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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Bartender[edit]

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

Minor character - see WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the "Recurring characters" section of List of characters from Grey's Anatomy, along with the other separate articles for characters in that section. (The information in these articles isn't significantly more detailed than that provided in the list for recurring characters that lack their own articles.) I have to say, before I looked I assumed that this was going to be about the old Jackie Gleason character. Deor 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the list. Although I have some reluctance as we have articles on characters even more minor to their respective shows, like Frank Grimes and Sneakers O'Toole. Still I'd ultimately say "merge those too." Lastly I favor keeping the articles on the main characters, even Burke.--T. Anthony 05:04, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holkan[edit]

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

What is this??? It's nearly incomprehensible to me. YechielMan 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Incoherent article which is in need of serious overhaul before it's even possible to tell if it's encyclopaedic or not. At the moment it's bordering on patent nonsense. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation - it appears that this is an article about a "fantasy-science fiction comic and novel created by mexican authors Mardoz Lule and Hector Murguia in 2003" that gets its title name from Holkan, mayan word that means "Fierce" or "Warrior" . Guroadrunner 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Incoherant and incomprehensible. May be worthy of an entry if rewritten. Victoriagirl 23:20, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Commander in Chief[edit]

List of characters in Commander in Chief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft for the political series. A list of the main characters already exists in the main article; this is a list of the full fictional Senate and Congress, among other ficitonal politicians on the show. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Guroadrunner 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete particularly since a list of the main characters already exists. No reason that can't be added to. Edit, drag the cursor down the list, copy; edit the other article, paste. Voila. Mandsford 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the list is very long and would severely damage the main article to do a copy-and-paste job. Basically, it's a question of whether the information is notable to begin with. I say no. Guroadrunner 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)[reply]

Weak keep as per parent comment. east.718 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the series article. 132.205.44.134 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is already a section for main characters on the show's article. If there's anything worth saving (it doesn't look that way from me) move that over to the main article then delete this. Radagast83 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe a rename to "List of minor charachters in Commander in Chief" but I see no compelling reason to delete this. It needs some clean up, but the information seems relevent to the show and this is a relevent fork from the show article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (British writer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO; 2 published works, article claims unverifiability, author's site is the only ref. Grease Bandit 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors site is not only ref - also refers to information on the authors books, presumably cleared by the publisher - Publication dates and book details can also be found at Amazon - links to be included presently Ophiicus 00:42 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Clarityfiend 06:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Yes, the books are listed at the British Library but so what? Eddie.willers 12:04, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Quintus[edit]

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

• Article about a minor character in the film Gladiator, which supplies no significant information beyond that supplied in the main film article's plot section, and is padded out with historical information about the character's position in the Roman government, which isn't particularly relevant to an article about a fictional character. The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article. SGGH ^speak! 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If/then - if character is purely fictional, then delete. If character is based on real person (research needed), then rewrite. Guroadrunner 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google hits turn up nothing unrelated to the film aside from references to Roman individuals with Quintus as a first name, mainly one "Quintus Fabius Maximus" who is also the only one mentioned when using google book search. SGGH ^speak! 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking for a Roman called "General Quintus" is like looking for a modern American military officer called "Centurion Fred". They didn't have generals per se back then, and Quintus was one of the most common men's names. --Charlene 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you go then, unlikely to be based on a historical character. SGGH ^speak! 09:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gladiator. -- Whpq 16:17, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philbert[edit]

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

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It certainly isn't asserting any significance. 650l2520 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/move to Wizadora article. Guroadrunner 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 10 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um...why is this important? Delete and maybe toss a sentence into the main TV show article. YechielMan 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into the Wizadora article. GwenW 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - there's no sourced information here so it doesn't seem right to merge. -- Whpq 16:19, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ryan[edit]

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

WP:NN radio personality, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Leuko 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - dude's only part-time and doesn't seem that notable. Guroadrunner 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It fails to meet WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:42, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copland PPC[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possbile assertion of notability, but no independent sources to back it up. My own search didn't turn up anything special. Someguy1221 15:24, 14 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article appears from review of Ubuntu forums to be part of an honest effort to develop support for a product that may become notable. The entry is merely self-validation at this stage. It can be recreated if it does reach that threshold for notability. Pever 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is spam intended to promote product through link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 13:55, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Iroquois[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a fictional ship. It is a plot summary but doesn't say of which game/book/show. Does not assert its notability per WP:N's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." 650l2520 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Part of the Halo universe (key word Covenant, and per category.) AFDs tend to appear around articles missing context. --Sigma 7 09:55, 10 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FICT, and I swear this is G4-speedy since we had an AFD about 6-9 months ago on the same topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If there's no context being added, Delete. --Sigma 7 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no context, no sources. -- Whpq 16:20, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Talbot[edit]

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

Questionable notability; article written like an autobio almost Guroadrunner 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep based on the fact that the band has a page Corpx 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn Avalon 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom. Flubeca (t) 21:38, 13 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable per WP:BIO, is not sourced reliably, and also smells of WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Random. He's been involved with a few notable projects, but I can't find a source, other than his school bio, that discusses him as anything more than a sidenote. That, and the COI concern, are enough to make me support deletion at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to have enough source material to write a non-stubby article about. Any info about him can be put in the band article, or in relevent other articles about projects he has worked on. I can't see enough independant material existing to make this a stand-alone article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per The Random Editor. Eddie 20:41, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sackett[edit]

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

NN university sports coach in cross country running who is not even mentioned in the article for the school he coaches at. The sport he coaches is not discussed in-depth at that university's page either. Also, article is an orphan and uses peacock terms Guroadrunner 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think notability has been established and there are no sources. If notability was established using sources it would be worth keeping.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to find any reliable sources. A google news search seems to have a couple of offline articles from a local paper, and its unclear whether he is the focus of the article. -- Whpq 16:24, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerald F. Dirks[edit]

Jerald F. Dirks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no proof of notability in the article. The article lacks reliable sources completely. sefringle^Talk 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If one of his books was "award-winning," which award did it win? YechielMan 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to establish notability. Yes, his books are listed at the Library Of Congress, but so what? Eddie.willers 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only reference is to his own website.Proabivouac 01:50, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widows sons[edit]

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

This is a nn group, and there is nothing in the article that asserts notability. MSJapan 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - orphan article for a NN organization Guroadrunner 22:09, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aric Gilinsky[edit]

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

Likely to be a hoax, Only returns 21 hits on google, with the majrity of those being from wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors [1] Exarion 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete as per Exarion. Guroadrunner 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced and total WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Fisking. OK, the article claims that 'Gilinsky's' family included an architect with unknown lineage (possibly American born, possibly Byelorussian) and a businessman of Besserabian descent - yet Gilinsky's family are supposedly Polish and Lithuanian. Secondly, he goes to study theology in 1992 and joins a radical Jewish/Zionist organisation (which he leaves in 1996) but doesn't actually 'find religion' and begin attending temple until 1996. Thirdly, he is supposedly becomes a rabbi within three years of his becoming religious, even though the Wiki article says a man obtains semicha ("rabbinic ordination") after the completion of an arduous learning program. Fourthly, googling 'Newsnight' or 'BBC' with 'Gilinsky' turns up nothing that supports the claim of there having been an interview on said BBC program. What else? Eddie.willers 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC
  • Comment Actually if you read it it says he refused the Newsnight interview.
• keep It's all true. CicDog 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete as hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 7 ghits when you filter out wikipedia. JodyB _talk 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete above reasoning. Acalamari 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I have some knowledge of these events but I can't understand the low press cobverage - it was a big story at the time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.185.226 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Same author as of Star of Poland. See my comment there at about new historians. greg park avenue 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it seems too detailed and rings so truly that I doubt it's a hoax. Jimmy Deleter 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per above StOfPo 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced hoax. Edward321 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it's perfectly true 212.219.250.5 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the purpose of the article is to incite hatred towards Islam. Jackaranga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the people who have voted keep so far are either unregistered or just registered today, and their only contributions are voting on this, with the exception of CicDog who is the one having created the article. Also it is not a hoax but more like political propaganda. Jackaranga 09:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Appears to be an elaborate malicious hoax. Huwlepolonais2 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pancakes Why would this article incite hatred towards Islam? If anything it would spark a negative reaction against radical zionism. MetricMilitia 22:38, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, author request. Sr13 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman III: The Junkyard Cut[edit]

Superman III: The Junkyard Cut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable fan film that was in fact canceled. The article gives no director planned and only links to announcements on a forum (which isn't a reliable source) from an anonymous editor saying that he created the film. The article gives differences from the real Superman 3 film and the fan's reason to make it because of unhappiness with the real movie and nothing else. Delete. Phydend 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Superman 3 with only minor details retained for addition to article. Guroadrunner 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fan edits with concrete avaliablity would be better argued, not ones that have since been cancelled and it's better aspects put into other fancuts (such as "The Smallville Cut")

Besides, I was the editor, so delete away, I had actually brought the issue of deleition up on Fanedit.org, but was'nt sure how to do it myself here

Dr. R.KZ. 01:26, 15th June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --Phirazo 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this sourceless article about a nonexistent film. Doczilla 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, even when the bleeding editor of the film is telling the mods to delete the article, they wait for "other opinions". Just sodding delete it already.

Dr. R.KZ. 21:49 PM 16th June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not assert it's notablity. Lacks any reliable sources. The Filmaker 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- These fanedits are coming one a day now. Yeah, computers are that fast...--Mike18xx 07:27, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle[edit]

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. there seems to be nothing in terms of reliable secondary sources covering the book from a quick google scan (virtually all are retail websites), and as such appears to fail WP:BK. article survived a previous AfD, but no rationale was offered as to why the book was notable. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plain POV by a Christian 'Messianic Jewish' organization that tries to convert both Muslims and Jews to Christianity. The guy's history is probably a lie, considering his refusal to publicize his real last name. See the article on him. --Rabbeinu 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Since he hasn't been murdered or put on a talk show, the author must not be that controversial, let alone notable. Maybe the info can be incorporated into the article about the organization described above. Mandsford 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous Afd's--sefringle^Talk 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is nothing in the previous AfD establishing notability of this book. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not sure how to 'vote' on this... what exactly makes it different from Jerald F. Dirks or any of his books? Charisma House just seems like a Christian version of Amana. gren グレン 06:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. Previous "keeps" mainly argued it should be kept because the author is notable and not the book. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable book. The author appears to be notable, but not the work in question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the last AfD. -- Karl Meier 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. We do not create article on each and every book.--- A. L. M. 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. The Behnam 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete origional research should be deleted from wikipedia.--Sefringle^Talk 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mark A. Gabriel or Weak Keep. Edward321 23:36, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samurai Shodown characters[edit]

List of Samurai Shodown characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a placeholder I created for a bunch of non-notable characters to be merged into. After two months, nothing has changed. The characters themselves have no possibility of having any view on them beyond the games, so this is about the peak of their existence. The character entries are only a retelling of the various games of the series, so all of the information can easily be covered in those articles. TTN 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Hooray! A list of video game deletions. Hopefully, overly voluminous articles about TV episodes and songs off of an album are next. Mandsford 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't see a reason to delete the list. Given the length of the list if the main game articles contained the same information it would probably be split out to slim down the articles in question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way to cover it in an encyclopedic manner. Keeping it just for the reason of keeping it doesn't really help us. The information for each game pretty much takes up the normal length of a story section for a video game anyways. If it does become too large, all we have to do is trim it. We really don't need to cover each character's full story in the games. TTN 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, and wasn't this an anime as well? 132.205.44.134 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That implies that some sort of cleanup method has been found. At this point, not one single person actually wants to work on it beyond doing minor things. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as marginal-interest cruft. Or move to games-wiki -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If it were multiple articles, I would urge delete, on the basis of WP:NOT#IINFO - However, this is, explicitly, a list - Tiswas^(t) 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It originally was a bunch of articles, but I don't see how that matters. Lists must also conform to our writing and notablity guidelines (WP:WAF and WP:FICT in this case), so the fact that it's a list shouldn't make a difference. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia#2 covers the list format. If the list were substantially shorter, it would be perfectly at home in the parent article. Which part of WP:WAF do you consider relevant? It is, after all, a long article in itself. - Tiswas^(t) 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't automatically mean the we just shove all characters of every series onto a list. A topic needs to show relevance outside of the series to be covered here (as shown in WAF). Every single fictional topic has characters in one way or another, but unless they can be separated from the plot, it is pointless to mention them. TTN 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't. But neither does it preclude the creation of such a list, however much it is to your or my chagrin. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines, but there is clear precedent. I can't say that it give me much cheer. - Tiswas^(t) 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the Pokemon test page is used against that argument, not for it (They are also going under a large reconstuction, so it is best not to even talk about them). We cannot say there is a precedent just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We only have two featured character pages, and both have at least a little bit of real world information, so that would be the precedent. TTN 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentiment that I have expressed myself on more than one occasion. However, in this instance, we are considering a list that contains in-universe information, as opposed to multiple in universe articles. I'm not expounding a "better here than there" argument, more that WP:FICT and WP:WAF allow for this sort of cruft, and, whilst it would be best kept to the parent article, it is too long a list to be kept there. - Tiswas^(t) 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the guidelines allowing these (hopefully the rewrite of FICT will help in the future). Fans of fluffy fiction articles and people that don't believe in notability expressed by non-trivial sources allow them. If this were actually a true discussion instead of a vote as we claim they are, stuff like this would be quick. It's just an annoying flaw in the site's system. Anyways, the list won't be kept anywhere. The characters can easily be split off between the series article and the ten separate game articles. All of these paragraphs are just small parts of the overall story, so most would be trimmed to a sentence (not that they would actually be merged.) TTN 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a vote, but there are legitimate arguments against your position simply as for what Wikipedia should be. I for one take the "comprehensive" part of Wikipedia seriously, but also think that proper writing style means that minutiae shouldn't be endlessly harped on in the main article. Hence, daughter articles with the details and summary style. That said, if this article is kept, by all means go ahead and clean it up and chop it down, if you think redundancy can adequately be reduced. SnowFire 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child articles are created if they are a suitable sub-topic that has enough information to write about. If not, the main article is usually trimmed (This isn't how it happens, but that is the actual way that it should be done.). This article is going to be kept because people are ignoring the whole "These have no out of universe information, thus fail the criteria to be covered here" bit, and replacing it with "This is good information." TTN 12:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I'm not familiar with Samurai Shodown, but "enough information" strikes me as a WP:V issue which is easily dealt with by using the games themselves. Obviously sourcing could be better and any speculation should be sourced or removed, but those are vanilla cleanup issues. More out of universe information would be good of course, but that's more the difference between a Start or B class article and a GA/FA article; if this information is adequately sourced, it would be proper to have in a comprehensive article on an individual game if it wasn't for clutter issues and summary style. SnowFire 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are completely irrelevant when dealing with fiction articles. They will always be there, so they are not part of the equation. Real world information must be present to assert the need to cover it. We can be lax only up to a certain point with these kinds of articles. This has become more than a simple split off or "It can/will get better" thing. If an article cannot even show the ability to meet the fiction guidelines, they should be merged or deleted as needed. After two months of sitting, nothing has been found, and even after searching a good while by myself, I found nothing. TTN 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant for proving notability, but not for verifiability. Which is what I was referring to, and what (I believe) your earlier argument was getting at. As for notability, my thoughts are that a "daughter" article generally shares the notability of its parent article; it's just in a separate Wikipedia article for purely organizational reasons. And I fully agree that there is definitely a limit to "how far" this can go, but a single characters article for an entire series seems reasonable enough to me.

Honest question, just to get a feel for your position: what do you think of the Pokemon articles? I've been trying to avoid a "other crap exists" argument here, but I think this is on point. I'm not overly familiar with it, but my suspicion is that there isn't much strictly defined *individual* notability on 98% of Pokemon... but the Pokemon franchise itself is notable with scads of sales, newspaper articles, etc. and it's reasonable to think that people interested in the topic in-depth might be interested in the actual characters. I'm not referring to organization here (whether they should be merged or not, etc.), but simply whether the content is worthy of keeping on Wikipedia, which you don't seem to think it is in this case since you don't even want to merge. SnowFire 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those verify the in-game stuff, but that doesn't really matter. We need to verify real world information, which has been my argument the entire time. If the sub-topic is not large enough to stand on its own (notability), it doesn't need to be split in the first place, so just shoving a bunch of junk isn't going to help us organize anything. That information needs to be trimmed instead. In this case, a main character section in the series article can cover them in general, and more specific section in each game can cover the specifics, so there is no need to even split in the bad way that we do it. If this article could possibly look like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, it would be worth keeping. There is not enough information for that to happen.

Most of the Pokemon should be merged into lists, and the major ones like Pikachu can keep their articles. As a whole, they have enough information to warrant lists and stuff, just not articles. The Pokemon project is trying to accomplish a pretty large merger, by the way. TTN 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I actually enjoyed reading it. I don't see any reason to delete it. And Samurai Shodown is quite a notable and popular series of video games, manga, and (if I remember correctly) anime. It's not trivial. --Melanochromis 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to comment on every keep, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep it. The series is notable, but that doesn't extend to the characters. TTN 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If moved to articles on the individual games, it'd clutter them up horribly. Plus, I'm going to presume that at least some of these characters span multiple games, making a merge tricky? A giant merged character article is the best option here. This isn't an issue of notability so much (any reasonable article on an individual game would mention the characters in it) as proper organization of content. SnowFire 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't going to be merged. Each game has its own story that can be beefed up to like three paragraphs by including these. That is a fine length for a story section. Its also very possible to include a couple paragraph characters section. We aren't going to cover each character separately because they are not notable enough. TTN 12:01, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow car[edit]

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

PROD was removed without comment. This is a completely unsourced "game". Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I suggest deletion. Isotope23 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually seems like a variation of the old classic Punch buggy. Merge and redirect as appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Was just thinking the same thing, Tony Fox. But is this really an actual variant more than a made-up-one-day game among a few friends? I'd say delete per nom. DMacks 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered a redirect, but I didn't see any evidence this was a known variant.--Isotope23 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DMacks. The rules are very similar to punch buggy, but it just seems like some minor made-up playground thing.--Ispy1981 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yellow car, black car, car with white stripes. Nothing to merge. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Punch buggy - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song)[edit]

Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-article. No sources, no info. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, obvious crystallization here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Svetovid 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. to High School Musical 2.--Edtropolis 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G4, as it's recreated material. Acalamari 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- is Vanessa Hudgens even that notable ? Guroadrunner 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy it, WP:CSD#G4. east.718 00:13, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet[edit]

Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability - Tiswas^(t) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation; unsourced living person bio with contentious claims; even if that were cured; notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Try reading BLP first. It says that an editor may "remove any contentious material that is unsourced", not speedy delete the whole article. That means one sentence should be deleted, not the whole lot. His notability is a separate issue but please don't use policies to "support" your opinion that actually don't support your opinion. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your uncivil comment; I have read BLP. How other than deleting the article (which we ought to do anyway because he's not notable) do you propose to remove the crap from our "history"? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing uncivil about my comment, other than you not agreeing with it. I'm simply tired of people claiming that policies or guidelines justify their deletionist opinions when they actually don't. All that was needed was the deletion of a single sentence (which has now been done). It no longer fails BLP. Simple. Is your comment about "deleting crap from our history" supported in BLP? I don't think it is, otherwise it wouldn't be worded as it is (and as I just quoted it). It would instead say an editor may "delete any article that has any unsourced contentious material in it whatsoever". It doesn't, whether you want it to or not. And as I said, his notability is a separate issue and not one I was commenting on. -- Necrothesp 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think as you wish, you're wrong. I didn't suggest the mere appearance of an unsourced BLP issue leads to the deletion of the article, here, however, the only possibly notable thing about this dude is a BLP violation and that violation dates to the earliest formation of his article. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you'll find that your comment was "Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation", so that's exactly what you suggested. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom suggests - this definitely seems to have BLP issues, and there's not much notable about the subject even if he does have a title. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep re notability as Baronet, SqueakBox 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, turns out that he is not actually a Baronet at all! For this reason I am changing my !vote to a straight delete - what say you?--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stronge Baronets. According to that article, this guy's baronetcy is "unproven"; and if one follows the link on that word, one finds that the Stronge baronetcy has been officially vacant "dormant" for about 25 years and that he is not therefore a recognized (by whoever officially recognizes such things) baronet. Deor 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing here worthy of retention, merge on to a general page for the holders of this baronetcy. In fact I think the information given is intrusive into the life and privacy of a person who has clearly neither sought nor earned publicity or notability of any kind. Giano 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Deor. Agree that the article contains definite privacy problems as it stands. JavaTenor 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)|[reply]
• Redirect or merge, since he should be mentioned in the article--but the present article has a simple and clear BLP problem paragraph that I have just deleted from the article. Why didn't anyone delete it before, instead of just talking about it? I don't think there's enough for an article in any case, with or without it.DGG 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable given what he succeeded in the wake of, i.e. a double murder. --Counter-revolutionary 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if that is the standard for this level of nobleman. Being an American I have no idea what a baronet is, except it must be somewhat lower in importance than a baron. Steve Dufour 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Concur -- the baronetage was a fund-raising stunt of James I and since then has provided a classic example of self-perpetuating parasitism. Not worthy of the Wiki, nor, in fact, of real-world surivival. Let us begin here, with one individual, then remove all holders of this title, then all baronets, and finally every article dealing with the anti-democratic English aristocracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Well I think that comment just speaks for itself! No reason actually given except a clear anti-aristocracy bias!--Counter-revolutionary 09:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nothing against baronets and I didn't mean to imply that I did. Steve Dufour 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A baronet is basically an hereditary knight, and is superior to all but one level of knighthood, but is not a peer and was never entitled to a seat in the House of Lords (which is what makes British peers inherently notable as members of a national legislature). Therefore the person actually created a baronet is notable for being given the honour in the first place, but his successors cannot really be classed as inherently notable (although some obviously disagree). SockpuppetSamuelson's comments are not worthy of comment, of course, except to say that people created baronets in the last two centuries have predominantly been deserving of the honour. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Counter-rev. Notable and referenced. This is not a paper cyclopedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to know something about baronetcies, could you provide some clarification on the status of his claim to succession? (i.e. what is the meaning of unproven in this context)? JavaTenor 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that although his lineage is clear (set down in Burke's Peerage online, Cracroft, Debrett's, etc), he has not gone to the expense of proving his rightful claim to his cousin's baronetcy by formally proving that Sir Norman predeceased Sir James (who had no opportunity to lay formal claim) and that there are no intervening entitled potential claimants. It is relevant in Court circulars, London Gazette, etc. Another example of an unproven baronet is Jonathon Porritt. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Trugster 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing really notable about this individual. No achievements or even anything of minor public interest. Kitty, Jonathon Porritt is not really a valid comparison as he is notable in several ways and just also happens to be a baronet. Galloglass 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, the position of a Baronet is notable.--Vintagekits 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so why delete?!--Counter-revolutionary 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify the question please.--Vintagekits 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "the position of a baronet is notable" why delete this article? --Counter-revolutionary 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake obviously it should say it is NOT notable.--Vintagekits 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have changed me !vote to a straight Delete from Delete and merge because it turns out that he isnt even a Baronet at all! How embrassing!--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge the info here could be merged into the Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan article, seeing as there is no proof to the claim of title. Either that or delete.--padraig3uk 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan or Stronge Baronets article. Currently, he appears to only be claimant to the title and there no indication of other offices, actions, or writing that would assert notability. Edward321 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable as a Baronet of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - go one Astrotrain - even if a Baronet got automatic notability (which it doesnt) but it turns out this guy isnt a Baronet at all - almost laughable!--Vintagekits 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove he isn't. That remark could be anti- WP:BLP. --Counter-revolutionary 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the burden of proof it not on me - the burden of proof is on those that wish to claim he is something he isnt.--Vintagekits 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've provided the sources; Burkes, Debrett's &c., the say he's a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 02:43, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Dale Biddle Andrews[edit]

Annie Dale Biddle Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claim to notability is that she was the "first woman to receive a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley" in 1911. Beyond that she was a university math instructor and got a paper published in the journal of the American Mathematical Society in 1933. [2] Is this sufficient? 650l2520 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. - Notable.--Edtropolis 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and improve per above. "First woman to receive a Ph.D in Mathematics from UC Berkley" may be a bit awkward, but it does at least hint at notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak keep per Ten. Female mathematicians were very rare at the time. JoshuaZ 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with University of California at Berkeley.--Svetovid 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or find somewhere to merge I added some more information; There is probably some further historical information, which would certainly help. But I really have doubts about notability for WP purposes: 1/she's probably somewhere like the 20th or 30th US American woman with a PhD in math. (the 1st was Winifred Edgerton Merrill in 1883 at Columbia 2/ there were a number of American universities where women had previous received PhD's: Yale, Chicago, Illinois, Cornell and especially Bryn Mawr; 3/ Many of the other women from that year and before had a considerably more distinguished career, either as a mathematician or mathematics educator, eg Christine Ladd-Franklin. 4/most of the ones with distinguished careers do not yet have articles.

So, do we make an article for the first in each school? We certainly do not merge the hundred of people each year who get phd's from berkeley into the main article, whether or not they are notable, not even the first man and the first woman in each subject--this has been done for no other subject.

What we should probably do is start making pages for major math depts-- & for the major depts at univs. like Berkeley--no US dept now has its own article, but Cambridge & some russian ones do--but that s a long-term project. I can see making an article for 1st women phds in general, but this would be a major project that would amount to OR, unless there is a good source. DGG 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't see how that would amount to OR as long as each was sourced as being first for something. JoshuaZ 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a special individual given the difficulty of obtaining the degree and especially pursuing that course as a female in an all-male world. I would certainly think that it could be expanded. Maybe the folks at Gender Studies WikiProject could help. JodyB _talk 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not sufficiently notable by WP:NN for a standalone article; in particular, she is noteworthy for only one thing. I'm against merging into Berkeley's article unless every school has such information included. One might consider merging her into List_of_female_mathematicians, but her mathematical work is not sufficiently notable for that (poorly maintained) page. In summary, not every local first achievement is encyclopedic.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Notable for only one thing is still notable, though the article definitely needs work. Edward321 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily so. From WP:PROF: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single ... event ... it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete. per above arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnityLink[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG criteria of notability. —Visor (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blantant advertising.--Edtropolis 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Visor, no claim for notability, Wiki is not a YellowPage.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Visor, WP:ORG Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, local ISP. Jacek Kendysz 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, needs some independent reviews, customer poll results or surveys, newspaper or business magazine articles about the service, etc. Since the company is neither a public service nor it ever went public, more information about its owner would be appreciated - what he did before and where the money came from? See Optimum Online. greg park avenue 01:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia) or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnangarra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003[edit]

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):

Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.

Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.

Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating

I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually since the information is germane to this discussion, i will reply here instead of your talk page. With all due respect to yourself and all interested cricket lovers, I cannot reconsider this nomination at this time. You say the articles will be improved in the future - I look at the entire batch, created over 4 months ago, and the only edit to them has been to add a stub categorization. This does not indicate to me that these are a "work in progress". These articles have no useful content and all they do is repeat the information available in the included template. I do not believe that creating "placeholder articles" for future improvement is appropriate. Stub articles are fine, but these aren't even stubs. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per Comment. Nominator has bad nom faith.--Edtropolis 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon? What is "bad nom faith"? Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whilst the events themselves are notable, the articles contain practically no content other than a repeat of the title. I'd much rather they were left as red-links in the hope that someone might write a proper article on the tours down the line. Andrew nixon 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. If anybody really wanted to expand those articles, they have had 4 months.--Svetovid 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Andrew nixon. While international cricket tours may or may not be notable; there is no context or real content in these. I also question whether a cricket tour is really notable; most other sports we handle in the main article, or rarely by season (year) but not by each tour or part of the season, for example at the article Bangladeshi cricket team, the team seems to have gone to Zimbabwe and Trinidad, and played lots of other countries at unspecified venues; I would not want there to be an article about each road trip or each match. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely fails context criteria. Whilst I have started expanding some of these, there is definitely no need to keep them in their current state: although it would be useful to have a record of where these were, for recreation *with* context at a later date. ((International cricket tours of Australia)) fulfills this for the articles in question, but in case any further articles are brought to AfD I'd like to make sure there was such a record made before deletion.

I do think these should be allowed to be re-created and kept at a later date, provided they're throughly expanded. I don't see any issues on notability grounds, however: cricket tours are a very important part of both of the year in cricket and of the history of two teams' relationship/rivalry/etc. AllynJ 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have added some content to the Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003, just because they are stubs does not mean they should be deleted. A national cricket tour is notable enough to deserve an article. Davewild 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they're stubs, if they do not have sufficient context then they fail WP:CSD#A1. Notability is not *really* in question here, someone simply mentioned it in passing. AllynJ 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the exception of those articles that have now attracted some expansion: Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61. Johnlp 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have now expanded Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2004-05, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000 and New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 as well and will expand some more. Davewild 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have substantially expanded West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 and intend to expand it further. JH (talk page) 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have now expanded Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2004, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2002, South African cricket team in Australia in 1997-98, South African cricket team in Australia in 1993-94 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1992-93. Davewild 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge With all due respect to everybody, I'm sure these are appropriately sourceable, but I can't support a year by year history of cricket teams. Year by year for the sports? Maybe. Teams? It would be better to cover their history in one article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except for those articles which have recently attracted attention. east.718 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep them all with the exceptions outlined below as they are all notable and sources exist for them all. I really dislike mass nominations of articles. The 1960-61 tour of the West Indies to Australia is one of the most notable in cricket history featuring the first Tied Test and the record attendance for a test match for the Melbourne test. The Bangladeshi tour referred to featured the first tests played in Darwin and Cairns. Each of these tours has sources and is capable of being improved by having notable events added. However, the New Zealand tours before 1974-75 are the exception to the rule as no tests were played. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, notability is not in question here, and is not a suitable reason for suggesting keeping these. Questioning the sources is not why these have been nominated. Nor is disliking mass nominations. These are up for lacking context, and failing WP:CSD#A1. AllynJ 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this mass of contentless articles . Wikipedia is not a mass of indiscriminate information per WP:NOT. Fail WP:N and WP:A as well. Edison 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bangladeshi cricket tours of Australia, Indian cricket tours of Australia, etc. Most seasons are individually not worth individual coverage, I agree there are exceptions and those individual seasons can be recreated (it doesn't seem anyone has been in a hurry for the last four months). If multiple independent sources cannot be found for each tour than the tour wasn't notable.Garrie 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CricketArchive and other official websites already provide excellent hosting for statistics and match results. If the most that these articles are going to offer is trivial cricket scores then they are not providing encyclopedic content. How about some analysis of who the tour was a milestone for? Were there any major events (Bodyline)? If nothing happened except people playing cricket then it was not a notable tour.2006-07 Ashes series is an example of encyclopedic content that is pretty much "English cricket team in Australia in 2006".Garrie 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Garrie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I should elaborate: Merge ALL articles into a single "Australian Tours" article (or perhaps "Bangladeshi tours of Australia" etc), but keep any articles which might survive AfD on their own merits.Yeti Hunter 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: merging does not work as explained below. We have tried it and had to undo it. Each of these articles is notable in its own right but simply needs development and there is a mass of data out there. The problem is that it takes time to get through so much material. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These are mostly likely to become paraphrased summaries of better quality info elsewhere on the net.--Limegreen 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You must be joking. Can you give an example of better quality info on the net re some of the cricket project's fully developed articles, such as the 2005 series in England, for example? Believe me, you cannot. The only contender is CricketArchive in a purely statistical sense and by definition that doesn't have the narrative or description that we have. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP These are notable tours between international cricket teams. The wikipedia cricket project is one of the best developed sports projects here but not everything can be done by magic. There are plenty of sources for each of these tours but it takes time to write them up. If an editor is embarking on a project to do so, and he's already doing a lot of work on writing up Bangladeshi first class players, then he should be allowed to do without the constant threat of his work being deleted. These are valid stubs and will be expanded over time. It's a lot harder writing articles than it is to glibly delete them. Nick mallory 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 and any other which has been expanded significantly beyond the original stub. Delete any remaining as a single line stub, but if anyone is willing to commit to expanding them, they should get more time than a week to do so.-gadfium 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All, properly referenced articles detailing international sporting tours at the highest level. Lankiveil 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep (for the time being!): I think that all these articles are valid stubs. Give a fortnight and delete any article that is at current state. --Kalyan 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. International tours are certainly notable, and all those that are nominated are simply those that are still stubs, and haven't been expanded. There are tens of thousands of stubs on wikipedia, and they aren't deleted simply because it is hoped that eventually the article will be expanded. I believe those wanting deletion must give some reason besides "there's no context." Look at those tours that have received some attention:
• English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07
• English cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
• West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2005-06
• South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per Andrew Nixon. I will never understand the rush to fill redlinks with one line stubs. If there is not the content, time or inclination to create a decent stub (i.e. at least three of four sentences with some meaningful content), rather than a one line restatement of the title, it is better to leave the redlink alone. If we are to think of the reader, the redlink at least tells the reader upfront that Wikipedia does not have any content on the subject. With these one line stubs, we force the reader to move to a new article to then tell them we have no content worthy of the name. These one line stubs are not just useless to the reader, they are harmful to the project. Better to be upfront and admit we don't have have an article rather than create a mere placeholder article. Of course, I would keep those articles that have been expanded since nomination and have no prejudice against recreation of any of the other articles pending creation of a decent stub. The subjects are clearly notable and should not be difficult to source. But, please, wait until you have the time and sources to create a decent stub. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent points in the last two sentences. With hindsight, this is what should have been done and is what we will surely do in future if we have a similar "series scenario". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That other sources retain records does not seem to be a good rationale for deletion of stubs that hold at least a promise of being properly developed by a clearly interested party. Time could be given to enable meritorious stubs to be more fully developed and then the remaining entries can be individually assessed. Pever 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for any that are beyond one-line stubs (such as Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003) - Cricket series are inherently notable. Delete, with no bias against recreation, those without worthwhile information that are just rephrased titles. -Halo 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to one decade to a page. There would be insufficient information to warrant each season having an individual page. Perhaps, for example, West Indian cricket team in Australia in the 1960s 리지강.wa.au 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have only to look at West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 to see how much information is available about each tour and the potential that each one of these articles has for development. The fact that the cricket project has not yet had time to develop these articles does not mean there is a lack of available data. The issue for the cricket project is the availability of time and resources. Merging articles does not work and we end up splitting them again: we've been there and done it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Merge it into its respective country pages - PokhranII 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by original author. I created these items with the intention of developing them but there are too many to do in the short term and I do have other work as well, so they haven't been taken forward. I agree with Andrew and others who have said the topics should exist as redlinks in a templates until someone has time to develop them to a reasonable level of content. I do not agree with the non-cricket people who question the notability of the tour articles. They are all notable as they involve Test cricket and / or limited overs international cricket, which is the highest tier of the sport. Merging them into collective articles about cricket in one country will not work: that idea has already been tried with The Ashes and it doesn't work. I'm not going to vote but I will be interested to see the outcome. If the items are deleted, I still have them all in offline text files so I can easily recreate them if and when I have time to develop them; or if anyone wants me to provide a template for one they have only to ask on my talk page. I would ask Arkyan to modify his list given that some of the articles are being developed and I would make a special plea re the 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia. All the best. Enjoy your discussion. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd normally be amenable to the idea of striking from the nominated list those articles which have undergone some measure of expansion since I brought them up, as my original contention was that the articles lacked sufficient context. However as other editors have also expressed reservations regarding both the notability of the subjects and an interest in performing some kind of merge, I can no longer withdraw articles from the nomination. It will be up to the closing admin to choose whether to remove them all based on notability concerns, just the ones without improvement due to lack of context, or keep them all per consensus, whichever outcome proves to be the best. For what it's worth I do appreciate the effort some editors are making in trying to better the articles, in particular 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia as you mentioned has been heavily improved. However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context, which really doesn't satisfy WP:NOT#INFO, specifically item 9 regarding statistics. Again, for the record, my nomination has nothing to do with notability, just lack of useful context. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context..." Rome wasn't built in a day. As the person who has taken on the task of expanding the article, I began with the basic statistical information, but have now expanded the introduction and the section on the First Test substantially beyond that. Descriptions of the remaining four Tests will follow as time permits, though probably not at the same lenth as the first.

I think those who have suggested that a single tour is not notable, and should be merged into some overarching article don.t realise (a) the importance that tours by Test-playing sides have long had in cricket history and (b) the amount that can be said about a sinle tour, which would make detailed overarching articles very long. And there is no shortage of sources, both reputable online sites and books (most notably Wisden, the annual record of the game, which has been going for well over a 100 years). JH (talk page) 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I said that West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 was undergoing significant expansion (which is good), it was the other ones that have only been expanded minimally with statistics (such as New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05) that I mentioned as still not satisfying criteria. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arkyan, it's your nomination and you can withdraw anything you want from the list. Your nomination is based on a sound premise (whether I agree with your view or not) and you should not be swayed from that by people who try to introduce their own variations to your purpose. The choices are simple: delete these articles because they lack content or keep them for a period to be agreed (indefinite or otherwise) to allow the cricket project to develop them. If other people start chucking in ideas about notability and merging which divert your purpose then it is up to them to propose their own nominations. Otherwise no one is going to understand what the nomination is about. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete those which are just a one-sentence restatement of the title (plus some boilerplate templates and/or categories). But they should be recreated when someone actually wants to write some content. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as empty. These articles for the most part have no content. If the result here is to delete, the template also needs to go since it is only a what links here mill. Merge would have been an option, but without content there is nothing to merge, in most cases. Vegaswikian 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You clearly do not understand the purpose of templates which are a useful guide for readers. If a tour template is placed in a developed tour article it provides the reader with useful, quick information about other tours and if some of those are redlinked then he knows there was a tour that year but WP hasn't got an article yet. Please remember that everything the editors do is for the benefit of the readers and templates do help the reader. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mass delete; such esotera belongs on a dedicated sports site.--Mike18xx

Comment: phrases like "such esotera" do not help the discussion and your suggestion makes no sense, especially in the light of the stuff about stub deletion on your user page. You need to read WP:NOT wherein you will see that even secondary levels of domestic sporting competition are accepted as notable. The subject-matter of these articles is international competition at the highest level of a major world sport. Can we therefore please drop all this rubbish about notability? If an article about a Test cricket competition is not notable then neither is one about the Superbowl or the "World" Baseball Series or the European Cup or the Olympics: we would have to delete every single article on the site about sports competitions. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 50 "from" countries x 50 "playing at" countries x 100+ years x every sport under the sun = how many bazillion articles? While the internet is indeed theoretically infinite, there is a limit to how much a generalist site is willing to indulge; the criteria for exceeding the limit may be vague, but some things are arguably a lot more excessive than others. Mass compilations of sports trivia really do belong on a site devoted to it, and would be especially better served on a site where users are able to perform complex statistical comparison analysis of the sort just not possible with mediawiki. ... But this is all beside the point that the items being AfD'd here aren't even articles; they're just nearly blank pages awaiting the arrival of statistics. If I create a hundred articles which are all templates of each other, and then don't put anything in them, they're going to disappear on me. If I were to hazard a guess, I don't think their creator realized how big of a chore this was all going to be -- the poor guy would be typing for MONTHS.--Mike18xx 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete those that exist purely as one-line stubs per CSD A1/A3, Keep or Merge (depending on notability consensus) any that have been developed beyond that for now. Stubs are fine, but these are simply a restatement of the title. Orderinchaos 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Have reorganised the list into two columns which are the above one-line stubs, and a third which has undergone development. I hope this in some way helps the process of resolving the fate of these articles. Orderinchaos 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I like the reorganized list, it should be a little easier on the closing admin depending on how it goes down. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: yes, it's a very good idea that reinforces the point of the nomination which is about level of content and not about notability or any other vague issue. All the admin has to decide is if the under-developed articles should be set aside for now until the cricket project has time to reintroduce them as developed articles; or if they should be retained to give the cricket project time to develop them as they currently stand. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Precedent? This case was exactly the same as the one here and the verdict was keep. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:36, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Chomsky![edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; band has not recorded an album, and is not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Prod removed without comment by anon editor. -- Merope 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace and Fails WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather surprising: a Google for "Yo Chomsky" gets 71,000 hits. ... wait, the "unique" hits ended at 76. Google messing with my head today. I scanned through a few pages of them, and the reliable sources are still a touch thin - we've got a BBC Nottingham interview, a mention on Drowned in Sound[3], a lot of club and blog chatter... They seem to be edging upward, but right now delete as not quite making WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn despite ghits. JJL 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I say leave it, they're on the up swiftly, if the NME are talking about them then give them a chance surely... to be honest someone will only have to make the page again later when they get bigger so what's the point!! People look at it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.168.217 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Notability first, then the article. Besides, it'll be a better article with lots of good sources to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:54, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Blow[edit]

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

I can't find any references to an individual by this precise name involved in the Dred Scott case. Could this refer to Henry Taylor Blow? If so, and if he was indeed called "Harry" at some point, I'll withdraw the nom and redirect; if not, probably better to delete. JavaTenor 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Never heard of him. Fails criteria of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably a mistake; Scott's lawyers at various points were David Hall, Alexander Field, Charles Edmund LaBeaume, Roswell Field, and Montgomery Blair.[4] --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Dhartung that the article's author was probably confused. The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford says that his case was argued by attorneys named Blair and Curtis. Deor 00:45, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Sloan[edit]

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

If Wikipedia documented the death of every soldier killed in action in every war there would be hundreds of thousands of articles that would pose no real significance to the encyclopedia. While the sacrifices by soldiers should not be forgotten they do not all need an article on Wikipedia. This soldier does not meet the notability requirements and for this reason I am nominating this article for deletion. --Joebengo 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per A7: Nonnotable biography. 24.182.11.247 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)(My userpage is SuperDT)[reply]

• Delete I greatly appreciate his heroism and sacrifice, and sympathize with his family, but the article is a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Edison 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per WP:MEMORIAL.--Edtropolis 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As a vet myself, I have unlimited respect to those that have fallen in defense of my country. That does not change the fact that the article fails to stand up to policies outlined under WP:N and WP:NOT. Trusilver 01:05, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Sunday[edit]

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

Article details events which are best suited to being included in more encyclopedic articles, for example Scottish Premier League 2004-05, or Rangers F.C. season 2004-05. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wow, that's an amazing story. As the nom suggests, it can be trimmed and merged into the respective club articles, but it doesn't deserve its own article IMO per WP:NOTNEWS. YechielMan 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above.--Svetovid 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or clean up. It sounds like a significant event, a Scottish version of "The Giants win the pennant!" but I've read it several times and I still can't figure it out. The significance of the helicopter in this isn't clear-- at all. Maybe it was bringing a trophy, and had to change course when Rangers lost and Celtic won the title, or the other way around. Difficult to read. Mandsford 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the helicopter refers to the helicopter that was used to transport the trophy, and due to the late nature of the change in scores had to change direction - "The helicopter is changing direction" is an often-used phrase by Rangers fans, coined after radio commentary that day. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is poorly written, somewhat like the "Immaculate Reception" being described without mentioning the NFL playoffs. Since it's a memorable incident (and added a phrase to sportscasting lore), maybe someone can clean it up. Otherwise, delete it and let someone else try again. Mandsford 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems to be no or very few reliable sources using this term to describe the game. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This football match had no notable implications, such as those of the England 5-1 Germany game.--Kylohk 16:38, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist[edit]

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. No citations. A quick google shows an extreme lack of coverage in secondary sources (the only hits seem to be retailers). It's been a stub since its creation sixteen months ago, with zero content edits made on it in all that time, outside the creation of the article itself. Furthermore, there is no encyclopedic content here, just a TOC. Ford MF 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not established. I am also suspicious of Mark A. Gabriel and his other two books, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad and Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle. Our article says his identity has not been "independently verified" and relies on an abundance of primary sources. It survived AFD in 2005, when standards were not so strict. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, quite honestly there are a lot of articles in (and around) Category:Books critical of Islam that need to go for exactly the same reasons this article needs to go. No encyclopedic content, no secondary sources, &c. But taking that on is a serious project that I don't think I'm quite up for at the moment. Ford MF 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That category isn't going to be particularly useful to anyone browsing Wikipedia for things to read if half or most of the books are removed from it. (Not to mention any names, but I've no doubt there are plenty of people who'd prefer it that way.)--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not look notable, hence delete. We do not create article about each book. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am in the process of researching and improving this article, and have found references to the book being cited as a source in journals.--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've now fleshed out the entry with quotes and references, and thumbed-down the formerly huge picture. While I'd still prefer to have better sources for positive and negative reviews of this relatively new book, I believe they are at present sufficient in conjunction with the journal cite, as well as the fact that the author has other books, in addition to himself, listed at Wikipedia.--Mike18xx 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Better than before but, I feel, still does not meet WP:N for the following reasons:

• In Touch magazine lists a number of books. It is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. In fact, the review actually emphasises Gabriel's notability and not the book's.
• The Quarterly Journal, again, is not discussing the book and makes only two trivial mentions of it in the footnotes citing 8 pages of the book.
• Future Islam (is this a reliable source?) does indeed cover this book but the reviewer appears to be non-notable too since there are 0 ghits.
• Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The sources that Mike18xx has now added makes it obvious that the book is notable enough to have an article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recently added sources.--Sefringle^Talk 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since there are two adequare references, (Reference 1 is amazon: not a RS for anything beyond the fact that it's been published. Ref 2 is "In Touch Magazine" is [6] "A Magazine of People and Possibilities A FREE Self-Help, Inspirational, Holistic Publication " I cannot tell if it's a RS in whatever its field may be, but it is not a RS for Islamic terrorism. JB, of the MB school of theology, who wrote there, doesn't exactly seem qualified either). But 3/ Connections, however, is very substantial: [7] , from ETH Zurich, as solidly academic & respectable as you can get. The cite is a section of an article "U.S./NATO-Russia and Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism: Toward Building a Comprehensive Strategy." 1-25 by Sharyl N. Cross" and does make reference to the book and praises it . "For an excellent summary of the contributions of the influence of these writings in the development of Islamist radicalism see Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006), 20–26. Future Islam seems a high quality liberal Islamist online publication, & has an extensive review. . Seems OK after all, despite most of the article being a quote from that well known RS, the book jacket. Good NPOV overall. DGG 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are enough 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources now. Thanks to the person who added them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:12, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hurd[edit]

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

NN Bio Pete.Hurd 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• note appears to be disruptive creation of an article as part of the continuing (?) Patrick DeMeyer/Patrick De Meyer/Curious Gregor/Mad kemist/Timothy Boyle nonsense, see 128.40.76.3's contributions, etc. Boring. Pete.Hurd 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Edtropolis 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't this argument apply only to articles created by the subject of the article? Pete's only edit to this article has been to add the AfD banner. —David Eppstein 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't hold a very flashy title or affiliation, but has attracted international media attention for his research as demonstrated by the sources cited in the article. (Sorry, Pete, for disagreeing with your nom, but that's how I see it.) —David Eppstein 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your position completely, no need to apologize. The media attention was about my work (or more properly my grad student's work), meaning that *I* was not the subject of the media attention, per Pan_Dan below. That's my disagreement with the translation of WP:N to biographies, especially academic biographies, on WP. I think that my biographical details, my musical preferences and handsome features (or lack thereof) just aren't the sort of material that people look to an encyclopedia for. I don't see how it, and the other like it, impart any understanding of the world of knowledge. That's just my view on WP:N applied to this case (where think I can nominate without being accused of bad faith). Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unless Pete feels very strongly about this, I think he's notable, and I don't see any BLP problems. I removed some of the more ridiculous content. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. YechielMan 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just apply WP policy. I don't think whether I feel strongly about this or not ought to matter. I brought it to AfD, I didn't take it to OFFICE. Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, as Pete notes, this article was created as part of a (malicious?) campaign to create Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia users. Second, in response to David, every source cited in the article is about a study conducted by Pete—not about Pete himself. Those sources would support a small expansion of Aggression, or Hand perhaps. But they would not support an entire Wikipedia article on the topic of the study, let alone an entire Wikipedia article on Pete Hurd, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the digit ratio article covers whatever need to be kept about that study. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not sure what all the drama between the subject of the article and others users was. Looking at the present version of the article purely as a question of meeting WP:PROF it appears to just do so, based on his 29 or so publications in refereed journals (in addition to theses, letters etc). The one finding of finger length as an aggression index gained quite a bit of popular notice, and is the deciding factor in judging that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. If a few active Wikipedians watchlist the article it should be simple enough to revert any vandalism or attacks which persons might add to it. Edison 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the article subject himself has calmly nominated the article for deletion (which of course, has no impact on his notability per se), I would rather support his request than make any comments evaluating his work with respect to WP:PROF. I think he has taken the correct course of action given the suspect motivations of this article's author.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While some of the subject's research may have received media attention, he personally was not the subject of the media attention. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE-I did not create this article as some form of malicious campaign (Come on, that would be really petty, and assuming bad faith). I created the page to collect, preserve and acknowledge the work of Pete Hurd, which is the purpose of wikipedia (preservation of information that is). If the article does not meet WP:PROF, then delete the article. The argument that Pete Hurd is not notable but the research findings are notable, is rubbish. For example, Christopher Columbus discovered America and is notable for doing so. The significant finding is the discovery of America, but Columbus is still notable. Pete Hurd gained as much recognition and media attention as were the significance of his findings, therefore he is notable. R:128.40.76.3 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to take you seriously given your history of deleting warnings from your talk page [8] and your activity leading to those warnings.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Conditional) Keep passes notability requirements pretty easily (independent interest in his work is crucial here). But I think for non-crucial articles, we should take into account requests from the subject--obviously we couldn't delete "Colin Powell" if he asked the article to be removed, but I think cases like these are borderline--so I'd like the closing admin to look at precedent, and if there is a precedent for deleting articles based on the subject's request, please do so. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing recommendation to Merge with digit ratio -- but I actually mean merge and not just redirect. When a person is mainly notable for a single concept, it is better to have information there--that is true--but information about the authors of studies can be appropriate to have on a topic page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with apologies to Pete at not following his wishes. There are two types of academics & other people with respect to their articles--the ones who think they are more important than they are, and the modest ones who are surprised to be considered encyclopedia-worthy. (I've never seen anyone in the middle). For the vain ones, the job is to see what lies underneath, for the others, it's to see what there is that they don't put forward. Frankly, the vain ones are easier to deal with--one just has to cut, with the general skepticism that affects all COI. The others, you've got to find the stuff. (and, sometimes, negotiate with them asking them not to request deletion). Here, 27 papers, with citation counts of 77,75,68 for the most cited, in a small field. Definite specialty of his own. Attention for the general media as well as citations--work interesting to the public. Meets the normal standards. Agreed, we don't want to look like we're paying special attention to out own people. But it's even less suitable to pretend we don't know them. DGG 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Sorry, dude; you're notable! (I'd do something about that pic, though...unless you really like that shirt.)--Mike18xx 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comes from his user page.DGG 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and there's no independent verification that that's really Pete Hurd. There's not even any verification that User:Pete.Hurd is Pete Hurd. Not that I doubt User:Pete.Hurd, who (implicitly) claims to be Pete Hurd on his old userpage, but the point is that Wikipedia content must be independently verifiable (ya know, WP:V and all that). I'm glad to see Yechielman already removed the content from Pete Hurd claiming that he edits Wikipedia, and we should remove the picture from the article also. Pan Dan 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my recommendation to merge to Digit ratio, per the same reasoning that I already expressed, plus Pete's reply to me.

  I note with curiosity that no one recommending "keep" has either explained how a list of citations and publications makes an encyclopedia article or addressed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Delete it or don't, but please don't merge any of my biography into Digit ratio! Pete.Hurd 19:18, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Consciacratic Party[edit]

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

Non notable organization that by its own admission is an "unoffical" US political party. Seems more like a vanity page than anything else Rackabello 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up to annoy a teacher one day. --Charlene 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per Charlene. Eddie 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Edtropolis 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ↑. Founded in "early June 2007." Wikipedia is not for things made up yesterday. --Evb-wiki 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The party does not appear to be an actual organization yet. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping[edit]

List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Further WP:NOT issues. Amalgamation of books and films that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I especially like how it says in the header that the list features films in which hobos and/or freighthopping exists. Big Fish is on the list because "Edward Bloom mentions how he once hopped three trains" Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as nom Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR.--Edtropolis 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per Edtropolis. Eddie 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. What, no The Flim-Flam Man? Deor 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Far too vague of a category, and quite possibly hard to verify too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep the reason given for deletion is that the "books and films...have absolutely nothing to do with one another". I think this explains why there are 400+ articles based on a TV show like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (not to mention hundreds on other TV shows) while lists are frowned upon. In the case of, say, Buffy episodes, there is not a problem of the episodes being unalike, since they all have Buffy and her friends. Is it a valid reason for deletion if the books and films aren't part of a series of related works?

As I've said, lists didn't start with Irving Wallace. Back in the old days, I could find, if I wanted to, a "list of books about hoboes" -- it was at a public library, in the drawer of a card catalog and each card was like a blue -tag, linking up to a book on the shelf. It was actually very convenient and quick, having all those cards next to each other. Sure, the article can be strengthened, and some stuff doesn't belong, such as a person saying that he once rode the rails; but the list of the books alone is worthwhile. I think Wikipedia has way too many articles on childish topics like TV episodes, video games, album tracks, superheroes, etc.-- and not enough on things like homeless people. I don't think that was the original intent, but that's the downside to Wikipedia. Mandsford 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its about time we got rid of this stupid artical!!! XNYTV 23:29, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about trains[edit]

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

WP:NOT violations. The list also seems to think that every movie with a train featured in it is about trains. Bulldog123 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as nom Bulldog123 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what makes a film "about" trains seems to be entirely subjective and hence POV and OR. E.g., Murder on the Orient Express (I'm an Agatha Christie fan) is about a murder with a contained group of suspects a scene à faire in Christie's writings – there are at least three other stories about murders on trains, The Mystery of the Blue Train, 4.50 From Paddington, and The Plymouth Express, some of which have been made into films, and plenty of others on isolated islands, archaeological digs, on planes, or in closed rooms). In any event, whether its "about" trains is in the eye of the beholder, about as much as the movie Titanic is about cars because the steamy love scene occurs in one. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to omitting of The Station Agent. I mean, per above. Propaniac 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insubstantial list. Like I've said in previous list AfDs, the role of trains in films would be more appropriate as prose with real-world context, as opposed to a list of trivia. There is no definition for what films would be appropriate to list, so the list is entirely subjective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft per above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate list, apparently just featuring an appearance by a train is enough for a film to be included. Masaruemoto 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Notwithstanding the fact that this is actually a list of any film at all in which at least one train appears, List of Films about x articles are inherently going to fail WP:UNENC unless x is something absolutely extraordinary. Trains are not. A1octopus 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT and WP:OR. Since when are films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind about trains? Since never. Indiscriminate list of every film that even shows a train = not fit for an encyclopedia. María (críticame) 15:25, 18 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.