker 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You did'nt say anything when a user in favor of deleting said "per above"69.218.8.5 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I assumed that they agreed with the many objections to the article. However, I have no clue what objection you have, as the majority, if not all, of the keep votes points have been refuted. Or did you not bother to read any of the replies to the votes? The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Refuted" is a very strong word. This debate could probably serve to be summarized - I'll put out a call for someone neutral to do it. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly have not been refuted in my view. I have found the delete areguments to have been rebuffed in this disscusion69.218.8.5 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly provide an example? Even if you could, I doubt that is the only arguement that was made for deletion. The Filmaker 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Yes, it is a telvision show, but why is that such a problem? This is an ensyclopediea and they have to be informative. TV shows are at best, art forms and deserve recordniton and the death of a TV character is genuiningly (sp?) concidered important enough to be mentioned as though it was real (But state it isn't) as the character is dead and not seen again (Apart from the odd show where they are). So this and all other death lists should stay, as this is very informative and also people may wish to know how characters died rather than a pasific characer. MJN SEIFER 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a television show or that it is a death on television has nothing to do with any of the objections to the article remaining. In other words, it is not "a problem". The problem is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information which in turn violates copyright and also violates the directory policy. The information is present elsewhere in more accessible places (and where a reader would most likely look) and the only real use for the article is as a minor convenience as a navigation tool. The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you agreed above, copyright violation is not relevant to this debate. It is a red herring: please stop bringing it up. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Television shows (and anything else for that matter) should be entitled to separate articles about elements related to the subject that are notable. As long as it's properly maintained, I believe that this page should be kept just as much as List of crossovers on Lost. -- Wikipedical 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being associated with something doesn't entitle you to notability. Bignole 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and while I have my doubts as to whether or not that page is too trivial to be included on Wikipedia. I will mention that the Crossover article is slightly more useful as the crossovers are not always (and should not always be) explicitly stated as in the context of character and episodes often times they are very trivial. However, in the larger scheme of things, they can prove to be notable. The notable deaths on The Sopranos will always be explicitly stated in the episode and character articles. The Filmaker 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedica1. Groupthink 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true as well. The Filmaker 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I already read this article 2 weeks ago. Any article that generates this much discussion on both sides of the fence probably should be kept, since there is obviously enough interest for the article to be here. Wikipedia's for the readers, after all, not for the editors or the rules lawyers. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Wikipedia has something approaching 60GB of Simpsons cruft, which kinda outweighs any rational argument anyone could ever put towards anything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a supporting argument for deleting 60GB of Simpsons cruft? ;) Groupthink 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resigned to the continued existence of 60GB of Simpsonscruft. Wikipedia is, after all, created and run by primates, many of whom watch the Simpsons. However, a large number of primates also watch the Sopranos, which was popular too; the show is now over, so there should be no more Sopranoscruft created. As for this article, I personally read it 2 weeks ago, and as I think the true test of keeping cruft (e.g. Simpsons) is whether a large number of Wikipedia readers may find it useful, I therefore think this article should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Generating a lot of attention doesn't mean it's notable, it means that a large portion of the fanbase is on here hoping to keep it. Bignole 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the same can be said for 60GB of Simpsonscruft. I'd like to see someone try to AfD an article like Disco Stu or Duff Beer (The Simpsons) on the grounds that they are non-notable and lack secondary sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both of those should be merged. Disco Stu should be in a "List of The Simpsons characters" page, as he's kind of minor. Duff Beer should be merged with the main article, as it contains some relevant information, especially the bit about people actually creating it in the '90s. Bignole 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Go ahead and try! You have my blessing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw up the proposed mergers. You'll have my vote. Bignole 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you first. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a place for a debate. You brought it up. What you are doing is equivalent to dumping information into Wikipedia and expecting others to source it for you. You think they should be merged, propose it. You think they should be AfD'd, then propose it. Stop doing the "well this exists" game. I'm not your parent, you can propose articles for deletion or merger on your own. Frankly. I think both of those articles have a better chance of actually expanding into sensible encyclopedic articles. They probably need to be merged until that actually can happen, but they have a better potential for it than this page, which has about a snow ball's chance in hell of being encyclopedic. Proposals have been made about how info from here could be use to make an encyclopedic entry. I frankly think that a "Death in The Sopronos" article is best served as a section on the main article's page. Bignole 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep a cool head. I personally have a "live and let live" philosophy regarding most articles. I have also never dumped information into Wikipedia expecting others to source it; I suspect a "list of deaths" isn't going to come from secondary sources anyway. And you did propose deleting or merging those Simpsons articles, not me. Most importantly, when it comes to cruft, I generally believe in keeping it if it's not vanispam, been well-written, and something useful to a large number of readers. This doesn't follow the hard-and-fast rules, I know; but I believe in using the rules as guidelines and letting common sense, a desire to serve the average reader, and an understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia rule the day. Especially when it comes to AfDs that generate this much discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by that reasoning I could have a List of measurements for my toe nail, and is enough people want to read about it, then that's ok. I go to college, being in college is a great achievement, thus I could be considered notable, and by association so could my toe nails. I don't think so. Random trivia is not notable. Who killed who is anything is not notable. The fact that someone wants to read about it doesn't change it's notability. 10 million people may want to read about my toe nails. My toe nails wouldn't be notable, but the fact that 10 million people wanting to read about them would be, luckily that isn't the case. The way death is portrayed in the Sopranos could be notable, but not a list of every minor character that died. Work it up in a List of characters article, and just have the actor's name end with this last appearance. Bignole 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Satisfactory sources were not found, probability that they exist not enough to satisfy notability and verification guidelines. — Ocatecir ^T 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane (hovercraft)[edit]

I don't see how this craft is notable (craft, not cruft). Orphaned for a few months as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How many were built? This article is perhaps a weak keep. It needs to the Wikified and to have sources cited. It is probably only a stub, but need not be so non-notable that it should be deleted.
Keep. It appears to be a real craft. It seems that it might have some standing in the history of personal hovercraft development. Per above, though, if only like ten were built, then maybe not. Herostratus 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certified by USCG and a unique configuration. Also of historical interest. Dhaluza 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is it of historical interest? The company itself isn't notable, how can the craft be as well (other than unique design, I'll give you that one)? Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve 'cuz it's spiffy -- I want one!--Mike18xx 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. The Filmaker 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability would require secondary sources, but none are given. --B. Wolterding 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are you saying you doubt they exist, or are you objecting to the fact they were not cited. Unfortunately due to the historical nature of this, there are no online sources--I only found this blog post: [34] which is probably not suitable as a reference to add to the article. But paper sources probably exist, and deleting it presents a catch-22 as someone who has them won't know we need them if the article is deleted. Since there is no reason to believe the content is bogus, I think we can safely keep this and wait for improvement. Dhaluza 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the point is: I do not know of any sources, since the article doesn't list any. It's the responsibility of the editor to add sources that establish notability. (Otherwise, how should others verify?) The mere probability that sources exist is certainly not enough to pass WP:CORP. The article has existed since several months, and no sources have been provided. But of course it can be userfied and recreated once reliable secondary sources have been found. --B. Wolterding 11:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahasamparka[edit]

Non-notable book. No hints to secondary coverage, awards, or similar are given, hence it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). The external link in the article points to a Wikipedia mirror. PROD was contested last October, without rationale. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unpromising Google results. Only ref is a Wiki mirror.--Ispy1981 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching turns up no reliable sources. John Vandenberg 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. Peacent 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hayfield[edit]

Probably written about self or by close relative, creator no longer member of wikipedia, ~~unclear how important subject is~~, doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines, does not link to many articles within wikipedia. has been proposed to be deleted before. Eliz81 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the criteria for authors in WP:BIO Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 2 novels published by major publishers, co-author of computer books currently in print. NawlinWiki 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Stellatomailing 03:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in WP:BIO for Creative Professionals coincides with this author for notability. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:56, 11 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, Peacent 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, editor in chief of a well known magazine, and her earlier novels are mentioned in major newspapers.[35] John Vandenberg 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as noted above. COI is not relevant for deleting, but a Google test or other way to verify would be. Bearian 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep not notable. she appears only to be an editor, rather than an author. Cleaning House ranks in the 5.33 millionsths. [Edit: However, as pointed out by User:Jayvdb, reviews of said poor seller would nonetheless satisfy WP:BIO, although not all the links relate to her.] Ohconfucius 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. She may be an editor, but she doesn't have enough Sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP.--Edtropolis 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix., per Vandenberg.
delete - no secondary sources given, and I can't imagine there would be that much written about her to satisfy sourcing requirements. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy as self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Franklin, author[edit]

The primary author of this article appears to be the subject, so there is a big WP:COI. Also, reads like a puff piece/resume. There are no sources cited. WP:BIO is questionable, but not the primary concern. Andrew c 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It sould be noted that Diggory Press, with which the subject is associated, is currently the topic of an AfD as well. Deor 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see here...WP:COI issues (article creator is the subject), Wikipedia is not an autobiography, puff piece, <insert whatever you would like>, and no reliable sources --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please read WP:COI and stop using COI as reason for deletion--it's not: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." Please, stick with legitimate reasons to delete an article, then post them, not extraneous issues. Read the policy is you have questions. KP Botany 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you should read WP:COI. It states very clearly that you probably should not edit an article if you have COI issues. Creating an article not withstanding. Please try to defend the article with my WP:RS and WP:NOT please? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And somehow you translate "probably should not edit an article if you have COI issues" to "reason for deletion?" All I ask is that you NOT use reasons for deletion that are NOT reasons for deletion. Try it some time. And, please, I suggest you reread COI if you think that "should not edit" is the same as "reason for deletion" and find the line I quoted above--"not a reason for deletion." I do agree that if you have a COI you shouldn't edit the article, mostly, because people write like crap when writing about themselves, and WP:COI fails to say this, but should. Stick to legitimate reasons for deletion in your nomination, please. KP Botany 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that there is no reason for anyone to create an article about themselves. If they meet WP:BIO, then at some point in the future, they will most likely be included. I do not believe that we need a policy stating that someone cannot create an article about themselves, but it is already implied that that sort of behavior is at least discouraged. I feel that COI isn't a reason alone to delete, either, but it helps the case. If you disagree with the my belief that COI should be weighed along side other issues, then feel free to ignore COI concerns. I apologize if my nomination sounded like COI was my only concern with the article. Look at the article yourself, weigh it against your understanding of wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and comment accordingly here. I didn't want this to turn into a discussion on COI, but instead, a discussion on whether we should include this article in our online encyclopedia. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it will turn into a discussion on COI if you use it as a reason to delete, when the policy clearly states that COI is NOT a reason to delete. Simply leave it out. Again, I agree COI generally means really crappy article. Look at the garbage the Virtual synchrony guy is putting up--and it's not just this one piece of utterly worthless, poorly written, unclear, crap--it's a couple. But I'm tired of the deletionists nominating articles for reasons that aren't reasons. COI is not a reason for deletion. The lists for deletion have user accounts whose only purpose is voting for deletion. A user vandalized the Andrew Airlie article, then nominated it for deletion based upon the article missing what he had just deleted![36] This area is out of control--nominate for legitimate reasons. If it fails notability, then it should be deleted. If it fails COI, tag it. KP Botany 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Policy smolicy. Give me an hour and I could have 100 different AfD's that were nominated for deletion that weren't "policy". There are TONS of things that aren't policy. WP:Crystal Ball and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are just 2, however, articles are deleted for those all the freaking time. Personally, a WP:COI issue is much worse than WP:Crystal Ball and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because usually it's ridden with bias and does not adhere to a WP:NPOV. Furthermore, this article has basically been edited by NO ONE other than the subject in question anyways, which means there is not an older version to revert to, or anything. Regardless of the WP:COI, let's both leave this out for a second. The article still fails WP:NOT and WP:RS so it will be deleted anyways. However when I look at this, I weigh the COI on top of everything else, which just enforces my vote for deletion. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent and non-trivial reliable sources can be found to substantiate her notability. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, searching Google News Archive for rosalind.franklin+cornwall and rosalind.franklin+diggory yields nada. Unlikely to meet WP:RS. WP:COI, in my book, is a pebble to be placed on a scale when it's nearly balanced. The nomination was not the most well-reasoned it could have been, but that doesn't mean we can't proceed on the basis of a good-faith, if fuzzy, nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been online for exactly four days, and has requested references or sources for four days. Not saying it should be deleted or kept, but do think that articles should be given a leetle more time with a unreferenced template to allow the digging up of sources first. Will it fail on WP:N and WP:RS grounds? Possibly, and I share the WP:COI concerns when there are so few verified sources. But maybe her or others will polish it while it's in AfD. LaughingVulcan 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no the sources should come first. Four hours should be plenty of time to write a sourced article, never mind four days. - fchd 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability: lack of reliable sources. Moreschi ^Talk 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States[edit]

This page is a fork of List of standardized tests in the United States and is therefore redundant. It adds nothing new to Wikipedia, it is very limited in scope, and it was created after the other list mentioned above. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD really isn't necessary here, as the articles could just be merged back together - but since this is a fork and it's here, I'll agree with the nominator and say this should be deleted as redundant. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~temporarily.~~ I left a note at Talk:List of standardized tests in the United States. My suggestion is to use categories and subcategories. In the meantime they will need the list page to know quickly what to add to that grade-school test subcategory. See: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. The same introduction can be used on the category page. --Timeshifter 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page, categories cannot be created with pages that do not yet exist. The list provides existing and unavailable pages. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree. I struck out "temporarily" from my first comment. I think more subcategories of Category:Standardized tests need to be started though. Then they can be filled in more as the wikipedia pages are created.--Timeshifter 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I still think this list is redundant with List of standardized tests in the United States. There is absolutely no need for this list since it is simply a copy of the other. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a conflict between you and another editor. I am not taking sides in that. My point is that more breakdown by type of test is needed. Both on the list pages and the category pages. I don't see how this list is redundant. I don't see an equivalent subsection at List of standardized tests in the United States. --Timeshifter 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. It's the exact same list, and the other editor copied it because he wants a list of only state standardized tests, and that's silly because there are other standardized tests. Why are you giving an opinion on this subject if you haven't read both articles? The redundancy is very obvious. Furthermore, this list is not very long, and the other one is not long enough to be split into multiple articles, so why do you advocate more lists when there isn't enough content? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list provides information vital to understanding No Child Left Behind, and its contents are under continued scrutiny by media, politicians, parents and students across the US. Lumping it together with other, less valuable conglomeration lists would unnecessarily complicate WP. – Freechild (BoomCha) 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Maintaining a list of fewer than 50 items is useless, and this list would never contain more than 50. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of lists and charts on wikipedia. Many of them have fewer than 50 items. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why you would want a more specific list when the more general list isn't that long? Why should there be two lists? I can find no good reason for having both of these. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more third-party opinions here. So far, only Timeshifter provides a third-party opinion. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view Delete unless intended for expansion or if the plan is to divide the main article. The material is all readily found on the main list in the same sequence. The only thing added is the alphabetical table of contents, but most people can navigate an alphabetic list of states without one. This would make sense, however, if it is intended to have separate articles for the various major groups, this being only the first step, or if it is intended to provide considerably more detail or a different arrangement in the smaller list. But otherwise, its a clearly un-neded partial copy.DGG 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Dip (sexual)[edit]

Unreferenced alleged sexual act. A little Googling suggests that this is nonsense. The Anome 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, the article has been lacking refs since Oct. 2006. It seems like WP:NONSENSE to me. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though the act is real, I'm not sure if that is the accurate name. If some sources can be presented, then I'm all for keeping, but if no sources can be presented in a timely manner, then we should delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced slang generally is not encyclopedic. Even if some sources can be dredged up it's not likely this will be more than a dicdef, and since Wikipedia is not urban dictionary .. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced neologism, dictionary definition at best. Edison 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not even notable as a neologism, see [37]. Bearian 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Au revoir made up crap. RFerreira 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW - non -notable SalaSkan 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. I note that cleaning up has taken place during the AfD to strip out the external links, and further cleaning up is promised. Tyrenius 03:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in Greece[edit]

This list is out of control. It violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Any museum that does not have its own Wikipedia article probably should not be here either; heck, we can use categories for the remaining museums, as is already being done for museums in general. YechielMan 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not entirely a collection of links to external sites, but it's primarily so. We already have Category:Museums in Greece for the ones with WP articles. Deor 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; at best a partial list that would be impossible to maintain. Bigdaddy1981 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have lists of museums all over the place, 75 articles in Category:Lists of museums; this is part of an overall scheme to categorize and list museums by country. Appropriate use of lists. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but compare this one with, for example, List of museums in Egypt and List of museums in England. In those, the listed museums are linked to to the corresponding WP articles—with redlinks when no such articles exist. This list, on the other hand, seems deliberately set up as an aggregation of external links (although it looks as if someone gave up partway through). And it's terribly organized, too. Deor 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't think comparing the current state of an article to other, certainly more developed articles, is a valid comparison as part of a deletion discussion. Deletion should mean whether we find the article to be a page which should not exist at all. If that is, in fact, the verdict, then I believe the aforementioned "List of museums in x" should all be deleted. I have already cleaned up all the external links, so that is no longer a valid objection. There are many museums in Greece which should have articles, and lists are partially what help Wikipedia to find those articles in need of creation. Categories only go so far. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 08:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. It is currently a linkfarm, and a brutal violation of WP:EL. That does not mean the article concept is without merit, however. Resolute 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yep, it is currently a disgusting mess of external links organized by arbitrarily-picked cities (not even regions), with lots of duplicates and bad spelling. But, it's a lot easier to build up a proper list from this than from an empty page. I just returned from 3 months of visiting a lot of these places, so I'll start on a little of that cleanup now. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unmaintainable mess. Category:Museums in Greece suffices. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all the museums that do have articles are linked to (8 missing by my count). Johnbod 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may need to be improved, but when similar lists exist for other countries, it should not be deleted. --musicpvm 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beastleigh[edit]

Contested prod. Unverifiable neologism with no sources, is described in the article itself as something made up in school one day. -- MisterHand 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. It is also WP:NONSENSE. --Evb-wiki 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not patent nonsense. As far as I can tell, there is no speedy deletion criteria for an article of this sort. -- MisterHand 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after reading it again, not only do I still believe it is complete bollocks, I believe it is vandalizim. --Evb-wiki 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1 with apologies to MisterHand. This is clearly nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NFT. YechielMan 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. nonsense as stated.--Arthana 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete totally incomprehensible. DarkAudit 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NONSENSE, "Incompetent and/or immature material" (which this clearly is) is not considered "patent nonsense". Last time I tried to speedy delete an article like this with ((db-nonsense)) I got chided because it wasn't "patent nonsense". Damned if I do, damned if I don't. -- MisterHand 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's just a bunch of junk. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everyone else! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, please make this link red once more. RFerreira 06:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense is a nice way of putting it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete! "it currently possesses no litertature or language advances, and infact deliberatly impairs good use of the English language as a whole." ??????--Blueboy 96 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. Peacent 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awake[edit]

This article started as a stub and has been expanded, but not with anything useful. Theres about four sentences worth of material:

Being awake is the behavioral manifestation of the metabolic state of catabolism. It is the daily recurring period in an organism's life during which ... behaviors necessary for survival ... are conducted. Being awake is the opposite of being asleep, the behavioral manifestation of anabolism. Logically the only necessary behaviours are ingestion - for survival of the individual - and procreation, for the survival of the species.

(note catabolism/anabolism aren't even links in the article). It all seems kinda woolly and pointless which makes me wonder if there is any material one could possibly make an article out of for the topic.

The rest is an enlargement on the above, by enumeration of possible wakeful activities and further philosiphising (sp?). Then theres a number of other possible meanings for the word "awake", which don't belong here because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wiktionary is).

The philosophy sounds like Original Research to me; I can't really see the justification for it. Then all that would be left is the link to catabolism, so all the article could just redirect there.

I think the obvious problem with "Awake" as a topic for an article is that it is so broad as to be meaningless. At current it is focused on behaviour and what I'd call reductionist behavioural philosophy. Alternatively it could have been focused on neurology, physiology, psychology - anything really. Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep. Sourcejedi 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the nominator's first AFD, and I've seen several hundred of them. He makes some good points in arguing that Awake is little more than a dicdef, but experience has shown that Wikipedia tolerates articles like this, and if the article is deleted now it will be recreated soon anyway. I think it should be tagged "cleanup" but not removed. YechielMan 13:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recreation does not mean we should not delete. If the article is recreated in bad taste it can be salted. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - great reasoning by the nom as it does fail WP:NOT, but as stated by Yechiel, the page will be quickly recreated and it is a common term. Good job of keeping your eyes open Sourcejedi and keep being BOLD Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is really 'thin' in content and not at all encylopedic. It almost reads like a children's book i.e. "Animals can eat and run, fly, swim or walk while awake" etc. As the nom says "Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep."--Arthana 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously some cleanup is necessary. But while wakefulness (possibly a better name for this article) is seen as the "default" state and sleep as a mode or alternate state deserving special attention (not the least due to curiosity, since we don't experience it with the same clarity), wakefulness does receive some scientific attention and so while sleep is naturally going to be a more comprehensive article there's no reason we can't have one as good at a shorter length. starter sources include [38][39][40][41] --Dhartung | Talk 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) here. That would fill the void and not pose any prejudice against someone actually writing a verifiable article such as Awake (biology) or Wakefulness. Tikiwont 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tikiwont. This is a superior solution, as it addresses the issue of potential recreation. The current incarnation of this article is poor - and poorly titled. Putting the dab page here is the best solution. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the dab page, per Tikiwont. If a proper article can be written in the future, then great, but as it is the article is poor and has no meaningful content. PC78 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's nothing wrong with stubby articles, this article doesn't need to exist; the first sentence of Awake (disambiguation) is all that's needed to explain it. Redirect to Awake (disambiguation), or move that page over awake. Someguy1221 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) in. Note: the definition on the disambiguation implied consciousness. As animals can be awake yet not necessarily conscious, I modified the definition. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per Dhartung. A proper article can be written on this topic, it should be renamed "wakefulness", and Dhartung has already provided a starting point. Also, wakefulness is inherently notable, or else you're not reading this post. It is also written about quite a bit in scholarly articles. Also, regarding style: it looks like many ancient Wikipedia articles are similar to this in style and lack of sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Malloy[edit]

These characters do not warrant their own articles. At present, each character's article is merely a c&p of content already available at The Riches and List of characters in The Riches. Certainly we don't need the exact same information about characters on a cable TV show that's run for one season in three different articles. According to our fiction guideline, articles on major characters in a certain work should be treated in the article on the work, unless that article has become too long. As The Riches is not particularly long, separate articles for five main characters is unecessary at this point. If it ever becomes necessary, these can be recreated. Natalie 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: per nom. As she says, the information in the individual articles are word-for-word duplicates of that in the main article. RGTraynor 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with the nom that there is no need for the separation of 5 separate articles for each person. I do not think that they should be merged and not deleted, however, as they are notable characters to the show. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appearantly, I am an idiot and did not notice the duplication. Thanks for the heads up RGTraynor. Delete them all and they can be separated later if needed. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: per nom. --Arthana 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom & redirect List of characters in The Riches to The Riches. --Evb-wiki 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: per nom. Bearian 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of PC game sales in the US[edit]

Original research. Started as an anti-microsoft / pro-console rant. Since then several editors, including myself, have tried to clean it up, but those were only attempts to put a neutral spin on author's original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, it seems to be WP:OR. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Interesting info but perhaps not a stand-alone article. Is there not some relevance to merging with Video game console as historical sales, product development etc. must be inter-related.--Arthana 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what to merge? The unsourced, biased statements, or the unrelated figures? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The numbers may be cited, but the upshot is made up. YechielMan 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- there have been many articles about this subject in gaming magazines, so the original research can (and should) be replaced with proper sourcing. -- MisterHand 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Which would still make it an essay more suited for a magazine than an encyclopedia. That someone might be able to come up with an article based on reliable sources doesn't make this one any less a violation of WP:NOR. Ravenswing 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it along the same lines as Video game crash of 1983 which has been around as an article for a long time (and it current has an OR tag) -- MisterHand 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not so much for original research, the version I read was not terrible in terms of bias, and strikes me as likely confirmable, but rather for ephemerality. The current version reads more like an editorial column from a business magazine than like an encyclopedia article. Perhaps some of the content might profitably be merged with personal computer game. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Along the lines of Video game crash of 1983, an article which I thoroughly enjoy, the only real reason to delete this would be, "It's too much of an essay". That's a reason to fix the article, not delete it. Useight 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: one was an obvious and dramatic crash that nearly killed of the console industry, the other is a perceived long-term downward trend that can be adequately explained by market diversification. If by "too much of an essay" you mean to say that it is a biased personal analysis sourced to an incomplete set of data, then I agree, and wonder why such original research should be allowed to remain. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and POV throughout. Bigdaddy1981 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PC game sales may really be declining, but they haven't declined to the extent where the entire industry is in danger and that it has been analyzed by experts and the like. Hence it's original research.--Kylohk 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable article, has original research and simply the PC game market hasn't fallen to the point where it is dead. Also reads too much like an essay. Xtreme racer 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Pinkney[edit]

Non notable murder victim, Wikipedia is not a news site. Claim that the killer was one of the few people convicted in the absence of a body isn't strictly true as it's not that uncommon, as corpus delict doesn't require an actual body. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In this particular case, notability is not established - indeed, it's not that uncommon. But please don't generalize to all murder cases. YechielMan 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per YecheilMan. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Murder is horrendous but there are just so many murders worldwide and whilst 'Wikipedia is not paper' it saddens me to say to those concerned that in this instance it is not notable enough to keep.--Arthana 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a "Crimepedia" or a tabloid or a weekly news gazette, so every routine murder does not need an article, even though every murder gets at least a few newspaper articles. WP:NOT says "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sad, but apparently not notable by our definition. RFerreira 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Young[edit]

This article fails to assert notability as per WP:PORNBIO and provides no sources. The IMDb, AFDB, and IADb links merely demonstrate that she exists. Natalie 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one credible assertion of notability is being a Playboy Playmate. For that, she should receive an entry on the relevant list, provided that a ref is found, but not a separate article. YechielMan 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, and this wouldn't even pass PORNBIO either. I do find the title "Camel Hoes" amusing though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm skeptical of the playmate claim, that's not what List of people in Playboy 2000-present says. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mention I can find of Cassie and Playboy together is a mention [List of people in Playboy 1990-1999 here] that she was in their 7 Lives Exposed show. That's not enough IMO. Tabercil 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Multiply-sourced so meets the standards of WP:V and WP:N. If the mergers wish to merge to List of minor Biblical figures then that is an editorial action for them to take and defend and is outwith this AfD. TerriersFan 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almodad[edit]

Non-notable person, mentioned only in geneologies Od Mishehu 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article can never be longer than it is now because there is nothing more to say. I hate to say a Biblical figure is not notable - to me, they are all "notable" - but there's no need for a separate article about him. YechielMan 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Od Mishehu 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Yechiel. It is not that its not notable, it is just that it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Does not warrant it's own WP article. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or find an appropriate merge location. The Hebrew entry he:אלמודד lists an encyclopedia that includes this term as an entry, and a google books search indicates there is more that has been written about the subject.[42] John Vandenberg 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If one takes a close look at the Google Books hits, they seem to support YechielMan's conclusion above: "This article can never be longer than it is now because there is nothing more to say." (Many of them are mere quotations of the relevant passage of the Bible. And Secrets of the Lost Races, to which you provided an individual link, looks to be a major example of crackpottery.) ~~I'm going with delete here.~~ Changing opinion to merge into List of minor Biblical figures per Eliyak below. Deor 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect as noted above. Bearian 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the minimum standards required by WP:OR and WP:V. It's important to remember that WP:N, as well as WP:BIO, are guidelines, and we have some leeway in exceptional cases. If we want Wikipedia to be a serious repository of cultural knowledge rather than just a collection of Star Trek and The Sopranos memorabilia, we have to take into account that the farther we go back in time, the less reliable information has been preserved on average about any given figure, and we have to make allowances for that. I suggest that characters in classic works and other figures of significant cultural or historical importance should get a pass from some of the requirements that might be applicable to a biography in the internet age. Inclusion in the classic work necessarily means that core policies WP:OR and WP:V are met. I would expect, for example, that Wikipedia would include an article on every character in Homer's Iliad, Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the works of Shakespeare, every monarch of England, every Catholic saint, every element in the periodic table, and be exhasutive on a variety of other basic foundational sources of cultural information critical to the history of civilizations, even though the information on the topic may be scanty. It seems a perversion of the basic purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation and the basic understanding of what it means for an encyclopedia to contribute to human knowledge to include articles on Final Fantasy characters but not characters in the Bible on grounds that more has been written about Final Fantasy. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't object if minor Biblical figures were put in a List of Biblical characters or similar. My objection is to the idea that such figures are deletable entirely. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In fact, there is List of minor Biblical figures (which could use a little help, btw). --Eliyak T·C 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Eliyak. Sorry, Shirahadasha, we don't give passes and should not start. One either deserves an article or they do not. Given that there are apparently no other sources than the Biblical one, and the Bible gives precious little material on the subject, merger is the best that can be expected. Sorry. JodyB_talk 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expand if possible. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or merge~~ per Eliyak. Almodad is referenced exactly twice, both times in one of the long genealogies which the Bible as plenty of:«And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba, And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.» Genesis 10,26-29, and almost the same at I Chronicles 1,20-23. - Nabla 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral after Jayvdb's additions. - Nabla 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the list of very minor Biblical characters mentioned above. I agree 100% entirely with Shirahadasha, that Wikipedia is terribly overweight in meaningless pop culture, and that WP:N is easily perverted to reinforce this on a daily basis. (Why do we need a Chongalicious article?) However, if all we are able to say about Almodad is that a 2000 year old book asserts that he was born to someone, and that book's claims can't even be verified, I can't see how he can merit his own article. Merging over to a list seems a nice middle ground solution. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have expanded the article to indicate the number of works that have addressed this subject, mostly in bible reference material, but also more general history[43]. The larger two entries that I have found are listed in the new Further reading section, because I dont have enough time to integrate the topics presented in pieces such as [44] . John Vandenberg 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the new material. Even the most minor of biblical individuals was extensively discussed, usually by fringe religions now, but mainstream scholars in past centuries. They've probably all been used as allegorical figures. That the fundamental facts about them in a usual sense may be very sparse does npt make their possible religious significance un-notable. DGG 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Wizardman 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Faith Lutheran Primary School[edit]

A non-notable school in Australia without any independent reliable sources. The article is well written, especially given the apparent age of the writer, but it is not written in the tone expected of an encyclopaedia. The article was tagged with a PROD and was removed without a reason given. While the creating editor should be encouraged, the topic is just not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Mattinbgn/^talk 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking through the Google News Archive results turns up little of importance. John Vandenberg 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added some references. The school finished third in a State competition, so it is somewhat different to the usual school articles. Assize 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not convinced this decidedly local event makes it notable. Orderinchaos 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is the Murrumba Downs event a local event, when it is an Australia wide competition shown on Channel 10? Assize 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Murrumba Downs is a single suburb in Brisbane (locals would say Pine Rivers). On looking at the site linked as a reference I can't see any evidence that this school or the sub-regional contest appeared on national television. It should be noted they came *third* at the state level in the event - i.e. not first or second, and didn't compete nationally. Orderinchaos 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ors as another example of Schoolcruft. The subject lacks notability clear cut and dried. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SCFT is not an official Wikipedia policy. Isn't your argument that two articles in an independent News Limited newspaper does not constitute non-trivial coverage? Assize 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nor is WP:VSCA a policy either, but its oft cited in AfD debates. And the nominators and ors have already made sufficient arguments, why say any more. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the first part of Assize's comment - if you want to cite an essay, it should be after the guideline or policy on which the deletion ground is based. eg per "WP:N, WP:RS/V/others and an example of WP:SCFT" would work. Keep/delete votes should always ultimately hinge on which Wiki policies or guidelines it meets or violates. Orderinchaos 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it could be argued that the Walkirri dance competition establishes notability, it would be a pretty low bar and the local bowls tournament is a local, trivial event. Not every mention of a subject found in a google search is suitable as a source establishing notability under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most articles seem to get under a pretty low bar, particularly music and websites (not that I am arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and if you look at Fanny Furner, a single mention in a paragraph of a newspaper, oh dear... ;) Assize 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRegional here is part of a state, rather than in the US, where it means usually multi-state. One win in a sub-state level competition is not notability, nor is a third place finish in a state competition. Enough competitions, enough subdivisions, and everyone can win. The other content in the article puts this in better perspective. DGG 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Isn't this confusing Notability with fame. Notability is conferred by having secondary sources on the subject, not what the secondary sources are about. There are tons of schools that don't have newspaper articles about them. A school in country NSW has more importance to a country town than a city school, so the bar on notability is somewhat lower. If inclusion in Wikipedia is based only on large city newspapers, then small country town schools will never get included. The issue I would suggest is are the two newpapers sufficiently on subject to confer notability. Assize 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the other way round. Big city newspapers do not even attempt to cover all the elementary schools in a city, nor even all the high schools. The NYT covers a NY school when something noteworthy happens. Where the local schools are covered is in the neighborhood newspapers, which play a similar role to town newspapers: they print the local news, and hey don't prove notability for anything. A school can be just as much the center of a neighborhood in a city as in a town--real estate ads often include the district. An article about a neighborhood could appropriately list the local schools, as could an article about a town, see for example Cobble Hill, Brooklyn--there's a section that lists the 3 schools, and even includes some non-directory information about each one of them--information that could conceivably be used to justify an article. It's the small towns which have local history information--the smaller, the more detailed. DGG 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the dance competition result is of some note, the only coverage was in the local paper. There is some media coverage but none that could be called non-trivial. Might be a possible merge if we had an article on Lutheran schools in Queensland. [45]. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As the article stands, it is almost entirely cruft. While WP:CRUFT is not an official policy, it is certainly discouraged and there is very little that is actually notable mentioned in this article. The article may be improved to satisfy notability... but as it stands it does not.--Yeti Hunter 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete what it won appears to be a local competition of some description (one of those Eisteddfoddau that every school enters). It came third in something else with a wider base, but I'm not convinced that the larger thing confers notability. If kept, the article will need to be considerably re-written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Third in a big competition is not evidence of notability, and neither is winning local competitions. Does not appear to be otherwise notable. Lankiveil 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirected already. Sr 13 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able was I ere I saw Elba[edit]

Articles about single palindromes are not encyclopedic material. ProD was contested. Merge is suggested, but I don't see it being worthy of it (we're not in the business of gathering palindromes, either.) Agamemnon2 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap - redirect to palindrome. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There needs to be a source, but there is room for a sentences in the palindrome article. YechielMan 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This could be a likely search term, but we really don't need a whole article on it. Natalie 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per above. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to palindrome as it is certainly a famous palindrome (and so should be attributable), but there's not going to be enough information to write a whole article on it. — brighterorange (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's already mentioned in palindrome. Clarityfiend 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Napoleon spoke English? I'm curious to know if this is a palindrome in French, or if it just translated as such. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted as CSD A7. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Cup[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable internal competition at a school. No third-party sources cited or found. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I deleted it, I'm amazed it's being given serious consideration here. The comments added to my talk page don't inspire me to change my views either. Jimfbleak 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIm amazed you guys seem to have such a problem with it. Im only helping people. I added some exernal links to the article which has information about the Strong Cup. Im dont want to inspire people who are moderators of a website. I want to help people who are connected to the school and who are interested in the school. Im sorry for my tone but in all fairness you guys are being harsh. Its not like your lives are affected by it. SAVE THE STRONG CUPWhoisthis2007 13.21 11 June 2007

Another thing, after looking at Jimfbleak deleted history i can see he has no regard for the human race at all. Deleting a article about deaf peoples football team is just the icing on the cake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisthis2007 (talk • contribs)

Whoisthis2007, please remain civil and assume good faith. These are Wikipedia policies. --Dhartung | Talk 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability of this competition outside the school using independently verifiable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is truly a Non-notable article. Seems that the sole editors are going to be defending this to the end. I have posted a comment about courtesy and what Wikipedia is not. We may need to eventually get admin intervention on this one as it seems it will be getting personal, if it has not already. I agree with the nom. Although it might be important to the editor, and was added in good faith, it is not important to the Wikipedia community and is not verifiable. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have contacted main contrib to the page and seem to have diffused the hostility. The AfD should now be able to run its course without any attacks so that a general concensus can be reached. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect to Dauntsey's School. If people want to learn about Dauntsey's School, they can find that article easily enough. Plus, by doing it speedily, we can avoid several days of user talk page attacks, like the one I'm likely to get. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:NN about as hard as anything does. The first link given is a proprietary school link requiring password, the third link is broken, and the second is the main school website that has nothing about this Cup. A search on Google UK for "Strong Cup" + "Dauntseys" turns up ONE link [46], buried deeply in the school's public website which has a fleeting mention of this Cup; claims that this is "one of the most fierce School competitions in the South West England area" run a bit thin. That aside, I urge the proponents of this article to read up on relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:ORG and WP:NN. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia governed by certain criteria, not a Myspace page where one can put up whatever one wants. RGTraynor 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are quite harsh. Im only 14 years old as well. This is all a bit much. I was only trying to share a bit of information. No one is nice around here. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be friendly oh well i guess i was wrong then. Since the school was on here i thought i might as well put it up here. Thanks for making me feel welcome, I didnt know there were so many mean people out there. I have heard from lots of schools that they know about the strong cup because of its rivalry. I dont need people in America to tell me otherwise Well done guys. You have managed to crush a young boys spirit. I hope your proud of yourselves. User:Whoisthis2007

I'm sorry you feel that way, but surely you must understand that encyclopedias are in the business of gauging items of importance and weeding out items that do not make the cut. Would you call the Times mean for not publishing an article on your Cup on its front page? RGTraynor 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The times is a newspaper and i was told that i couldnt write my article like a newspaper. This article is of importance of to the school and the school is on here. So why cant our school competition be on here. This is totally unfair, i thought you were ment to be interested in hockey not schools User:Whoisthis2007

Comment: On the contrary, this is entirely fair. We apply Wikipedia guidelines and policies to every article. Your school competition fails to qualify under a couple of those policies, which we've mentioned above. RGTraynor 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Importance to the school !=importance to the rest of the world. Without reliable sources that show that anyone outside of the school itself takes an interest, this article does not belong. It's not personal, it's guidelines. You should read them. DarkAudit 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO MORE DISSCUSION ON THIS. I HAVE MOVED THE INFORMATION ELSEWHERE. YOU 30 YEAR OLDS HAVE MANAGED TO BULLY, HARASS AND ABUSE A 14 YEAR OLD BOY. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT, YOU WIN THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. STOP PUTTING SALT IN THE WOUND. YOU HAVE CRUSHED A 14 YEAR OLDS SPIRIT. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW!!!!!!!

This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. What we have here is a an AfD nomination handled according to every single established protocol, handled with the care and politeness that such an action warrants, which is nevertheless met with what can only described as a hyperbolic tirade (and a rather transparent attempt at an appeal to pity). The issue we're seeing here is a fundamental disjoint between our goals as a project and the goals of people joining it, and, perhaps, more could and should be done to correct this. --Agamemnon2 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the user's contributions, it appears to be single-purpose account. Agamemnon2's right, and it looks like a complete appeal to pity. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and my own take on Agamemnon2's comments is that there should be a guideline with equal force to WP:BITE - that in their own turn, newcomers have a duty to act respectfully, courteously and with maturity, to make an effort to acquaint themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to assume good faith on the part of existing editors who seek to apply them. In this particular case, English public schools are not noted for a lack of decorum, and these actions are somewhat disconcerting. RGTraynor 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That indeed is the nub of my gist. More and more, we need to make it plain to newcomers that there are certain rules in place and being new to the project is not a carte blanche to ignore them, nor should new users expect preferential treatment if they might be ignorant of the basics. Such a user not knowing exactly how to write a fair use rationale is fine, and I'm sure many editors will help a new user with that, but ignoring AP:AGF is not. I might write an essay about it at some point. --Agamemnon2 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hey, cheer up. I saw your article on the AfD page, it's a good article, but they're pretty hard on school stuff around here. Why not try writing about something you really like or know something about as well? Even just adding something to an article you look up on here? There's no point vandalising stuff or getting upset, it's not worth it. It can be pretty harsh around here but hey, that's life. You're up for it, aren't you? You're a good writer, show them that. Nick mallory 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i wish more people were like this Whoisthis2007

right many of our notices and warnings are on the harsh side for some of the people they are addressed to, but this afd is a example of handling them right. And many people of 14 years old and even younger have written good WP articles, without special consideration. DGG 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I have transferred my information to the school page. I have also realised that behaviour is unacceptable. Please accept my apology. This is no way to behave and I hope you dont see me as the typical english public school child. I should not have acted this way and I am sorry Whoisthis2007

STRONG KEEP I am shocked at this attiude that administators have taken towards this young writer.It look likes he has been harrassed and bullied into submission. It is perfectally natural for a young person to defend themselves and this kind of behavour towards the young person is unacceptable. He was only trying to add to your website, and he got this response. Im gald that there is at least one user who has been supportive. TheSupport 12 June 2007 11.26

Note: user's first ever edit, user has also posted what could be considered personal attacks on the talk pages of selected users who voted to delete the article ChrisTheDude 10:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Crescent[edit]

No evidence given of notability - appears to be simply a game made up by a group of friends based on the original radio game Mornington Crescent. Violates WP:NOT#OR - Tailkinker 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even have the saving graces of either humour or originality. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire: Oh, I disagree! "Tour dates are also currently being decided" is highly humorous, I think! That being said, this fails WP:NFT going away. RGTraynor 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it the boot as it fails WP:NFT. --Dhartung | Talk 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect as some potentially salvageable content can be used in the future. Sr 13 05:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"educational tourism"[edit]

WP:NEO? WP:SPAM? ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tourism#Niche tourism - Tiswas^(t) 10:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be thinly disguised linkspam. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. (Swimming with dolphins??) YechielMan 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What the??? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Either way, we have WP:V, WP:OR, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NPOV problems. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either Spam or original research. Davewild 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS - so its either swimming with dolphins or learning COBOL in Thailand eh? Bigdaddy1981 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, fails a load of criteria Hut 8.5 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Merge with Hostel - the educational travel movement, not the awful movie. Bearian 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article in its present state needs drastic editing, but it's a real subject, : see OCLC where 11 items -- all the way back to 1961 -- are listed with this exact phrase in the title. Judge the subject, not the article. Hostel is a different concept--especially the WP article, which talks about the physical facilities not the movement. --this is tourism for adult education, not as part of education. I wish I had time to develop, but I suggest stubbifying and adding the refs. DGG 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Honey, I'm just not sure where to go on vacation this year... there's a special on swimming with dolphins, but the kids are dead-set on going to Thailand to learn COBOL. I just can't decide!" Delete as stealth linkspam. DGG might be right that this is a salvagable topic, but since it would require a 100% rewrite (not to mention another title) there's no harm in deleting this first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guys, I wrote the article we are commenting on. From my POV I have done a number of courses (clearly not wikipedia entry level 1) and recently did the Prince2 projects course in London but due to the best part of a year in Asia I knew I could get the course in India cheaper. Looking for another course recently a link led me to one of the sites I added as an example (now deleted) which proclaimed itself as an educational tourist leader. Thinking that this "ET" angle was exactly what I wanted I googled the phrase and of the 4million odd hits clicked a few on the first page. The underlying theme was there were two sorts, Prince 2 in india and remembering my old boss who took a two week holiday in Panama to swim with dolphins was a nice example of the second. Basically most sites fell into those two areas. I came to wiki to see if I could further drill down on detail so I could search potential providers better and ended up with nothing. Hence I thought I would create an entry. I had to read through the instruction pages and thought I did a reasonable job. I apologise if its not come across properly but it was created because (a) there isn't an entry on a genuine search and (b) I genuinly thought there should be. I will happily bow to the collective knowledge and accept that my tongue in cheek subtitles (swimming with dolphins / learning cobol in thailand) are not "pure" but I do believe they convey the two styles rather accurately. If anyone can spare the time, I would happily see this re-worded 100% but I don't believe it deserves deletion - not least because it was a genuine search of mine so therefore it might be of somebody else tomorrow... Mr Quite Happy
Delete and redirect The sample providers thing is what got it. It sounds like it has potential, but needs a lot of cleanup (and why is it in double quotes?) Redirect/merge to Tourism#Niche_tourism for now. OSborn 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR - reads more like a leaflet than an encyclopaedia article, incomprehensible, unsourced SalaSkan 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Young (poker player)[edit]

Listing incomplete AfD by anonymous editor.

Abstain - procedural completion of incomplete nomination. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and thanks to Matticus for doing the grunt work. The two sources in the article fail to establish notability; one is myspace and the other is an article by the subject, not about him. I wasn't able to find much on Google. YechielMan 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cash him out. $50,000 in tournament winnings since 1993? Whoopee. Pokerstars' Sunday Million pays that out to the top 5 or 6 players every week. Should each of them get articles too? Clarityfiend 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject. 2005 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject.

The result was terminate lifespan of this ballocks early. Resurgent insurgent 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas André Berg[edit]

Hoax. Punkmorten 08:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax supported by non-existent/fake references. For one thing, Luton and Sunderland weren't even in the same division in February 2005 so even The Sun wouldn't have cooked up a report on a match that didn't take place...... ChrisTheDude 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Voranau[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of WABC-TV personalities[edit]

This page was kept and moved as a result of a previous AfD, but moving it to a new page does not solve its problem. It is still full of cruft and its contents can, and should, be re-merged into the main WABC-TV article. Having a stand-alone page could be in violation of WP:NOT and only serves a small group.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Rollosmokes 07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - indiscriminate lists with poor definition. 81.104.175.145 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just. It's listcruft, but red links are minimal. - Tiswas^(t) 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's no more crufty than any other list, it's tough to claim that WABC is a non-notable station, I'm not sure what's "indiscriminate" about it, and what definition other than these are current or former on-air personalities is required? About the only thing I'd want to see is some sourcing. RGTraynor 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For "no more crufty", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody is claiming that WABC is a non-notable station. For "indiscriminate", the list has broad inclusion criteria but no selection criteria. As you say yourself, the definion is poor and cannot be improved. 81.104.175.145 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, but I'm entirely capable of putting words in my own mouth without outside help; far from my saying the definition was "poor," it's perfectly serviceable. That aside, I commend the quote "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." When WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is raised to the status of official policy, then it'll become a valid AfD ground. RGTraynor 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What exactly is your point? 81.104.175.145 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not the issue. This information was previously, and is better served, within the main articles of these stations. There are no other television station articles with separate pages for current and former staffers, so these four should not be any different than the others. And these lists can be pared-down to satisfy those with concerns about size. Rollosmokes 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Excellent navigation devices to blue linked articles. Paring it down would serve no purpose, it needs to be comprehensive to be useful. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay. Can you imagine a legal proceeding where you weren't allowed to discuss other court cases that were decided. The basis of our judicial system is precedence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Wikipedia is not a system of law. There is no such thing as precedent. Also, by saying "X is just an essay", you have done two things: you have denounced the opinion of a significant number of people as irrelevant (remember, we work on consensus, a sharing of opinions), and in doing so have inspired an irrepressible urge within me to cause extreme physical pain to your person. AfD is neither a vote nor a trial - it is a discussion. WP:AADD lists common examples of flawed arguments that come up in such discussions. They are known to be flawed, and the lack of a ((policy)) tag makes those arguments no less flawed. 81.104.175.145 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the original AfD's for these articles were closed less than 24 hours before they were re-nominated for deletion. However, rename WNYW-TV News Team to ~~List of WNYW-TV personalities~~ for consistency. Also, if a merge is being proposed by the nominator, then deleting the article is quite possibly a violation of the GFDL. The proper way to merge content is to copy the merged contents and redirect the old article to the newly merged article. Whether to do this or not with these articles is outside the scope of an AfD discussion. DHowell 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction rename to List of WNYW personalities to match WNYW article name and proper FCC call sign. DHowell 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominating articles for deletion for a second time when they have recently been closed isn't in my view acceptable. We shouldn't "play the odds" and hope that next time we get lucky. Malla nox 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all an unreasonable use of process. The ""News Team" lists were merged into these, and now the articles should have a chance to be developed. DGG
Keep all per RGTraynor and DGG, and rename WNYW-TV News Team, per DHowell.--JayJasper 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It maybe listcruft, but it should stay the way it is. After this, do not re-nom.--Edtropolis 13:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me see if I've read that correctly - you've just said "It doesn't belong here, but it should stay anyway". There is also no prohibition on renomination - ever. 81.104.175.145 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete - DGG and Mallanox have identified an abuse of process. I think the best idea is merging into the parent TV station articles, perhaps as "current personalities" and "past personalities" sections; but if the previous AfD seemed to be leaning towards keep, that's a second-best option. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirely López[edit]

The biography of a child who was allegedly the survivor of a massacre. Number of problems here 1) Can't verify it. [[47]] - Google almost blanks. 2) May violate BLP - as only notable for involvement in one incident. 3) I'd be tempted to merge the article into an article on the massacre, except the massacre is undefined and may not be notable enough for an article. 4) The first afd someone rather absurdly said keep "unless de-verified" and the closing admin seemed satified. So, delete unless verified. If verified please merge.--Doc^g 08:53, 6 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, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, signifigance is only regional. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. I'm surprised this got even regional notability. Resurgent insurgent 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot be verified. Maybe the original author can track down some more references - Until then, lock it away. - Tiswas^(t) 10:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V, WP:BIO. The Prensa Libre link is the only one of a handful of relevant links that isn't a Wiki mirror, so this would fail WP:V on that account alone. The Prensa Libre link, incidentally, isn't loading. RGTraynor 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here is a news report for the event; four people were killed. The details of the article dont match exactly. John Vandenberg 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a weekly news gazette. WP:NOT says "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." One article , which does not even support all the claims in the article, specifically the claim of a massacre, does not justify an encyclopedia article. Edison 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, soapbox, crimepedia, cruft. Bearian 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend toward trying to find some place for these topics, but I don't see one here. This "massacre" was apparently the murder of four people in the same household. A tragic crime, to be certain, but from the article's phrasing, I was expecting the subject to have survived some sort of significant paramilitary action. There is no evidence that this event, or this subject, has had a significant impact in any wider debates, controversies, or issues. Serpent's Choice 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to S Club 8, leaving a redirect in place. Note that this is a form of Keep. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Asforis[edit]

Delete.Non-notable unsourced vanity page Smerus 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted in having been a member of a notable music group. Admittedly, this looks like some kind of vanity, but that's no reason to delete. Someguy1221 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:57, 7 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, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Clearly passes WP:MUSIC with membership of notable group - Tiswas^(t) 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with S Club 8 Perhaps someone can point me to the part of WP:MUSIC that says that members of notable bands are de facto notable enough for their own article. The WP:MUSIC that I'm reading says no such thing, and WP:N suggests that band members can generally be treated within the article on the band. Nor is there any suggestion that this person has himself met WP:BIO - not the band, but this individual member. Natalie 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's an inference, more than anything - WP:MUSICcriterion 6. states that bands are notable if a member was once in a notable band - this suggests that the notability is with the person. Otherwise, it assumes that, on leaving notable band A, the person becomes non-notable, and on joining, the new band becomes notable, inheriting the notability, as if the person carried the notability like a recessive virus (which is the only analogy that I can think of). - Tiswas^(t) 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While he passes the notability criteria for musicians. There's very little material not related to said band. I think it's a good idea to Redirect and merge to S Club 8. (But I think it's an even better idea to lump this nomination in with the rest of the members at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Evans. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge - On further consideration, as the constituent members have done articles are mainly repetition. Treat them much as you would WP:EPISODE - start the articles in the main band space, the hive them off as the members become notable in their own right. - Tiswas^(t) 12:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Arthurs[edit]

Deletenon-notable, unsourced, apparent vanity page Smerus 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award-winning musician.[48] JulesH 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:58, 7 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, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#A7 & fails WP:MUSIC entirely - Tiswas^(t) 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference given by JulesH is helpful, but it doesn't convince me of notability. Not every music award is worthy of a Wikipedia mention; is the award itself notable? I don't know. YechielMan 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSIC. I'm unsold on the notability of the award, which is given to young musicians who show "originality." A directed search on Google UK for "Peter Whittingham Award" (minus Myspace, Wikipedia and the award's website) turns up only 81 hits [49], just about all of them from the websites and bios of various winners. Given that the subject doesn't show any notability outside this award, I'd have to give a thumbs down. RGTraynor 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't even assert notability -- he's a hole in the ground. Bearian 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Money Holding[edit]

This is a minor non-notable stable of wrestlers that’s worked mainly in smaller European federations – Castagnoli is notable for work done outside of this stable, Are$ has already been AFD’ed. They fail WP:N and WP:V – the sources provided are either primary sources from their own site or trivial mentions in result & title listings which does not constitute “significant coverage”. MPJ-DK 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best covered with a brief mention in CC's article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources are provided - possible redirect until expanded. - Tiswas^(t) 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. This info could easily be covered (and maybe already is, I haven't checked) on Castagnoli's page. Nikki311 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per ONIH and Nikki311 any worthy information would be fine on Double C's page and on on a potential Are$ page if he ever achieves some reasonable notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Franklin[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Activist, biggest claim to fame is writing non-notable book.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 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, Sr 13 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a notable activist would at least be covered locally, but hte only George Franklin that the San Francisco dailies have covered is another guy entirely. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't actually done anything notable by Wikipedia standards. Nick mallory 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable hole in the ground -- even his band article the Funky Nixons -- was edited by him, and that should be tagged and deleted as well. Bearian 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Sarris[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promoter of a lesser known comedy festival in NY. The festival page claims to be a very famous festival, but the news coverage is limited to trivial sources.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 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, Sr 13 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This fellow is not notable. He had an ordinary business career, and then he founded a minor festival. The sources don't do it for me. YechielMan 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Carter[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the author had some pieces enacted by high-school students, and a movie that got an award in a regional festival. I couldn't find any information about the movie.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 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, Sr 13 07:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some very strong evidence can be found, this guy should not be listed on Wikipedia. The article creator is responsible for all the article content and has no other edits, hence WP:COI. YechielMan 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes film-related claims to notability, but I can't find him on IMDB under that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Phoenix Society[edit]

Possible hoax; only reference to "society"/founder on Google since its creation in Oct 2006 is this article and this story. Article is also the creator's sole contribution. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think they're a hoax, just deeply non-notable; and the references don't bear out any other conclusion. --Haemo 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Haemo. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Ravenswing 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless, probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE, overlaps several other articles, with technically better titles, without adding new information. The title is a possible search expression so I'll create a redirect to Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation). Nabla 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of humanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

This article was recently up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity), and the AfD was closed as no consensus, even though there a majority of editors (15-9) thought the article should be deleted. The reason given by the closing admin was that the article had been drastically changed during the AfD. Well, most of the changes were by editors who thought the article should be deleted, and since the close of the AfD, the the article has been stable. I initially nominated the article for deletion and I still think it should be deleted. There are a few reasons why:

Unclear definition. What is this article about? In the previous AfD, several editors complained that the meaning of "cradle of humanity" was vague and unclear, and no one was able to provide a precise definition of the article's subject. Without a clear definition, the article attracts a bunch of cruft (see this old version).
Overlap with other articles. During the course of the previous AfD the article's scope was restricted to a history of modern scientific ideas about human evolution. As currently written, the article has significant overlap with several other articles, including recent single-origin hypothesis and multiregional hypothesis. Redundancy is bad enough, but this article does a poor job of covering current scientific opinion about the origin of homo sapiens, e.g. leaving out Mitochondrial Eve. It's possible to improve the article's coverage of such matters, but then it would simply duplicate material that's found elsewhere in Wikipedia.
POV forking. This article started out with a strong Creationist POV [50], and traces of this viewpoint still remain, e.g. "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." If all the creationist stuff gets eradicated, this article becomes a slanted and incomplete presentation of material covered more fully and neutrally at recent single-origin hypothesis.
Insignificance. Whatever "cradle of humanity" is supposed to mean, it is not an important term in paleoanthropology or evolutionary genetics; it's possible to write a thorough article on those subjects without using "cradle of humanity", e.g. this article. When the term is used in scientific articles it's a colorful allusion rather than the focus of sustained discussion; in the previous AfD I gave the example of a 384-page monograph about human evolution that used the term once ([51]). But this article implies that the search for the "Cradle of Humanity", under that name, is a central issue in current scientific research. As further evidence of the insignificance of this term, note that other Wikipedia articles on evolution don't use the term; furthermore, there are very few incoming wikilinks (Special:Whatlinkshere/Cradle_of_humanity). Most of those incoming links were created when the article claimed that there was a group of 15 Middle Eastern countries that called themselves the "Cradle of Civilization". There's no source for this claim, so those incoming links should really be eliminated, which would leave extremely few links--under 10, it looks like. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - We just did this whole AfD thing 3 days ago.. At least give the editors some time to work on the article, or take it to WP:DRV. -- Kesh 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the editors who have worked on the article recently thought that it should be deleted, and the closing admin's statement said that a new AfD would be preferable to DRV. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Kesh...76.199.75.177 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a hundred new articles a day here, putting one up which closed 3 days ago because you disagree with the result seems excessive. Nick mallory 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's only been three days. --DeLarge 07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google gives over 62,000 hits for the term, but as the article now stands its nearly useless, some of the info from the older version needs to be tied back in. The term is a common one used for prehistory and has a long usage in religion, history, culture and philosophy. Hardyplants 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory is covered in the article on History of the world and Stone age. That content was also redundant. TimVickers 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very common concept in history and human evolution. Ben W Bell talk 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not a clearly-defined term in either. What do you think about replacing the article with a redirect to the new page Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation)? TimVickers 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. logologist|Talk 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the relisting - It is necessary in order to achieve some degree of consensus. The timescales involved are not reasoning enough to vote keep or delete - merely that and AfD might be best served being extended or relisted. Neither are ghits, for that matter. As it stands, the article is a morass of opinionated original research and synthesis. Verification involves cursory mentions, as opposed to clear, precises citation of the actual topic (not of peripheral or associated topics). These indictments are as fundamental as it gets. - Tiswas^(t) 10:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that all articles which end in 'no consensus' should be immediately relisted? Nick mallory 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, but neither should the relisting, due to lack of consensus, be given as a reason to keep the article. Either way, this is not the place for that discussion. - Tiswas^(t) 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The closing admin certainly suggested immediate relisting, but if the article is flawed, the goal should be to put together an appropriate project to arrive at a consensus to portray various sourced POVs. Other contentious articles have been put together and maintained in similar fashion. Ravenswing 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I hope those editors who are suggesting that "Cradle of humanity" is a common term/concept in prehistory/religion can point us to sources that are specifically about the term. As was said many times in the first AfD, the sources mention "cradle of humanity" in passing, but none are specifically about that topic. If we don't have secondary sources that discuss the history of the term, it's original research to write our own. Perhaps an analogy will help. Both Boston and Philadelphia claim to be the "cradle of liberty". But that doesn't justify creating Cradle of liberty as a history of various cities' claims to be the birthplace of the American Revolution, unless a secondary source has already discussed the subject--and has done so under the specific topic of "cradle of liberty". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is valid and a good informative article could be generated - but right now the current page completely misses the point of the term and its use, this should be about history and the historical concept of the '

"Cradle of Man"/humanity (a PC term) also look under the "Cradle of civilization", how in the world did the article turn into the origin of the human species?? Hardyplants 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?q=cradle+of+man&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=cradle+of+civilization Hardyplants 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what historical content would this article contain that is not covered in History of the world or its more specific sub-article on the Stone Age? TimVickers 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clearly we do not have any historians commenting on this page and I am clearly not conveying my argument well. The two pages you are referring to, do not cover the concept at all but talk about general origins. The terms "Cradle of --", are important concepts that have effected the way we look at the world and an article could be done covering the genesis of the term and ideas, the historical arguments related to the concepts in multifaceted fields like history, literature, religion, theology, sociology. Each field had its own take. Even culturally the concept was used by varying different types of people to promote their contribution's to the evolution of modern thought and civilization. Hardyplants 19:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this article's subject is Origin beliefs in general? But there is already a page on that topic. TimVickers 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not even close, its a scientific/historical theory with historical roots that played a major role in the way the world was understood in the 19th centry. But since I do not have the time to research sources and no one seems to be familiar with the field, it appears that its going to go no were. Hardyplants 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are talking about a different article - something like History of anthropology. However, this is not the article we are discussing. and this material has never been the focus of this article. TimVickers 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure whether the article should be kept, but I don't think it's appropriate to try to delete so soon after a failed attempt. Nyttend 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin of the last AFD suggested immediate re-nomination as a good option to try. TimVickers 18:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG Delete. In addition to the reasons I gave before, this article is just another magnet for creationist crud, and something else that will divide the energy of the scientific NPOV editors in this area. In addition, the title is just awful.--Filll 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Filll. If not deleted, I would suggest reducing to a short dicdef-style entry for the historical/obsolete use of the term, and purge out the duplication and cruft that will inevitably accumulate. heqs ·:. 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything in the present article is either already covered in Human evolution and History of the world, or should be added to these articles. There is no need for this duplication and it would be best to replace this uncommon and ambiguous phrase with a redirect. What possible advantage is there to have two articles covering exactly the same topic? TimVickers 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, What's the article about? Perhaps it might be about "a phrase used in world history to denote the beginning of humanity.". If most of the article content doesn't actually concern the phrase, then once again, perhaps the article should have all content not relevant to the phrase removed until it is a stub. And, once again, although much of the article content may overlap with other articles, none of those other articles even mentioned this term when I looked during the last AfD, so the topic itself appears indepedent of the other articles even if the content might not be. This term might not be signifigant for evolution related fields, but just because an Evolutionary Biology Wikiproject tag has been put on the talk page doesn't instantly make this article have to comply to new notability standards, a topic doesn't have to be popular or important to fulfill notability standards, and something being a "colorful allusion" doesn't make something uncoverable by Wikipedia. If the article is wrong in placing undue importance on the term in modern reaserch, the article should be changed, but having undue weight present in articles isn't a deletable offense. Homestarmy 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence that this term is used in current writing on world history. The phrase is used in writing about human evolution--that's a scientific, not historical context. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic seems mostly covered in History of the world and Human evolution to me. Or have I missed something? If there are omissions in these two articles, they should be addressed there, rather than in a third, overlapping article. --Plumbago 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to either paleoanthropology or human evolution. This article overlaps the others was too much. --EMS | Talk 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect It would be obvious that this article is a creationist POV fork of an existing article — if the subject matter were not so imprecisely defined. (Note that the first sentence does not define humanity.) Which article is this a POV fork from? Insofar as this article is about the evolution of creatures into humans, then human evolution; to the extent that it's about the rise of prehistoric civilisation, then paleoanthropology; insofar as history, then History of the world. One could argue that the article is actually a POV fork of all of the above. Regardless, whatever aspect it is argued that this article is "meant to cover", there is an existing article to which the worthwhile portions of this article should be moved, and to which this title should redirect (although probably a disambiguation page would be necessary). SheffieldSteel 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork – now that the modern creationist section has been removed, this inaccurately summarises thinking about human origins shown more accurately in History of the world and Human evolution, while the second paragraph of the lead is now unsupported by anything in the article itself. The first two sections give a woefully inaccurate and incoherent account of developing ideas of origins better summarised at Paleoanthropology, and effort would be better directed into improving that article rather than rescuing this one. Using the old catch-phrase "cradle of humanity" may suit journalism, but does not add clarity. .... dave souza, talk 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why would the tattered remains of a POV fork be inherently keepable? Lose the whole thing and let's stick with articles that cover the material well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.' I closed the previous AfD on this. That AfD was argued over a different article than this one. Same name, but substantially different content. So I would not count that against this AfD. Herostratus 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything above. The second paragraph, however, needs to be axed as inherently POV. /Blaxthos 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As both delete and keep arguments are above, I don't understand your reasoning. What is the specific content that this article covers that is not covered in Human evolution, History of the world, Origin belief or Stone age? TimVickers 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Adam Cuerden, Filll, Plumbago, Tim Vickers and others. This article is better written elsewhere in Wiki, and this article is a POV for of several much better articles. Let's move on. Orangemarlin 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were is this material covered in other parts of wiki?? Having taken a look at the past article, some one had a good start, it needed some changes and maybe a different focus. But the current page as it has been for the last few days is crud and yes covered much better in other places. Hardyplants 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. It's original research first of all. Secondly, the ideas are presented in places like Human evolution in a much better manner. Orangemarlin 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, DELETE, DELETE This article serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of a certain crowd. Jim62sch 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Some of us are working to excise the Creationist stuff from this article, in order to present a factual, scientific article about the location of modern humanity's origin. Those !voting to delete based on Creationist content should be aware of that. It's a problem and this is an article in-progress that I believe can be saved. -- Kesh 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why do that under the wrong title? A simple summary of the contents of the Recent single-origin hypothesis and Multiregional hypothesis should be part of the human evolution article, with links to these two more detailed articles. TimVickers 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim, and note that many of the editors who have edited the article to remove the creationist slant still believe the article should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article hinges on a topic that does not appear to be covered by Recent single-origin hypothesis: the physical region where modern humanity arose. That article merely states "Africa" as the origin. This article should be focused on the particular region where scientists believe modern humanity arose. Perhaps that only deserves to be a sub-section of Recent single-origin hypothesis, but I don't see it there. If we could incorporate that, I'd support a redirect. -- Kesh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article does note the only real fact that pertains to this discussion "The Omo remains found near the Omo river in Ethiopia have been dated to 130,000-195,000 years ago and are the oldest fossil evidence of anatomically modern humans." There is not much more you can say. TimVickers 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or failing that, merge and redirect. Guettarda 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage Site

I happen to live in the vicinity of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site first named by UNESCO in 1999. I don't have an opinion on this debate one way or another. Whatever you do please provide a disambig page that distinguishes:

Suidafrikaan 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation) page and added a link to the Cradle of Humankind page. TimVickers 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per above. Bigdaddy1981 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - A relevant disambiguation page now exists, Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation) I suggest replacing this article with a redirect to this page, as with the redirect pages Cradle of mankind and Cradle of man. TimVickers 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consensus hasn't changed since last time. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article has changed since last time, so as suggested by the closing admin, the AfD is being run again. What do you think about the current article's overlap with other articles, as described above? TimVickers 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, last time there was a 15-9 majority supporting deletion, so I don't understand the claim that there was no consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats easy to fix- revert it back to the point of the previous vote - it's obviously taken a wrong turn and become redundant. Hardyplants 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean back to the version that gives enormous undue weight to creationist stuff? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a supramajority for delete, and your suggestion is to revert back to the version that caused such ire?! Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a different version of this ill-advised article does not address the root of the problem - that there are other and better articles covering whatever subjects people choose to try to fit under this vague and confusing heading. TimVickers 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd's aren't "votes" so 15-9 is an irrelevancy; if the 9 have as good or a better argument than the 15, there's either no consensus or a consensus against the majority of "voters". If you don't like the version of the article; which seems like an appopriate topic, then be WP:BOLD and make it better, rather than delete it. Carlossuarez46 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your opinion, is the topic of this article? As I and other editors have said, one of the problems here is it's not clear what this article is supposed to be about. If the article's topic is "where modern humans first appeared", an improved version of the article will be fully redundant with recent single-origin hypothesis. Why should we have two separate articles covering the same material? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an appropriate topic, as it is already covered in other, better articles such as human evolution, world history, stone age and creation myth. These clearly-defined articles cover any conceivable interpretation of the ambiguous phrase "Cradle of humanity" - why work to improve a second-rate article that simply duplicates material covered elsewhere? TimVickers 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd feel differently if it was a neologism, but it isn't. The argument that it should be deleted because it's a magnet for creationists isn't a valid argument. That's like saying the Bill O'Reily page should be deleted because it's a magnet for his fanboys. Yes, maintaining quality in pages can be hard, but that doesn't justify deletion.

There's no reason for Wikipedia to take sides of either evolution or creationism. Present evolution as a theory that a very large consensus of scientists believe was likely, and various creationist beliefs as beliefs of their respective religions. 171.71.37.103 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is already done in Human evolution and Origin belief. Why have a third page duplicating this content? TimVickers 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Merge: the disambig page on Human origins has three entries and the scientific explanation is covered under Human evolution. In most senses the "cradle" is used for geographic origin (or Phylogeography) and this would be best treated in the article Human evolution. There are numerous phrases used for essentially the same concepts and which can be mentioned in passing in the existing article, and does not need to reflected as a separate article. The point would be different if the phrase itself was notable and had a long history worthy of an article. Shyamal 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but under a histroical usage. As things are right now and the way it looks like this article would progress, I would amend my vote to delete.Hardyplants 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I voted delete before since I thought it seemed redundant with other articles. Reading through this discussion and this modified version of the article it still seems to be the case. David D. (Talk) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase is not notable enough for an article. The content is redundant with other articles. -- Avenue 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of Human evolution. That the phrase has been used is not an argument for an article on the phrase, and the content is a POV fork as stated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in support of DELETE This article consists of

a title
some bad content
some reasonable content

and needs much more work to make it reasonable. The problem is, the title is just a phrase that is not used heavily and is not a technical term, so it is not appropriate as a title for an article in Wikipedia. The bad content will have to be ferreted out, and there will be a constant flood of it with this title I fear. The reasonable content is already covered in WP, and covered better in other places. So we can spawn off hundreds of thousands of articles like this, or we can cull them down and concentrate on making a few very high quality articles with reasonable titles.--Filll 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not because it is necessarily true scientifically speaking but only because it is a known theory out there among others. Wikipedia should have an an article about it.69.116.234.208 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific subject area that this article covers that is not already covered in Human evolution, History of the world, Origin belief or Stone age? TimVickers 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this article refers to Central Asian countries specifically, whereas the other articles you refer to do not.69.116.234.208 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references to central Asian countries in the current version of cradle of humanity, save for a general (and unsourced) claim that 18th century scientific opinion thought "man" originated in central Asia. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an older version there was a paragraph that discussed Java Man and the idea this provoked that Homo erectus might have come from Asia, but this subject is already covered in the human evolution article. TimVickers 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses are satisfactory to me. Therefore, I change my vote to Delete.69.116.234.208 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are IPs allowed to vote? Because I thought that this was a registered-users-only thing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are allowed, although their contributions are usually given less weight. Remember, this isn't really a vote, otherwise the article would have been deleted after the first AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. It's not that I object to the IPs here - they seem sensible enough. But I was thinking of that George Vithoulkas AfD that became Circus of the Socks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we are being gamed by anons who are attempting to create as many duplicate articles as possible on this same topic. And they are just jerking us around.--Filll 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other duplicate articles are there? Your comment sounds a bit alarmist, unless there's stuff going on that I haven't noticed... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created Cradle of man and Cradle of mankind as redirects to the new Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation) page. TimVickers 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam, I have no clue what you are talking about. I just found this discussion because somebody removed the link in a different article that I was monitoring. For the rest I have edited Wikipedia for more than a year now under the same IP address. Therefore, it is wrong to say that my contribution is anonymous. On the contrary my edits are less anon since they link directly to my IP address, contrary to you Ladies & Gentlemen.69.116.234.208 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have nothing against you, just was a bit surprised to see IPs voting, as I seemed to recall IP votes somewhere being deleted because of being IP votes. Who knows what I was thinking of, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Notably used expression and it's been only three days since no consensus to delete was found. —AldeBaer 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We all agree people occasionally use the expression, but what is the specific subject area that this article covers that is not already covered in Human evolution, History of the world, Origin belief or Stone age? The main problem is that this article is redundant with other, better articles. What do you think of the proposal to replace the page with a redirect to Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation), as with Cradle of man and Cradle of mankind? TimVickers 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy change my opinion. Actually, you're right. Why not redirect it to Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation). —AldeBaer 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If we allow this article to set a "precedent" of sorts, what is to prevent another 5 or 10 or more articles just like it, covering basically the same material, that all will have to be edited and maintained?--Filll 21:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some momentum to redirect to Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation); why not just make Cradle of humanity a disambig page then? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cradle of Humankind is the more common version of the term, I think: That's what the World Heritage Site is officially named. Better to use it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so Cradle of Humankind is the article on the World Heritage Site and Cradle of Humankind (disambiguation) deals w/other uses, and Cradle of humanity redirects to the disambig page? I guess that's ok with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - "cradle of humanity" is a phrase used often when discussing human origins and pre-history. I've just added some external links from reliable sources that prove it. --172.163.27.164 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the phrase in either of the links you have added. In any case, what is the specific subject area that this article covers that is not already covered in Human evolution, History of the world, Origin belief or Stone age? TimVickers 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any use of "cradle of humanity" in those links either. Ironically, you've shown that human origins (the ostensible subject of the article) can be discussed without using this phrase that's supposedly used so often. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was only the fourth edit that this IP has made, probably an honest mistake. TimVickers 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted; pure spam, pure promotion—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ten dollar e-reader[edit]

Never heard of it. Seems to be unknown. Does not yet exist. This article is the only Google hit. Wikipedia is not for proposing research projects. User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snow delete. Clearly has no chance of being kept, and clearly a blatant WP:CRYSTAL violation. Sr 13 07:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Cup[edit]

Crystalballism. The only definite thing that can be said about the 2022 World Cup is that nothing will be definite for the next seven years. No objection to re-creation in 2014, but for now, delete. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I firmly believe that blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL should be speediable at administrator's discretion. (That's one good reason I'm not an admin.) Seriously, get rid of it. YechielMan 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Sr 13 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Persick[edit]

Non notable semi-professional Ice Hockey players. Does not meet WP:BIO for athletes in that they do not play in a fully professional competition nor at the highest possible amateur level. That the competition (Australian Ice Hockey League) is notable and the team (Canberra Knights) may be notable do not automatically make the players notable. The article has no sources independent of the club and league. Mattinbgn/^talk 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain, leaning keep~~ for now. Seems to be a bit of a loophole in the guideline. The league that he plays in is not "fully professional" but is the highest-level hockey league in Australia? Question Doesn't that squeeze this in between the highest amateur league and a fully professional? Montco 05:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on evidence here that players are non-notable. Montco 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the guideline was written in that form for a deliberate reason. Ice Hockey (as we call it in Australia) is not a major sport and is not played at a fully professional standard. Keeping this article would be similar to keeping an article on a player in a Canadian Australian rules football team. For me, the highest amateur level in Ice Hockey (although this is not totally amateur any more) would be the Olympics, although I am not an expert on the sport by any means. The only articles on Australian ice hockey players I would contemplate keeping are those that have represented Australia in a formal international tournament.-- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see the highest level of a sport being located in a specific country... the top amateur league of lichtenstein doesn't equate to notable or the highest levels. Likewise the highest level of Australian Ice Hockey is not the highest level of amateur sports. But I am willing to entertain the notion that college sports on an NCAA division I level are the highest level of amateur sports in ice hockey.Balloonman 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That and, you know, maybe the Olympics? Nick mallory 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ice hockey is a totally inconsequential (and amateur) sport in Australia.--Grahamec 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The olympics are definately the highest level of amateur sports---but I don't consider every sport to be the highest level... I mean, if they were playing at the highest level they would be where the sport is taken seriously. I mean, somebody playing in the U.S. of A. Cricket team isn't playing at the highest level of cricket.Balloonman 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have to be objective about this. The guideline states that competing at the highest level in a sport makes you notable, and on the evidence, that seems to be the case here. Whilst I would like to vote delete, we have to be consistent. Assize 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Just FYI, we have a set of notability standards over at the Ice Hockey WikiProject that could bear on these players. Under those standards, players who'd played for several seasons in the Australian league would qualify, as well as those who won "preeminent" honors in either NCAA college play or the AIHL. These four are neither; they were spearcarriers in college and have relatively meager stats in Aussie play. RGTraynor 14:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Don't they qualify under dot point 3 "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant" which seems to be the case of the Australian league. He may a bench warmer in the USA, but he plays in the Australian league. As I read Persick's stats, he has played 6 games in Oz which makes him notable under WP:BIO. Subjectively, ice hockey is a non-event in Australia and I would prefer to delete this article, but Wikipedia is not about subjective matters, only facts. WP:BIO obviously needs to be changed. Assize 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: No. That was specifically intended to address the pre-professional era in hockey, when everyone played in amateur leagues, or the Communist era in Eastern Europe, when top-ranked players weren't permitted to play professionally. A third-tier league like the AIHL would fall in the US college or the CHL/UHL bracket, requiring preeminent honors to qualify ... and frankly, that's a bit generous. These players, by contrast, look like relative scrubs by Aussie standards. RGTraynor 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think we will have to differ on this. The Aussie league never turned professional, so they are at highest level in Australia, even if they are "relative scrubs". Even the Aussie Handball team had their day in the 2000 Olympics and would end up notable under WP:BIO. Anyway, it doesn't matter, this AfD isn't a debate, it's just a subjective vote on whether we think the topic is interesting enough to keep in Wikipedia, so it will end up deleted. Assize 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well ... being the one who drafted the criteria for the hockey Wikiproject, I'm fairly comfy with my take on what was meant by it, but as you say, the point's relatively moot. RGTraynor 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't qualify under the 'above' mentioned notability standards. GoodDay 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per RGTraynor . Edison 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per RGTraynor. --Djsasso 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably all 4, but 3 outta 4 will be okay too, per RGTraynor, this player just doesn't register in my neural-database. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete₰Google News Archives comes up with some results mainly from his college career. [52]. As expected, there is no information about his career at the Knights which isn't surprising as they get very little coverage. [53]. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per RGTraynor. Pparazorback 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All If we started keeping these, then quite a large percentage of people in the country could have their very own wikipages. Recurring dreams 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weap Keep Persick

Persick played last year in the Nederlandse IJshockey Bond which is the top level for the Netherlands (and a fully pro-league I think). That puts him as a top-level hockey-player in 2 countries.ColtsScore 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Habbib

Doesn't seem to be a top-player in the Aussie league, very few articles about his college career, more than 1/4 of the hits Google coughs up are things where he's mentioned in articles about his sister.ColtsScore 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Farrer

Farrer also played in the Nederlandse IJshockey Bond. Also, the article should be moved to "Steve Farrer" because I don't think Stever is his name. Nothing comes up on google for "Stever", and everything else has "Steve". ColtsScore 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fiveash

Google only comes up with stuff from the Aussie team web-sites, his myspace profile, and a mention in an article on his team on a site devoted to the Aussie league. He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO requirements for secondary sources ColtsScore 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for Persick and Farrer playing in Nederlandse IJshockey Bond? John Vandenberg 06:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farrer is mentioned in this NHL.com article as playing in the Dutch league. Yes, I'm sure it's the same player because here is the www.eurohockey.net page listing his trade. I've added sources to Persick's article for where I got his player stats. Also, do a search for Dutch web-pages that include his name, and you get all these. Have fun plugging some of the URLS into a web-page translator 'cause some of the results are pretty strange : ) ColtsScore 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, excellent point Recurring dreams, in fact probably every fourth Canadian could have their own article if we kept these. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking Crazy (bootleg)[edit]

This is a bootleg compilation that was not released by Eminem. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for music. It has no sources, very little editing activity, and very few articles link to it. Daniil Maslyuk 05:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking delete (please) - The second sentence of the article says it all. YechielMan 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and all the similar ones below. Although, to be fair, does Eminem count as music? Nick mallory 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't an album, it's someone's iPod playlist. DarkAudit 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in this article--Helgers7 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even released by Eminem. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the Lab[edit]

Delete this and all related articles. The same reasoning applies: these are unofficial, so reliable sourcing is really not possible. YechielMan 06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis and the four articles below it, per nom.--Ispy1981 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "no set tracklisting and often other tracks are added, taken away, or swapped around" That's not a CD, that's an iPod playlist. DarkAudit 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as no reliable sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem is Back[edit]

Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eminin is so notable that even prominent bootlegs of him ought to be included. This apparently contains tracks not available anywhere else and so it is a major bootleg. Herostratus 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Wall (bootleg)[edit]

Delete "no set tracklisting and often other tracks are added, taken away, or swapped around" That's not a CD, that's someone's iPod playlist. DarkAudit 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho (bootleg)[edit]

Delete "no set tracklisting and often other tracks are added, taken away, or swapped around" That's not a CD, that's someone's iPod playlist. DarkAudit 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stubs aren't good unless any notability can be established. Sr 13 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Amulet[edit]

This article is on a product based on a mythos. It was redirected rather than being nominated for deletion by another user, so I bring it. A non-notable product that is not backed by reliable sources. Even its manufacturer is admittedly unverifiable. I am AfD'ing because I think a PROD removal may go unnoticed, and the article is not fitting for speedy deletion. I removed external links previously in the article that directed toward forums and other inappropriate links. Keegan^talk 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like something akin to advertising to me. Even if it's not, I doubt very much it's notable. --Agamemnon2 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, as an owner of one of those things I could testify those amulets are truly remarkable. Too bad the article has source problems, but those might be common for items distributed exclusively by means of Internet. The biggest problem I see is that the author is hardly verifiable (the best I could find on him is the amulet's author live journal, but, according to policy that is not a good source. However, shoggoth.net has an article on this amulets, and it has an editorial review process. An editor reviews material and corrects factual errors and omissions prior to publishing any article there. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , sites that have explicit editorial oversight may be used as sources. Also, the "Table of malcontents" link could qualify as "blog written by a recognized authority", which are allowed to be sources according to WP:EL --VR999 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: Forgot to link the Shoggoth.net article - here is it [54] --VR999 11:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it exists (or that you have it and find it remarkable) does not matter. This is WP:CRUFT at its best.--Svetovid 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--With all due respect, I didn't claim this fact matters. This was merely an introductory statement, which, obviously, was not part of the argument per se --VR999 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All right people, I agree there is a source problem, but it appears this item was mentioned in a printed catalogue (one of the larger Russian jewelery catalogs, with ISBN)... I really hope I can find it, and that it has an English version I could quote. _ And even if I fail miserably at that task, Shoggoth.net does have an editorial review process (and a rather strict and annoying one, for a RPG resource, at least), and thus, under current Wikipedia policy, it counts as a "source". So, keep anyway. --AlexeyTOD 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that source prove anyway? That this item exists? That is not the point. This is not notable enough to have its page.--Svetovid 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So there's a bit of Lovecraftiana, and apparently some kind of legend or theory about it has sprung up among Lovecraft fans, who blogged about it or wrote Usenet posts. The item remains a not particularly notable commercial product, and this article fails to make a case for notability and lacks reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't have to have anything more than a "source problem" to fail WP:V; that's the fundamental criterion every article on Wikipedia must follow. Ravenswing 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ravenswing , Smerdis of Tlön, please forgive my noobish ignorance, but are the notability and verifiability demands for stubs (and the article we discuss now is labled as a stub) the same as for "normal" articles? Aren't "stubs" supposed to be little pieces of context with very superficial sourcing left for others to build upon? It is the impression I got when reading Wikipedia:Stub. --AlexeyTOD 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're exactly the same. A stub isn't expected to show up with extensive sourcing, but our contention here isn't so much that this article lacks proper sourcing, but that no proper sources are likely to be found. I mean, c'mon. We're talking about a bit of fannish tinware that Some Anonymous Guy is reputed to be selling in Russia, and that (according to the article) a single unnamed Usenet user speculated might be encoded in some unproven way. It doesn't get much more unverifiable than that. Nor do we have particular proof that the sole source, shoggoth.net, employs vigorous fact-checking and editorial control. Moreover, even if we had all of that ... a proven, named creator, positive affirmation on the encoding thing, and a verifiable advertisement in a major, reputable newspaper, it would still be nothing more than a merchandised item that falls far below notability standards. That's the problem with the article, not that it is presently labelled a stub. Ravenswing 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feed it to the Shoggoths (=Delete) fancruft with a commercial angle, big deal, nn. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft Bigdaddy1981 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in any way. -- Necrothesp 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton British Wrestling[edit]

Non notable wrestling promotion, 15 unique Ghits excluding Wikipedia and Myspace, fails WP:CORP and WP:V One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nikki311 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't even seen it covered in Power Slam magazine which is British and covers local events from time to time, not notable. MPJ-DK 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Now to kill of British wrestling! Ye, make it non-existent! Govvy 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Commnet I shall retract that vote/statement. :) Govvy 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume their champion was formerly Curve from the New Breed? Hmmmm. Yep, this is non-notable, even by our standards in the UK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn-relist, the nominator can relist separately instead, since each article has a different merit. Sr 13 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (politician)[edit]

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.

He is also not a noted political philosopher but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every senior member of this tiny groupuscle does this.

As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT/SWP based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures - I suspect activists create them. I will be nominating a number of non-notables in concert with this deletion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their subjects' total lack of notability (except as party hacks known only within their own political sect):

Bigdaddy1981 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't held elected office or been the subject of press interest. Wikipedia doesn't deem minor party officials notable and the S.W.P. doesn't even contest elections anymore. Nick mallory 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep has quite a few webhits. Appears to be notable in the socialist circles.Balloonman 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few webhits don't constitute notability by establised Wikipedia standards for politicians. He's never held office and he lacks the 'significant press coverage' necessary for inclusion. Mentions in the walled garden of far left British websites doesn't pass the bar. Nick mallory 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Widgery, Challinor, and Barker, who may bear further investigation as authors. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List separately they are not all equal and need to be considered separately--and I would say this of all similar deletions. Martin Smith is the national secretary of a minority party, & I would be prepared to argue that he is notable, as is the head of any other political movement party of "sect" no matter how small (national secretary is almost always the effectual head of the group) . Any other way of looking at it is a POV-laden attempt to eliminate all coverage of such parties. Molyneux is a Senior Lecturer with publications. Dhatung suggests that three more may need consideration as authors. The combined (or for that matter group) nomination of a group of people of the same political persuasion always strikes me as a POV hazard.

DGG 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to list them separately, I did this as a group to save time as there are a large number of stubs for SWP/RESPECT figures that are largely unsourced with simply a laundry list of mostly party publications they have authored. As for your hysterical claim that "Any other way of looking at it is a POV-laden attempt to eliminate all coverage of such parties" ... well that's rather silly - SWP founder Tony Cliff (a notable figure, btw) has a large entry and I haven't suggested him, nor Lindsey German, Chris Bambery or John Rees or Chris Harman.... o and then there's Chris Nineham also ... o and Alex Callinicos. Keep things in perspective and leave the innuendos alone. Bigdaddy1981 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, what's with Jim Rose? I cant even find him in the deletion log.DGG 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a mistype for John Rose (UK politician). Warofdreams talk 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally List separately; if we are to pursue this, then keep Higgins, Widgery and Challinor are all authors of significant works; delete Hayes, who doesn't seem to have done anything notable. No opinion on the others. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment forgot to mention some of the language used in the nom: "party hacks" -- "sect" -- "cognoscenti of the left fringe" -- "tiny groupuscle" -- this sort of supports my feeling that there's POV involved.DGG 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend you but people who are organizers and central committee members and are largely unknown to outsiders can be described, imo, as hacks - maybe my language is indelicate but I don't think its unfair. Moreover, the SWP is a fringe party - I doubt even its members would deny that, it's also a tiny party - maybe not by far left standards but certainly by mainstream UK party standards. So I think that my comments are not too unfair. As an aside, I'm rather suspicious of your POV given your unwillingness to show the nominated individuals' notability and focus on my alleged POV. Bigdaddy1981 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My POV--My "POV," as is even stated on my user page, is that I support articles on small political parties and small religions, because I think that they can be overshadowed, that I think minority views often are the prelude to general acceptance and are of importance to society, and that the only sure way to avoid bias is include them all. Remember, I'm a guy who's been supporting articles for losing Republican or Democratic candidates for Congress. If you want to know the way I actually vote, you're welcome to email me as a friend, but I expect you to hold it in confidence. If I had a particular POV towards this party, I'd know more about them than I do. Frankly, I have never heard of a single one of these people, but that's because I do not follow British politics. Perhaps that's why I think I can judge, going on the information presented here, not my personal knowledge. I've never heard of 90% of the significant figures with articles in WP. That's why we need these articles--to provide information for people like me. My knowledge of even British politics is improving by the article. DGG 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep all as major comtributors to Trot theory and, more importantly, practice - both in UK and internationally. As a non-member of the SWP, it does seem strange to me that a nominator has managed to lump together a whole bunck of IS/SWP members and ex-members and one must supect a POV motive, despite comments above. Emeraude 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment care to list their contributions to Trotskyite theory? Far as I knew Callinicos was their theorist. As for "managing" to lump SWP members - I openly admit I lumped them together by design - they are all imo non-notable SWP members. As for "managing" to identify them, that's not too hard given that there's a wikipedia category for SWP members. I decided to do this AFD given the huge number of SWP stubs. I again note that no one has bothered to actually state why the candidates are notable and instead try to impeach my alleged POV. Great debate chaps. Bigdaddy1981 23:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun fleshing out the article on Widgery; he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, who certainly don't believe he is non-notable. This is the great problem with bundling all these names together; some may well not be notable, but others are, and all they have in common is a party affiliation. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to list them seperately and indeed - if some are in fact notable - not list them at all. I am relatively new to wikipedia - what is the process for unbundling an AFD? I'd be glad of advice to that affect. Its a shame that the POV debate has to be started - I have edited other articles and made other AFDs - all in good faith. I am not a member of any UK party and indeed no longer live in the UK. I do; however, have an armchair interest in UK politics and socialism. Bigdaddy1981 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a general process for unbundling an AfD. I'd recommend closing this as withdrawn, then opening new AfDs on whichever articles you still feel should qualify for deletion. It would probably also be ideal to notify people who have commented as to the new nominations, to ensure that they are aware of the need to comment again. Warofdreams talk 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Ireland Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Non notable wrestling title, defended in non-notable promotion which was deleted per this AfD. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, per nom. Nikki311 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone who lives in Ireland doesn't care about this minor sporting event, what of us New Yorkers? YechielMan 06:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the main article was deleted this should go as well, if someone cares enough to even try and prove notability for NWA Ireland and succeeds they can recreate this easily enough MPJ-DK 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title's owners were deleted and the title lineage is so incredibly poor it doesn't even feature Irish jobber-to-the-stars Seamus O'Shaunessy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.IP198 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mulhausen[edit]

DeleteDoes not appear to get over the notability bar. Appeared in one film, and some German magazine. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete website reference is nothing but soft porn in rubber.Balloonman 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are keepable porn stars (even soft porn), I'm just not seeing that this is one of them. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... there are notable porn stars---but I didn't see anything... and the references didn't show me any reason to change my opinion... they were just pictures of sexual acts in rubber suits. (Which I mention more so that others don't check out the websites unaware---especiallyif they are at work or on a work computer.)Balloonman 04:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fetish model/actress. I searched google.de using what I believe to be the correct spelling of her name (Mühlhausen)and find very little - rather less than one would imagine to find for a run of a mill erotic model. Balloonman makes a good point to other wikipedians - her myspace is not suitable for perusing at most places of employment. Bigdaddy1981 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no outside notability shown. Agathoclea 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weyman Bennett[edit]

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Bennett is neither. As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT/SWP based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures - I suspect activists create them. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe Delete Bigdaddy1981 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet guidelines on notability for politicians. Being a random staffer on a random party - mainstream or otherwise - does not cut it, imo. Resolute 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a websearch on "Weyman Bennett Trotskyist" and picked up quite a few articles on Weyman---enough to establish notability in my eyes.Balloonman 04:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't hold elected office. If failed candidates don't make it onto wikipedia, then minor party officials are even lower down the pecking order. Google hits on far left websites don't constitute 'significant press coverage'. For instance this is from the 'Weekly Worker' from June 29 2000 - "New LSA advance - Weyman Bennett last week won an impressive 885 votes for the London Socialist Alliance in the Tottenham parliamentary by-election. Comrade Bennett's 5.39% was enough to save his deposit, and he easily beat the Green Party candidate to finish fourth behind the main bourgeois parties." doesn't speak of a major political career. Nick mallory 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient notability. Web hits don't cut it. Doczilla 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inwin[edit]

Non-notable technology neologism. Article was prodded by me, but restored by a request to User:Edgar181. I can't see anything on Google to indicate that this term is in wide use, either as "inwin", "InWin" or "In-Win". Lankiveil 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I tried Inwin with NETCRAFT and Inner Window with NETCRAFT---the company that supposedly coined the term and couldn't find anything...Balloonman 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Balloonman. Nothing on Netcraft's site supports this.--Ispy1981 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. 'Nuff said. YechielMan 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, likely promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Hut 8.5 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the term were notable, which it is not, the article text is hardly even a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. I know, I'm preaching to the choir. RFerreira 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Deletion has the weight of numbers on its side, and those favoring keep assert the importance or notability of thsi event without providing any sources to support that assertion, which significantly weakens their argument. If sources clearly supporting notability were found, this could perhaps be recreated. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Raw[edit]

Non-notable. English Google results: "Friday Night Raw" jerusalem, Hebrew Google results: "רואו ירושלים", "רו ירושלים". nadav (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much to support this event... but note that the WWE has trademarked the name Friday Night Raw [55]Balloonman 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, though I suppose they could theoretically have gotten press-coverage for their disruptions... Tewfik^Talk 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Tewfik^Talk 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, reads much as an advert Bigdaddy1981 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:Notability, too similar to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). I wish those jews would change their company's name.--Edtropolis 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant to Israeli rave scene. known to everyone in Jerusalem. also suggest to delete last vote and\or remark: "I wish those jews would change their company's name." this article is similar to WWE by purpose cause in deals with wwf materials. Marina T. 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find sources about this organization? Without sources, we can't know if it passes the notability test. nadav (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heard about it many times. But it's too long article Shmila 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--sefringle^Talk 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, this is a real thing - and was quite influential in its time. We've put so much time, sweat and effort into this...--Fuzzyami 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC) — Fuzzyami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ (Regrettably....)--Mike18xx 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your reasoning for keeping? nadav (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Neutral; when I first saw the AfD, I mistook it for RAW.--Mike18xx 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Notability is established, non-admin closure. K w sn 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Salem[edit]

Unnotable. Link provided (here) only provides a short amount of statistics. A Google search without quotes returns many irrevelant results, with quotes only returns 950 as can be seen here. The article is also a one sentence page. anger2headshot 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I would think anyone who played the NFL for ten seasons is notable... Wikipedia:Notability (people) seems to suggest so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep not only did he play 10 years, but he is in the University of California's Hall of Fame. Balloonman 03:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because the nominator probably did not notice the fact that the subject played extensively in a professional sports league. Notability is not a problem. YechielMan 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Last I checked, professional athletes were keepers. This case is even above and beyond that low threshold. If you don't like an article because its short, then expand, not delete the article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wp:bio#Criteria_for_notability_of_people —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Playing one game professionally at the highest level is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. He played a few more than one game. Resolute 04:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest the nominator does a bit more homework on Wikipedia notability rules before nominating any similar articles too. Nick mallory
Speedy Keep per all. Maxa megalon 2000 05:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Snowball delete --Tone 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Kearns[edit]

Article is complete nonsense. Prod tag was removed without comment. Arch dude 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing a speedy delete tag on this. This is a seventeen year old kid...Balloonman 03:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction 16 years old... who was active enough to gain national attention and a promotion before his 11th birthday? with no google hitsBalloonman 03:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

User:Creaven07 is the person who created this page and most of the pages that he created are stubs belonging to two Gaelic sporting organizations... I question if they meet the minimum criteria for inclusion here, but have asked a person who is more familiar with those subjects to take a look at them.Balloonman 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO without WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 03:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Seán Kearns (born December 6, 1990 in Galway) is an Iraqi-Irish Eco-Terrorist and vegetarian who has been subject to racial abuse and a number of assasination attempts". Uh, yeah. Delete. Lankiveil 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS Bigdaddy1981 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Sent to Iraq to procure weapons at the age of 10? Oh come on... Caknuck 04:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious drivel. How did it even make it this far? Nick mallory 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I cann't understand is how the (non-admin) person who removed the SPEEDY DELETE could argue that this isn't blatant nonsense!Balloonman 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it meets CSD G1, either. Sensible-looking bollocks, i.e. hoaxes, are not subject to speedy for good reason. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obvious hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: complete nonsense. --RFBailey 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snowy delete. No WP:NOTE; a WP:COI created by a WP:SPA user. Definitely WP:VANITY, no WP:RS, not WP:V. Sr 13 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Nunes[edit]

This is an unsourced orphan biography of a living person, whose accomplishments seem to be admirable but rather low key for an encyclopedia. It looks like a vanity piece. I accordingly popped a proposed deletion tag on it a few hours ago. Whereupon someone removed it, and here we are. I suggest that if this article cannot be at least reliably sourced it should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. It reads like a vanity piece and googling his name doesn't reveal any fame. Foobaz·o< 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definately vanity.Balloonman 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced and unimpressive bio. YechielMan 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, article written by a SPA. Play-by-play of high school basketball games does not qualify one as a "well known" broadcaster. Caknuck 04:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I love the part about his career making the play by play calls while playing Tecmo Super Bowl. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, likely vanity Bigdaddy1981 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant see any apparent proof of notability, probably vanity like what is stated above. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious route to notability at this time. Created by WP:SPA Snootrawk (talk · contribs), so WP:COI seals the deal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was - DELETE both (not encyclopedic) - Nabla 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Beavan[edit]

Non-notable athlete. Subject is a high school player who was just drafted by a Major League club. Players who are drafted out of high school may go to college instead of playing professional baseball, and may be drafted once or twice more before ever signing a professional contract. Article does nothing else to assert notability. Caknuck 02:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (for similar reasons):

Delete both per wp:bio athletes haven't played at highest level of amateur sports or pro sports.Balloonman 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rules are clear. Once they've played at the highest level they're in, schoolboys who might play in the future are not. This applies to soccer and cricket and should apply here. Nick mallory 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the guidelines on Minor leaguers? The minor leagues are a fully professional league. This kid will be in the minor leagues once he signs a contract (although that may take some time to work out). So would the call be to delete now and bring it back once he signs a contract or delete and wait until he makes the majors? Montco 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After further review delete as a non-notable baseball player. Wait till you get to the show. Montco 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once he plays, I would have no problem supporting him---as it would be a professional sport and meet the criteria---but being drafted doesn't (yet) meet the criteriaBalloonman 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, notability is established by playing in a "fully professional league", however, consensus has been that baseball players do not achieve sufficient notability until they reach the Majors. There are, quite literally, thousands of players in the minor league baseball system, most of whom will never play in the Bigs. Caknuck 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not any sports expert, but aren't some people drafted but never given a contract? So there are more hurdles to jump before a drafted high school athlete becomes a minor league pro athlete? There should be no bar to recreation of an article about such an athlete if they play minor league baseball later. Edison 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyHe was drafted in the first round. While he may not make it to the majors, he will be offered a contract. He may not accept and end up playing college or independent league ball, but that's on him. But he will get offered a contract.Montco 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply even if he signs a contract and joins the team, there is no guarantee that he will make the team or ever play a game. He probably will, but at this point he doesn't meet the guidelines. After he makes it, these articles will belong.Balloonman 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually once he signs a contract , he will be assigned to Rookie League or Single A League Ball which is a professional baseball league and he will play there unless he suffers an injury while celebrating his new contract. Which is why I asked about the minor leagues above. If consensus is that we don't do minor league ballplayers, then he is gone as far as my vote is concerned. I just haven't seen any evidence of consensus in that area in this discussion.Montco 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was only able to find one example from the past few weeks... James Garcia. I'll link more tonight when I have more time to search. Caknuck 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per numerous articles about him in major newspapers and sports magazines. The stub can easily be expanded. Per the Star Telegram [56] he had an 0.21 ERA senior year, and pitched a shutout against the Cuban team playing for the US Junior National Team as a senior. Baseball America named him the best 16 year old pitcher. Per [57] he had a 96 mph fastball. If the article is deleted, a more substantial one could certainly be created later if the expectation of the sports writers and the team which drafted him bear fruit. Edison 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete related page per above, Delte/Transwiki to ArmchairGM I'm a contributor to ArmchairGM and an Admin there, and am sure the community there will want it. The article is non-notable for Wikipedia's standards though -- ~~False Prophet 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)~~ (vote updated) False Prophet 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Power V1[edit]

An individual issue of a magazine which fails notability standards. Perhaps some information can be merged to the larger Nintendo Power article. -- Merope 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it's definitely not notable, we do not need different articles for each issue of a magazine anger2headshot 03:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete agreedBalloonman 04:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very few individual magazines are noteworthy enough, such as Superman's first appearance, but this one's not nearly up to par. Useight 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because an individual issue rarely ever holds notability. Anything significant about the first issue should be attributed at Nintendo Power, and if there is overwhelmingly significant real-world context for the issue, then perhaps a content fork can be explored. However, it needs to start at Nintendo Power and not be here as an underdeveloped stub. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The magazine hasn't inspired widespread discussion of analysts of the video game industry or fan communities, nor are there any special editions or any interesting incidents related to it. Hence it's not notable.--Kylohk 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Merge with Nintendo Power if there is anything unique to this article). Chief claim of notability is likely simply because it's "the first" one--which is really a claim of the notability of the entire series. --Cheers, Komdori 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete (A7).--Hús ö nd 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pellatt[edit]

no assertion of notability except through relations, no one has touched this article in a year and a half. Wikipedia is not an obit. Chris 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete non-notable person with some notable relatives. Bigdaddy1981 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete surprised it lasted this long...Balloonman 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - she didn't do anything noteworthy by WP standards. YechielMan 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Caknuck 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it could have been a CSD. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Present article is deleteable per nom, but her aunt of the same name is notable as a cofounder of the Girl Guides of Canada.[58][59] (Note: there are numerous organizations styled "Order of St. John", it is not clear which one is meant.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having notable relatives doesn't necessarily make you notable. Hut 8.5 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham Wonders Limited[edit]

0 Ghits. Is it a mis-named? a hoax? Someone please shed some light on this. 650l2520 01:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unpromising Google results--Ispy1981 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax. In the claimed timeslot is, among other things, Totally Doctor Who. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
won an award at the [http://movies.about.com/od/awards/a/bafta011906.htmBAFTA Kids Awards 2006 ---surprisingly it isn't listed as a winner or even a nominee!STRONG DELETEBalloonman 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this foolishness. Bigdaddy1981 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvilEntity[edit]

Article on dead Linux distribution. Fails to establish notability. Chealer 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dead on arrival... non-notableBalloonman 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says: 'However, there has been little development since [2004], and the distribution is no longer considered active and now the web site doesn't exist.' Ergo - delete! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NFL team depth charts[edit]

Entirely composed of templates voted and nominated for deletion at WP:NFL. Pats1 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close? I don't see why there needs to be a separate discussion. If the templates are deleted (as it appears they will be), then the article will automatically serve no purpose and will also be deleted. I suggest tacking this article onto the TFD discussion. YechielMan 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the discussion you cite above. IF it exists, then of course this should be deleted. But as is, I would support keeping it. The link you provided doesn't show the discussionBalloonman 04:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was provided the link to the discussion on my talk page--- DeleteBalloonman 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article that consists exclusively of templates. Templates should not be used as a replacement for actually writing an article. If WP:NFL wants to keep these templates in a spot where they are easily accessable, then move it within project namespace. Assuming, of course, that they survive their TfD. Incidentally, has the TfD been properly listed? I can't seem to find the actual deletion discussion for them. Resolute 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind WP:NFL also has List of current NFL team rosters and List of current NFL staffs, although both of those consist of verifiable templates. Pats1 13:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute. Regardless of the result of the TfD, this isn't a valid topic for an article. Maxa megalon 2000 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're not supposed to have "current" news. Doczilla 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few links of note:

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Washington Redskins depth chart

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Depth charts (botton of section)

Pats1 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., and all. --JayJasper 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted per CSD A7. -- Merope 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark vu[edit]

Article fails to assert notability per WP:BIO. Sounds like a joke page. Delete. akuyume^T_C 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. OK, I'm blind, the original author removed the speedy deletion (nonsense) note. akuyume^T_C 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Smith (UK politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This person is a totally obscure functionary of a very minor fringe party that has one MP and a handful of councillors. Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures. This person has never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe. Delete Bigdaddy1981 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia policy and precedent suggest she's entirely unnotable here. She doesn't hold office and has no place here. Nick mallory 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can a Brit define the "National Chair" of a party? Is this equivalent to a Gordon Brown or David Cameron who would stand for PM or is it some backroom functionary who raises money and writes press releases? Montco 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain has a Parliamentary system, so nobody actually 'stands for P.M.' but the 'National Chair' is not the leader of this party. "Gorgeous" George Galloway is the only RESPECT party honcho of note, and I, for one, salute his courage, his strength, his indefatigability. (added by User:nick mallory

In most left parties, as far as I can tell, the key office is National secretary, or sometimes General secretary. DGG 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respect is a very minor political party with one MP (who defected from Labour but got re-elected). It has a small number of councillors. I assume that National Chair is an officer of the party's permanent organisation. British politcial parties tend to have a permanent central organisation. However this article is an exceptionally weak stub, and unless expanded should probably be deleted. Peterkingiron 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above, functionary for unnotable party. Herostratus 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wrack[edit]

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Wrack is neither. As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures. This guys never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe. Delete Bigdaddy1981 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never held elected office. Nick mallory 03:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some other points of notability in the article, but without references they don't carry much weight. YechielMan 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a little absurd to judge those who are truly of the "left fringe" as if holding electoral office mattered to their notability--by that standards absolutely all UK and especially US leftists of the last 50 years are so wouldnt be in WP, & ditto of at least the very furtherest right, and we would have politicians from the major parties only. It's about the same as keeping in only such revolutionaries who succeed/ They are judged in their genre among other leftists. Their profession is politics, but not electoral politics (at least not for this particular party). There have been similar attempts to remove all Greens. DGG 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what grounds is he notable? I notice that you offer none. Is he a notable political theorist? If so let's see some evidence. Has he led extra-parliamentry movements? Has he written notable books? Has he enjoyed press coverage? The answer to all of these is no - yet you insist he is notable. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has all the notability of every barrister in the UK, which is to say "not much."
Weak Keep I think. Repect is a very minor polictical party (see comments on Linda Smith above). Wrack does have the distinction of having held various offices in a series extreme left-wing British politcial parties, ones who do a lot of campaigning and rarely even get electred to local councils, but the article does show slight notability. Peterkingiron 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Come on, where's the juicy scandal? He'd be interesting if he spied for the Soviets.--Mike18xx 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - he has been a "registered leader", a "chair", and an "editor". Those are in his favour. The Trotskyite bit I like, we need more articles on those, and Militant Tendency is a cool name. But I am voting delete under the assumption that while being a "registered leader" and a "chair" could be notable in England, he's still a living person with no independent secondary sources cited. If some sources could please be added by someone during this AfD, my delete vote may then be ignored. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering (decision making)[edit]

Expired then restored prod. My original prod reason was "It's either a POV essay advocating Panocracy, or a very overlong dictionary definition. No sources in any case." User:John Talbut has made a good-faith effort to source the page, but I feel that the other concerns still stand. The page should still be deleted, or perhaps redirected to either Panocracy or Co-Counselling International.

The problem is that the term "gather" is really generic. If this article is about the generic sense of the term, then it's a really long dicdef that should be deleted. If it's about a specialized procedure called "gathering," then two out of three of the sources don't seem to apply - they're using the word "Gather" in the normal sense. That leaves John Talbut's own book. If this procedure isn't used outside of Co-Counselling International, then it can be effectively merged there.

Moreover... the article doesn't actually say anything. This may be more a quality issue than a deletion rationale, but it reads like marketing copy. Lines like "An outcome of gathering is that everyone involved effectively acknowledges the positions of everyone else," or "Gathering supports a problem solving approach to resolving issues," (as opposed to a problem-making approach to solving issues?), or "Gathering can support multiple outcomes and even action in the face of dissent." (How? Any suggestions?) It seems like this entire article could be condensed into "In a Gathering, everyone voices their own opinions, and works together to find a consensus. Everyone is free to do what they like afterward, though they should now at least know what others think." SnowFire 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we should use "gathering" to decide the fate of this article. It's either original research or banal redundancy. YechielMan 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in a search with co-terms like "facilitator". --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first two references are to other (analogous) uses of the term 'gathering', which is speculated to be the source of the term under discussion. The third reference is to a brief web-based source by the original author of this Wikipedia article. In other words no independent sources are being cited for the subject, and I could find none on a half-hour search. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. I really ought to become a management consultant. When I put my mind to the task, I can expatiate at great length at blindingly obvious concepts. That's all I see here: a mess of rhetorical tautologies whipped into a very long text by making the abstract nouns chase each other's tails. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete managementconsultantcruft Bigdaddy1981 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I presume that someone not liking an idea or wanting to rubbish it are not grounds for an article to be deleted.

Otherwise, the objections to the article seem to be based on misunderstandings. This could be because the article is not well written. However, the statements quoted seem to me to be in plain English and mean exactly what they say. So I wonder if the difficulty is unfamiliarity with group processes and decision making. By the way, I have some 20 years experience in training and group facilitation preceded by 20 years in management (in the British coal mining industry) all alongside active involvement in politics so I think I have some grounds for knowing what I am talking about.

First, what the article is about. It is headed “Gathering (decision making)” and it commences with the words “Gathering is a procedure” so I do not understand why there should be any confusion with a generic use of the word “gather”. As to the references, the full quotation from Heron (1999) (which, by the way, was first published as "Dimensions of Facilitator Style" in 1977) is:

“Gathering the sense of the meeting. There is no formal vote. After a full airing of views, the chairperson gathers the sense of the meeting into a proposed decision. If there is expressed dissent from this proposal, the discussion continues. The chairperson then gathers the sense of the meeting into a second proposal. The process continues until the gathered sense is assented to. Someone else may gather the sense of the meeting, and put it to the chair; especially if the sense is eluding the chairperson. Note that final assent here may include both positive assent and negative assent, the latter being a willingness to accede to a still disliked proposal.”

That does not seem to me to be using the word “gather” in the “normal” sense, it is very close to the sense used in the Wikipedia article. Also the phrase “gather the sense of the Meeting” is used by the Quakers again in the sense of the article. I have an unpublished paper by the person who taught me the method, who says the he first heard of the method from John Heron, which describes the method more or less as it is in the Wikipedia article. However, the point about the third reference is simply the date, in other words the method in exactly the form described in the article was published in 1997.

And no, the method is not exclusive to Co-Counselling international. I have introduced it into several other organisations. As the article says, and should be clear from understanding the method, it is widely applicable.

Maybe an example will help. Consider a neighbourhood meeting, a meeting of residents of a particular neighbourhood. An issue has been raised about the behaviour of young people in a particular location. After some discussion someone starts a gather which, after any re-gathering if anyone thinks it is necessary, might be something like “None of us think that we know enough about the issue. Two of us have said they would be willing to try to meet some of the young people and find out how they see things. Three of us have said they would try to find out from residents in the area what they think. These members have said that they would try to be in a positions to give more information at our next meeting. One of us suggests fitting CCTV with support from another while three of us said that they were opposed to this.”

This could constitute a decision and the members would just note this, or minute if that is what is done, and proceed to other business. Alternatively, members may think that they need to discuss the matter more and proceed to do so until someone starts another gather.

This is a complex yet common type of problem. Democratic or consensus procedures are based around a proposal and what typically happens in a situation like this is that it would become a debate, or even a struggle, around one proposal, like fitting CCTV, and other possibilities would not be considered.

So I do not see the objection to "An outcome of gathering is that everyone involved effectively acknowledges the positions of everyone else,". The meeting notes, in a summary, all the points of view that have been expressed. It is not just that the views have been expressed, they are formally noted by the whole meeting.

"Gathering supports a problem solving approach to resolving issues," seems clear. The key steps in problem solving are problem analysis and solution generation. By putting a premium on gathering all the information, needs and points of view the procedure clearly supports this. This contrasts with other decision making procedures where there is a premium on suppressing or ignoring anything that is inconvenient to the dominant groups. Although canvassing all points of view is supposed to be good practice in consensus or democratic decision making it is not inherent in either, particularly since both aim to come up with a single decision that purports to be the decision of the whole group.

"Gathering can support multiple outcomes and even action in the face of dissent." The example gave three outcomes, there could have been more. Action in the face of dissent: someone could fit a CCTV system even if most of the group were against it. They would be doing so in the knowledge of the objections and their strength. Conversely if most of the group were in favour of CCTV but a few were very much against it the few could not block a decision nor would they have to give up any of their objection as would be the case in consensus decision making. The majority can take responsibility for going ahead and installing the CCTV.

"It seems like this entire article could be condensed into "In a Gathering, everyone voices their own opinions, and works together to find a consensus. Everyone is free to do what they like afterward, though they should now at least know what others think."" First of all, the group does not work together to find a consensus. The only unanimity required is on a gather. Secondly, everyone is indeed always free to do whatever they like afterwards, what is to stop them? What does stop most people is oppression, the sense that they feel that they do not have choices that objectively they do have. The indoctrination that we are bound by the will of the majority, by the decisions of our elected leaders, by TINA.

This seems an over long response but I want to do justice to the rational objections that have been raised.John Talbut 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JT said: I presume that someone not liking an idea or wanting to rubbish it are not grounds for an article to be deleted. This is correct. However, an article's topic must be notable. Reflexology, for example, is certainly notable psuedoscience, while the layout of 101 Elk Street in Springfield, USA may be true but non-notable. So how many people actually use this technique, and is there verifiable independent literature behind it? If you have in fact "introduced it into several other organisations," that may help a little... but I'm not sure if enough. It seems doubtful that a minor technique used in parts of the U.K. is worthy of standing next to universally known ideas like "democracy" and "range voting." [60]

Also, I don't want to get too much into the merits of your idea, but the fact that it's not obvious that this is actually a "new technique" suggests that it's just not that different from vanilla "let's gather and discuss a problem." Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind, but it's not really worthy of an article any more than Gathering (sports discussion) or Dictator's thought process (decision making). A minor technique similar to other techniques is probably best merged into the conceptually similar articles, while a really different technique might still merit an article even if minor due to there being no place to merge it to. SnowFire 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajivan Ayyappan[edit]

No references, no claim of notability, appears likely to be self-promotional. Doctormatt 01:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ ~~as no assertion of notability, unsourced, and ultimately not passing WP:BIO. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Will stay neutral given points raised by Kim Dent-Brown —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written cruft Bigdaddy1981 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but if, and only if, it can be re-written from the resumé style it currently sports. One of the films mentioned in the article won an award at Cannes Film Festival 2006 [61] and the same film seems to have won other awards and been exhibited at festivals internationally [62]. I haven't tried to chase down other references as these were the first I looked at and seemed convincing enough. I agree this reads like a self-promotional article right now, but on the evidence I've found in a few minutes searching, the subject is notable and references could support this. I note the article has been tagged for references since summer 2006, so plenty of warning has been given, but maybe this AfD discussion might prompt an interested editor to do something. If the article hasn't been improved in a day or two I shall change my opinion to delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Changing my vote from Keep as no attempt has been made over the last week to rewrite into an acceptable format or use the available references. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - while not every alderman is necessarily encyclopaedic, that does not mean that no alderman is encyclopaedic. Wily D 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lavalette[edit]

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I'm sorry, I know RESPECT are proud of their first councilor but Lavalette isn't notable. As a coda, the chap who removed my prod suggested he was notable as he received 37% of the vote in an Westminster election which he lost ... sorry that doesn't make you notable per the above. Bigdaddy1981 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're saying everyone who's ever been a town councilor should have an article on Wikipedia. It's not a 'statewide' office and failed candidates in Westminster elections aren't notable. Nick mallory 05:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that local councillors are not notable generally. Michael Lavalette seems to have received enough press coverage, as well as the academic papers he has published to justify an article. I have added some external links and reference to show his notability as a very prominent member of RESPECT. Davewild 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that the references you provide (a good number of these are in SWP captive publications) allows him notability per WP:PROF as he isnt the originator of "an important new concept, theory or idea" or the author of "a significant and well-known academic work". Additionally, his news coverage (according to google.co.uk) is mostly in local Lancashire newspapers - which makes sense for Lancs town councilor. I stand by my deletion although its good to finally see some sources on one of the plethora of RESPECT/SWP bios. Bigdaddy1981 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He appears to have done more than most minor political figures, and although the WP:PROF angle is insufficient on its own, there is just about enough here - with his involvement in Respect - to make me reticent to delete it. Adrian M. H. 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally founded this page. Lavalette is very well known on the left in Britain, and is probably as notable as most of the Central Committee of the SWP who almost all have articles. He has written several books, and edited an academic collection which is not associated with the SWP/Bookmarks. Yes he is just a local councillor and parliamentary candidate, rather than an MP, and these are not usually considered notable enough to have articles, however his academic works and position within RESPECT deserve note. (I am not a member of Respect or the SWP). incka 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the claim that Lavalette should have an article because he is as notable as other members of the SWP's central committee is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not legitimate. I have yet to be convinced that he does not fail WP:PROF. Yes he has published papers, so have many thousands of other minor academics. The arguments in favour of keeping this chap seem to come down to: "sure he's obscure but its interesting to have articles on obscure people" or "he's as notable as other people with wikipedia articles" and "he should be up there because I like him". I still argue delete. Bigdaddy1981 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for factors mentioned by others plus his (inadvertent) role as catalyst in Galloway expulsion. Someone who, even by happenstance, plays a bit part in a notable incident can thereby be notable, such as Danny Escobedo. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wings over the World[edit]

A plot element from a film. Not notable enough to deserve its own article outside of the film article. Branddobbe 01:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 04:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Redirect to Things to Come. No need to split off from parent article. Clarityfiend 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There should not really be any need for a redirect; if anyone wants to search for this, they know to look for the film as well. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Lough Corrib. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptosporidium Galway[edit]

This is a news report about a water contamination incident. Wikipedia is not a newspaper DarkAudit 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This fails the "ten year test" of notability; i.e., will anyone still care ten years from now? YechielMan 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, this is more community notice board than a news report. DarkAudit 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lough Corrib, the water source, which already has a brief mention of the outbreak. And yes, they will still care 10 years from now if the drinking water infrastructure costs 48-million euros in taxes. Canuckle 06:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bigdaddy1981 07:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a newspaper. Notability fails compared to the Milwaukee one (which I'm using as a guide here). Kw sn 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It did make the headlines in Ireland. For example, and there are a lot more, 180 cases of cryptosporidiosis in Galway and this. It was at the top end of the news spectrum, in Ireland, for a couple of weeks. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious additonal comment Which is not to say the article doesn't need a lot more work and renaming. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep The incident would meet WP:N and WP:V, and I have to say that I think it would meet the ten year test, as it did become a political issue, but I am not sure if this particular article would be the best place to work from. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lough Corrib and rename/delete the redirect that results. Cryptosporidium Galway is an unacceptable name. It implies that Galway is a species of Crypto. Cryptosporidium outbreak in Galway would be better. 132.205.44.134 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this sort of thing which may cause no real harm is the sort of news that WP should not be covering--there is no permanent interest at all, unless it does become a major problem & unless the scientific literature should start referring to it. DGG 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Merge Cheerfully acknowledging that I am doing a bit of back-pedalling on this one -sometimes it happens ;O) -, as I am coming to the view that the subject could and probably should, be covered in the section in the Lough Corrib article. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 09:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arquette family[edit]

Although this article may be borderline encyclopedic from a certain perspective, it does not cite sources, and adds no value to the encyclopedia - it is nothing but a list of Arquettes and spouses, dates, and familial relations, all of which appear in the relevant articles of the individuals mentioned. It therefore violates NOT a collection of loosely associated persons (their careers didn't necessarily hinge on each other), and should be deleted. MSJapan 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded. Information can be found in the various articles themselves. If it were a history of the Arquette acting family, that would be a different story.--Ispy1981 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See others in Category:American families, its simply a list of members of the family, all with articles in chronological order, instead of the alphabetical version provided by the category. Its a well organized navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but cleanup. There is basis for an article, but it needs improvement. This has been done with other notable families. i.e.: hockey's Sutter family. Resolute 05:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds nothing notable that does not already exist in other entries. Bigdaddy1981 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for sources. Perfectly reasonable special case of a disambiguation page if you want to see it that way. Better all this information right here than a paragraph explaining it all (or more likely, just partly) in each article. Provides a merge location for less notable family members. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of members of the Arquette family] - Tiswas^(t) 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for navigational purposes. Article serves to replace the deleted category for the family members and the general feeling, at least at CFD, is that articles on families are superior to categroies for illustrating the family relationships among the members. One's immediate family members and spouses are certainly not "loosely associated." Otto4711 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valuable cross reference, similar to Barrymore family. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per above. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Dhartung, Otto4711 , and Smerdis of Tlön. All good arguments to keep. IPSOS (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - If we're going to do family articles, then how one differentiate between duplication of aterial in articles, navigation between articles, and WP:NOT#DIR (specifically guideline 1 re: geneaology)? ? For example, there is a whole Barrymore family tree in the above-mentioned article, not all of whom are famous or even have articles themselves. The article even states that only four of the younger Barrymores went into acting, and those four are the only ones who have WP articles. So I guess I'm a bit confused, because that "family article" looks a lot like a genealogical directory to me. MSJapan 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems a bit beyond the scope of this AFD. Otto4711 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (and I'll probably bring it up somewhere once I figure out exactly where it goes), but I started the AfD based on the directory assumption, and as no one else seems to think so, the distinction would seem pertinent to this AfD as wellas on a general level. MSJapan 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - okay, it's a list, but an interesting one - and it orders the entries to provide additional informatuion. Wily D 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list and should be moved/renamed as such. JodyB_talk 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase "Arquette family" gets 75 hits on a Google News Archive search, if you limit the search to those articles in which at least one of the names Rosanna, David, or Patricia occur. This is clearly a notable family, not just a bunch of notable people who happen to be related. DHowell 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Alexander Lukashenko. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashism[edit]

delete, no redirect, Absolutely nonnotable neologism `'юзырь:mikka 00:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this is a neologism; it is mostly used by some political science journals (like the Jamestown Institute) and by groups that oppose Lukashenko, like Zubr. But, I feel this could be of use in the article of Alexander Lukashenko. So merge what is useful and redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many politicians and rulers gave rise to "-isms" from their names. In the case of Lukashenko IMO the word is nothing but a political slur, even without fun of "Bushism", and very nonnotable, too. `'юзырь:mikka 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge into Lukashenko ~~non-notable neologism~~ Appears to have some notability as a term used by critics of Lukashenko but not nearly strong enough as a standalone article Bigdaddy1981 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge agree with bigdaddyBalloonman 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashism for similar recent neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Alexander Lukashenko as per above and my previous comments on similar "articles for deletion". Bearian

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivy League[edit]

one Newsweek article does not notable a group make. the article creator also sites several other stories about the 'new ivy league' but all reference back to the one Newsweek article. delete Cornell Rockey 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Newsweek pulls this shtick all the time. People should know not to take them seriously. YechielMan 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Newsweek's reporting is reliable, but when they claim 25 colleges are the "New Ivy League" instead of "25 good colleges", they're using hyperbole to sell copies. YechielMan 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Newsweek neologism.Bigdaddy1981 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per yechieBalloonman 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single use term that Newsweek concocted for an article. Montco 05:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article about this was previously voted for deletion. DMacks 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost a year later and still nothing more than a neologism. Hasn't caught on or appear to have been used anywhere except in the context of a single magazine article. DMacks 07:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if Newsweek is reliable we still need sources demonstrating notability. There's talk about this so-called second tier but it doesn't have a real definition or name as yet. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one use does not define a term. --Tone 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as marketing cruft and single-sourced neologism. Technically this may be a speedy candidate, since it's a re-creation of New Ivies, but completing another AfD discussion ought not to hurt anything. This is still a neologism whose meaning is not established apart from the one annual magazine issue that uses the term. Notice that all the PR pieces referring to the "New Ivy League" say things like "Newsweek and Kaplan named the school a 'New Ivy'" rather than using the term by itself as though anyone would simply know what it meant. Contrast this to Public Ivy or Little Ivy, both of which articles (despite sharing some of the same neologistic promotional nature) at least document and cite multiple independent uses of the term to mean roughly the same thing. -- Rbellin|Talk 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Ivies, WP:NEO, although I have to say the term is popular at the school I go to, RPI. Danski14^(talk) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ivy League is an athletic conference of east coast private schools which are great academically. Any other listing of "New" Ivies is just a display of envy and imitation. This neologism does not have sufficient sourcing. Edison 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There are arguments both ways. U.S. News does its annual list of colleges, and I agree that Newsweek's description of a "New Ivy League" does appear to be a title designed to get attention; and it's based on the judgment of Newsweek, or perhaps a panel of educators that the magazine picked. There is no reference or link to the Ivy League (nor is there a "see also" link there to this article). The Ivy League article does have links to other college lists, however, and this list would fall in that category. If it stays, change the title to 'Newsweek's "New Ivy League" (2005)' or whenever the list came out. As someone else pointed out, it lacks permanence. It's a matter of time until Newsweek comes out with a cover story on the NEW New Ivy League.Mandsford 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a headline. JJL 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lets look at the article Public Ivy, here it is mentioned

A later book titled The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities (2001) by Howard and Matthew Greene of Greenes' Guides expanded upon the list in the first book to include 30 colleges and universities. That book listed the following as Public Ivies

I am sorry, but I believe that if an article like Public Ivy, which clearly has just shown a list of what this book considers the "Public Ivies" then why can't the New Ivies be in the same category? In the article Public Ivy it is mentioned that there are some discrepancies as with other sources. Secondly, many of the universities that were listed in the Newsweek list have used this so called "neologism" in their websites. They have referred to the term New Ivy League Misantropo 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use in one magazine article does not constitute a viable neologism, especially considering that the way they defined it (by listing 25 or so schools) is highly subjective. I didn't take the time to read the other articles, but I'm sure that their use of the term is in reference to the Newsweek article and not an independent use of the term. --Cjs56 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Earnest[edit]

Hoax - the line Roe Green Visiting Director Chair, Kent State University, 2008. seems very suspicious. Also an autobiography. Sigma 7 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how can it be hoax and autobiography at the same time? also: a google search for Roe Green Director Chair or for Matthew Earnest theatre will get you some hits, so its not a hoax. Question remains is it notable per WP:BIO?—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for verifiable confirmation of notability: nothing on google news about deep ellum ensemble, nor for "Matthew Earnest", nothing in Dalls Morning News, however, a Google search "Matthew Earnest" theatre gets a few. Its possible that the newspaper or trade magazine coverage is just not available on the internet. I am inclined to vote delete given the lack of verifiable references and that its autobiography. Since the contributor is obviously close to the topic, then references should be readily available if they exist, eh? —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm evaluating this article as an autobiography, not a hoax. Anyway, he's not notable per se in my opinion, and there's no neutral version in the page history to fall back on. YechielMan 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete its not a hoax - appears to have a number of webhits; however, I am not sure he is notable enough for an article - if someone can show otherwise I'd gladly change my mind. Bigdaddy1981 05:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, seems to be verif iable, some possibility of notability, nothing definite. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also included on the conflict of interest noticeboard. -FeralDruid 13:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there is some notability established per the above users, but the possible WP:COI is troublesome. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Here's some of the Google news results you were looking for: [63] nadav (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the Roe Green chair, see [64] and [65]. How can anyone possibly judge something with a specific name as a hoax without at least looking in google? Are you aware that your description of it as a hoax remains in google forever? So the first reason for deletion is simply wrong. The second reason, AUTO is not a reason for deletion. Invalid nomination altogether. DGG 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, per nom G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect. Sr 13 00:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable middle school with many un-sourced claims --trey 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--trey 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written. No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect. Sr 13 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Miami Middle School[edit]

Non-notable, basically a "I exist" article --trey 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree. Ellomate 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability.--Hús ö nd 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N as notability is not asserted and WP:V as no facts are supported by citations to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a ((r from school)) to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Middle schools. -- Visviva 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as nn school. Carlossuarez46 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Miami-Dade Public Schools district is the largest in the State of Florida and 4th largest in the nation. A goal for WP:Miami is to establish a comprehensive guide on the public schools in Miami-Dade County, FL. I say we keep it, and expand it in the future. There's a lot happening to North Miami Middle in the future. They're demolishing the old building and rebuilding. I say we keep it. Skillz187 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make all schools notable. Miami-Dade Public Schools needs to be modified to allow information about non notable schools to be added to that article. Take a look at Clark County School District, the fifth largest, for a way to allow information to be gathered about individual non notable schools. Vegaswikian 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as nominator.--trey
Delete - I thought it was agreed that High SChools were commonly notable, but more junior ones generally are not and need to demonstrate theri own notability. Miami-Dade Public Schools may warrant an article, but does it add much that cannot be found on the School Board's website? But individual schools that it runs - NO. Peterkingiron 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wanted to say merge, but I saw nothing there to be merged. This probably could have been a speedy and if this discussion results in a delete the other middle and elementary articles for this district need to be looked at to see if they should be nominated here or just speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]