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

The result was feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomsett Elementary_School[edit]

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

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as article fails WP:N on its own but facts are supported. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replace with redir. No content to merge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bit of content that could be merged. Noroton 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:51, 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 keep without prejudice. Bucketsofg 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins comments. The 'deleters' have a good point about the lack of sourcing, but the 'keepers' are numerous and seem to have a good reason to suppose the subject is notable. I urge interested editor to redouble the search for reliable sources. Bucketsofg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza[edit]

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

Non-notable, no references. Although an interesting subject, I don't think we have enough information on him to create an encyclopedic article Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although the article is lacking hard biographical info, I do believe that Sapienza is notable - 1900+ ghits. Eddie.willers 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eddie.willers Magioladitis 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google hits do not establish notability. What we need, by WP:BIO, is secondary coverage in reliable sources. No secondary sources are given in the article, and within the Google hits (200 distinct, by the way) I found none either. If you know of any substantial press coverage, biographies published, or similar, please add these to the article. --B. Wolterding 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cite sources Looking at the history, this has been around for a while and has serious contributors. I suggest contacting some of the contributors to see whether they can bring this up to standards. My gut feeling is that this can be saved. --Kevin Murray 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eddie.willers Brimba 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The subject appears well-known within his political community, and runs a successful blog & forum. I'd worked on the article years ago. However when I just looked for some reliable sources I got the same result as B. Wolterding. I've asked another user who might know more, but without any sources we obviously can't have a neutral, verifiable article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Although some users are suggesting that the subject is notable, what is not up for debate is that the entire article is written by his friends, and is considered original research; there is not a shred of verifiable information either in the article, or that we can find on him. Wiki-rules indicate that we should delete this article. Furthermore, I put this article up for deletion at the request of the subject; although "No consensus" usually indicates that the article should be kept, in situations where the subject does not wish his or her article to remain, I would hope that we could either delete the article, or perhaps merge it to the anti-war.com article, which is where he is perhaps most notable. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is generally understood from your nomination that you favor deletion in this case. This comment should be labeled as such, and not as a vote (yeah, I know: voting is evil), since you've already indicated your position. DickClarkMises 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)s[reply]

• Keep. We should ask whether he is notable, not whether the current article is a good one. I think it needs drastic revision and some sourcing. Here are a few sources for the claim that Sapienza may be notable enough for inclusion:

1. Robert P. Murphy addresses some of Sapienza's work here. This is an area where Murphy is a recognized scholar, and thus represents critical examination of the subject's work in his primary area of notability.
2. Wrote the introduction to Murphy's first book, Chaos Theory.
3. Justin Raimondo described Sapienza favorably here.
4. Linked from the Young Americans for Freedom page here.
5. Repeated contributor to LewRockwell.com.
6. LRC writer John Keller addresses Sapienza's views on intellectual property here.

To me, those sources and others are sufficient to warrant an article. The current one isn't very good. The nomination, though, is arguably incorrect in asserting "non-notable." In response to the second part of the nomination—that we don't have enough info to write an article—I think the sources I provide above, along with the hundreds available in a search for "jeremy sapienza" demonstrate that an adequate number of reliable sources exist to merit an article on Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is my understanding that we are looking for a 3rd party writing about him. Somebody writing about him on a website he owns (anti-state.com) would thus not be applicable. Neither would somebody writing about him on a site where he is the editor (anti-war.com). His introduction to a book, and his repeated submissions to LRC do not establish notability, but can be included as primary information once notability has been established. In order to be notable, somebody not related to him has to think he is interesting enough to write about, and that has not been established. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you are saying that anything written by anyone who has written an article in a venue where Sapienza has also published cannot be used as a source? That is a ridiculous standard and not one that I get from reading WP:RS. LRC is a high-traffic website with a limited number of contributors. Sapienza's having been published there is a measure of his notability. The fact that Murphy and Raimondo have commented on Sapienza's work is too. Both of them are notable for work that has nothing to do with Sapienza. Keller's piece that mentions Sapienza is an independent, 3rd party source, that is published on a website that Sapienza has no creative control over. Whether Sapienza asked you to nom this article for deletion is not germane. Are there any BLP concerns here that raise the specter of a libel suit? Is Sapienza, a self-avowed anarchist, likely to file suit? I think the answer to both questions is "no." Jeremy Sapienza is a notable individual who has been discussed by other notable individuals in multiple, independent sources (sources that are independent from each other). He is notable, and there should be an article about him. DickClarkMises 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IF sourced that seems obvious to me. If his theories have attracted public notice add the sources and no one could object to the article. DGG 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DickClarkMises is spot-on with his argument that Mr. Sapienza is notable in the right context, and his examples are sound ones. I do, however, agree with DGG that expanded sourcing would make this an even better article. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:44, 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 merge with Knoppix. The final version has yet to be released and the keepers have failed to demonstrate enough independent notability, at this point in time, for a separate article. OTOH there is no consensus to delete and there is plainly mergeable encyclopaedic material. TerriersFan 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adriane Knoppix[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I imagine this just needs a bit more research to provide the WP:RS which will verify notability. JodyB _talk 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Any reason to state this? With about 50 non-ignored Google hits, you may as well scan the entire list for a reliable source.--Chealer 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's an assertion of notability, but with a quick search amongst the handful of ghits, I didn't see anything I would really consider a reliable source. Feel free to provide one or two if you find them, and I'll switch to keep. It's a recurrent problem with homemade freeware, there's no advertising, no sales, no delivery to stores, so no momentum to make it notable. And few truly reliable sources are interested in covering topics that don't already seem notable in some manner. Just my opinion. Someguy1221 02:56, 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, KrakatoaKatie 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. If this comes out and has some notability then the article can be recreated. ~ Wikihermit 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I think this is notable, but can't demonstrate it with solid sources after cursory research. However, lack of sources for a topic which appears notable is not sufficient grounds for deletion. I think that the writers should be contacted and encouraged to provide sources. --Kevin Murray 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Knoppix maybe? Cwolfsheep 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep, or at least let me merge with Knoppix. I created this article when the project was announced. Klaus Knopper is a major Linux developer; this is about a 'favourite' software development by him (because of his wife), and when it is released it will be completely noteworthy. So, why would it not be noteworthy during its development when it is expected to be released in just months? (And, I've put in some more detail.) - Peter Ellis - Talk 03:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Adriane Knoppix, The Proyect ADRIANE, exist, or is under current development.... see here please: [1]... Maybe, and only MAYBE must be merge with Knoppix... --V A R G U X 04:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC) ^{Write me a note}[reply]
• Delete Worthy product but notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Citing from WP:N: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Short question: How many operating systems for the blind do you know? Further, extending the argument: first versions have been presented ([2]) -- so we have a case similar to Haiku --. Third and last: The author of the OS is Klaus Knopper, a well-known author of linux operating systems, so not just anybody. I conclude that this article can be included perfectly well. --Ben ^T/_C 17:34, 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 Since notice was not given on the Adamantix page I suggest someone nominate that for AfD as well. JoshuaZ 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardened Debian[edit]

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

Non-notable software project. Chealer 22:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Frag- I would bundle Adamantix into this as well. Both appear to be incredibly minor subsets, and no real claim is made as to why they are notable. David Fuchs 23:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per nom and David Fuchs. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Searching for sources proved difficult, as there are a number of distros that are "hardened debians." Someguy1221 00:30, 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. Peacent 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Posey[edit]

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

He works at a law firm, but doesn't appear notable for it. The most in-depth source I found was bare-bones info at the firm's webpage[4]. Delete as non-notable. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I prodded this first, but the tag was removed without comment by an anonymous user. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. huji—TALK 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sourcs. -- Whpq 17:02, 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. Peacent 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arol jahns[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. His imdb entry (http://imdb.com/name/nm2273159/) only lists one credit, and even the ones listed in the article are mainly no-name bit parts. Fails to show notability. Corvus cornix 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well check it out now...or go to his website aroljahns.com he has many more credits.

His website does not appear to be working. But, irregardless, that is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTE.--Svetovid 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Svetovid. Eddie.willers 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not reliable? he made that website himself he's my cousin so i no

Have you read our reliable sources guidelines? Corvus cornix 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who originally placed the notability tag on the article. Since then, the articles creator (who apparently wrote the comment above me) has not made any attempt to provide reliable sources or to make any assertion that this is more than a bit player. It's a delete for me, per WP:NOTE.--Ispy1981 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lasck of reliable sources. Acting roles are minor. -- Whpq 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the arguments made have been pretty good, but, to reiterate: lacks notability, per WP:N. It's not a question of being listed on IMDB, but he needs to break into something bigger before he is really notable.

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation after the book is published and has reliable sources. JoshuaZ 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect: Revolution[edit]

Mass Effect: Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A short article on a book that doesn't exist. Supporting material, an external link to a press release from the company for which the author works, makes no mention of the title. Fails WP:BK and runs against WP:CBALL Victoriagirl 22:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTE.--Svetovid 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only ghits are WP, mirrors, and forum posters who seem to have got their information from WP. WP:CRYSTAL, since the book is not supposed to be published until 2008, which probably means that it hasn't been written yet. Deor 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nonstopdrivel 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here is proof of the novel's existance. Though it says that the name may only be temporary:

http://game-spectrum.com/content/view/962/151/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igfi (talk • contribs)

• Delete - per my nomination. As an added comment, I disagree that the reference provided above is evidence of the novel's existence. If anything, it indicates that it is a work in progress ("DK: That’s just a working title. I’m still focused on getting the game out the door, so the novel’s going to have to wait a bit longer.") A non-issue as the book has not been published - nor has it been announced by a publisher. Again, WP:CRYSTAL. Victoriagirl 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here is proof of the second novel. It is an offical press release on the bioware site. The release confirms a second novel but it does not give a title. proof at bioware.com. Also in the forums I remeber Drew Karpyshyn discussing the second novel, I'll try to find the thread. Socer1104 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken the liberty of repairing the link provided by Socer1104. Anyone caring to investigate will see that it features a 21 February 2007 press release announcing the acquisition of an untitled novel. What's more, the press release indicates that the novel had yet to be written ("We are thrilled to have Drew writing the book as he has the knowledge and skills to make a great novel."). Once again, this is all a moot point as Mass Effect: Revolution fails to meet the criteria called for in WP:BK: it has not been published, it has no ISBN, it is not available through any on-line bookstore, it has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". Frankly, the fact that Wikipedia itself is being referenced in the link provided by lgfi as evidence of the book's existence (and title) speaks volumes as to why this sort of speculation has no place here. Victoriagirl 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it does not meet the wikipedia rules then maybe it should be deleted until a title or more information is releases from the author or publisher. It could also be renamed "Mass Effect 2nd novel" or something along those lines. That way the knowledge of a forth coming second novel is shared but not miss interpreted as something it isn't. Socer1104 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the novel quite simply does not exist. Period. Press releases only indicate that something is in the works and it may never see the light of day. It has not been reported on by independent reliable sources and so isn't even notable for being greatly anticipated. -- Whpq 17:07, 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 Keep. Peacent 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Blonsky[edit]

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

Nikki Blonsky doesn't deserve her own article. Try including some info about her in the Hairspray page. Malan89 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for unencyclopedic content. Reads like a fluff human interest piece. Maybe self-aggrandizing. --Nonstopdrivel 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep An article with ample demonstration of notability! An unknown plucked from obscurity to play a starring role in a major motion picture! Three dozen articles at Google News and over 80 more at Google News Archive! A nomination that doesn't even bother to mention Wikipedia policy once! All that and the claim that someone's personal pet peeve she "doesn't deserve her own article" is supposed to convince us to delete the article in defiance of Wikipedia policy! That and some of the best arguments for why there need to be far stricter limitations on the ability to create AfDs! Alansohn 03:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - definitaly notable. Why not get rid of every actors page and include them in the article on the movie they were in? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with the two keep reasons above --Mikecraig 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Although the individual is set to star in her first role, I agree that there is potential for more references and definitely a fair amount of publicity. Although I can understand the lack of notability on the individual, and WP:CRYSTAL is in play, she will satisfy most of the criteria at WP:BIO for entertainers, including having "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Many first time actors have had articles made; just look at how Jennifer Hudson turned out. ;) On a side note, I've edited the article somewhat to better wikify it, and have integrated the trivia. María (críticame) 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - satisfies WP:RS, and being cast in the lead for the Hairspray remake is notable despite the lack of any previous significant roles. -- Whpq 17:10, 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. While many good points have been raised, the question of verifiability has been brought up several times, in this discussion and previously, and has not been addressed. Some editors have expressed an interest in doing a transwiki; should anyone wish a temporary history restore or userfication for this purpose, please let me know and I will happily do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the list has been transwikied to Wikibooks as Common_phrases_in_various_languages]. It needs a lot of work to be transformed into a proper book. - Taxman ^Talk 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common phrases in various languages[edit]

List of common phrases in various languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is basically a guide on how to go to the bathroom in a (totally arbitrary) number of languages. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward. Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," because it's useless---at least for encyclopedic purposes. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Extreme end of cruft. --Blueboy96 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Besides, I know from bitter experience that when you're in Italy and suffering from Mussolini's Revenge, what you want is the gabinetto, not the bagno (which is where you go to take a bath). Deor 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and clean-up. This page used to be one of the better pages on Wikipedia until the nominator from the second nomination, following a no-consensus vote, removed a lot of the phrases, rendering it into its current state. I do believe it's encyclopedic, serving two purposes, for linguistic comparison and also how particular phrases are said in other languages. I should point out that Encarta has done something similar for their languages article. The common phrases therein are, complete with audio for over 2 or 3 dozen languages, are: Greeting, Yes, No, Thank you, Good bye, numbers, proverbs, and the autonym for the languages. Yes, it was useful, but it also served an encyclopedic purpose, to show other languages expressed certain concepts. I argue that it's not a dictionary because it isn't comprehensive. Neither is it a travel/idiom/usage guide for that very purpose (there are no phrases asking where the nearest embassy is!) but I do agree that the "Where is the bathroom" phrase is touristy and should be replaced. --Chris S. 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Useight 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Useight and impossibility to verify. Transliterations should be expressed in IPA instead of the editor's own personal transliteration system. --Nonstopdrivel 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could it be impossible to verify when all you have to do is pick up a textbook or dictionary (which has pronunciation information) in a particular language? --Chris S. 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a textbook or dictionary of Arapaho? —Angr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could get Wayne C'Hair dictionary for $10 from Wind River Tribal College in Wyoming. :-D Worldcat.Org said it was published this year. ;-) --Chris S.
    • Of course you can pick up a dictionary, but see WP:NOT#DICT. This project is hopeless.--Nonstopdrivel 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article, or even an encyclopedic list. —Angr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and disperse per WP:NOT and because it's hard to see how such a sprawling list could be kept to encyclopedic standards as Chris S. hopes. See the sprawling Dutch listing, for instance. A cleanup won't fix it (and keep it fixed). Inconsistent transliteration is a concern (as at Finnish and its neighbors), and some information may be missing crucial context, even though some sections try to indicate this (e.g., Tagalog). A lot of work went into this, but it doesn't belong here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks as suggested below. That seems the ideal place for it, so I change my vote. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mostly cruft, not useful. DHN 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. •97198 talk 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki?  --Lambiam^Talk 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To where? This isn't the sort of thing Wiktionary likes either. —Angr 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If people delete it here, it will probably go to Wikiversity. A.Z. 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Magioladitis 07:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to the general opinion I see a value here: writing the phrase "mluvite anglicky" (Do you speak English in Czech language) into the searchbox returned this page. This could be useful when looking what some unknown phrase means or as a start when looking for a detailed phrasebooks (this kind of external links is unfortunately missing now). The verification shouldn't be a real problem (the Czech section is correct, btw), the transliteration could be fixed and sound files will get added over time. The allowed set of phrases could be fixed and easily enforced. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with Chris S. --Node 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable, arbirtrary & directionless. Eusebeus 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable, arguably of low quality, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. --Kjoonlee 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For linguistic comparison. The page can improve a lot. It's all verifiable. A.Z. 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Clean-Up, I agree with Chris S, above, here. It used to be a rather good page to which I liked to contribute once in a while, until the last AfD, when everything was messed up (not on purpose, but the outcome is terrible now). I'd suggest to keep the page, to revise it thoroughly and use a fixed set of phrases — the ones used by Encarta minus the proverbs (because that would be too arbitrary and has a better place in WikiQuotes) minus the numbers (because there already is an article on that). It should be debated on the issue of gender and formality/politeness in the phrases used and... things like that. All managable, although a big pile of work (I'd readily contribute to that). However, I am fairly sure that it would not be suitable for 'linguistic comparison', otherwise we'd need in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references. — N-true 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references, eventually. I don't think anyone should be in a hurry to make the best article possible right now, and I don't think an article should be deleted just because it's not great. Just let it be, so people can contribute if they wish and improve it. I don't mind if it takes five or ten years. By the way, things such as "unsourced" and "title is awkward", are not good reasons to delete any article, as articles can be improved. If we just delete everything that is not complete, there will be no article here. Check the logo: it means that Wikipedia is always under construction. The title can be changed and references can be added, and there's no deadline at all. A.Z. 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't deny that this page could be great eventually. I just don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it, certainly not in this form. Perhaps an infobox along these lines could be created for languages, so the information is given in a fuller context, although it should be flexible enough to allow for explanations of translated phrases as necessary. On this page, however, any editor can come along and spend a moment in the Swahili section to add Hakuna matata, or to comment that it may take Swahili speakers five minutes just to get past saying "hello." (I just fact-flagged the latter statement.) Were either of these things done at Swahili language, it is somewhat more likely that the claim would be quickly confirmed or reverted, and Hakuna matata, if it appeared, would be presented in a manner less likely to conjure up a Disney movie. Let's present this information with authority, or not at all. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I like the concept. Don't know if there's Wikipedia policy about global view, don't really care, but I've never seen a phrase book in 100+ languages. Back in the days when this thing was in "books", you might have five or 20 languages. I admire the effort. Disregard the sarcastic comments of others, save this before the deletion takes place; keep working on it, improve it, bring it back. Mandsford 02:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity, whichever is most appropriate. The material seems useful, and I'd hate to see the effort go to waste, even though I think it's not quite appropriate for Wikipedia. --Kyoko 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the aforementioned arguments, notably those of Chris S., Pavel Vozenilek, and N-true, the kleptomaniacal nature of the English language leads to many of these phrases being in general use among Anglophones - Kanpai, for example. Robin Z 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Despite apparent vandalism by those who wish to delete it, the article is still useful and has the potential to be even more useful. I echo the above comments that an improper title or complaints about the current state are arguments to change the title or improve the content, not arguments for deletion. And, if Encarta finds such material to be encyclopedic, then why don't we ? I fail to see how the existence of this article harms Wikipedia. StuRat 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: How can we be asked to 'Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," ' ?? It is useful.--Jondel 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USEFUL - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks (but fix the pro-nun-see-ay-shunz). This is basically a phrasebook, which doesn't belong here under WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#INFO (travel guides/instruction manuals), thus is not useful as an encyclopedia article, but it is useful as a book and it is verifiable. - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - my hovercraft is full of eels. And wiki isn't a phrasebook. -- Whpq 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity. This is clearly a useful article; it's just not one suitable for an encyclopedia. —Psychonaut 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Keep For linguistic comparison! To delete this would be a travesty, alot of man hours have gone into this. Stick with it!--JDnCoke 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT ain't no argument. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki Might be useful in Wiktionary. Impossible to maintain here and has no encyclopedic value. xC | ☎ 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Transwiki, presumably to Wikibooks. This is unencyclopedic as just a list and pretty much original research if anything else comes out of it. Wikipedia does not report on linguistic differences, it lets someone else do it and then reports on that. I see no policy-based arguments to keep. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Wikipedia does contain many different lists. I do not see any special reason for this to be considered less encyclopedic than the other information around here. As for Wikibooks, this is not any book. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's basically a multilingual phrasebook in list form. This would be more at home at Wikibooks than here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Chris S. This is a useful article. Dilawar (t) 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Why would you allow sample phrases in articles on languages, but not a separate list of such phrases? The introduction should be rewritten responsibly (first of all delete that reference to tourists!) so that contributors should know what they are expected to strive for. A list of sentences, phrases and words should be selected, and then not changed too often. Eventually the article should allow an impression of the various languages and a comparison between them, in terms of vocabulary, writing system, spelling, pronunciation etc. The Lord's Prayer in different languages and the Swadesh lists do only a part of that. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lord's Prayer in different languages is justified by the notability of The Lord's Prayer and its history as a language comparison tool. What such argument can be made for all these arbitrary phrases? It smells of original research, and unless a reliable source can be produced indicating what phrases would be appropriate inclusions, it shouldn't exist. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But everything in Wikipedia is to some degree arbitrary --- the choice of words, the selection of pictures, the amount of information, etc., etc. --- without being considered original research. Moreover, we're talking about example phrases, not about comprehensive lists. As Chris Sundita said above, Encarta has done the same in their language articles; I'd say that qualifies as a reliable source. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chris S. and clean up. This is enough encyclopedic, at least according to the Wiktionary’s definition of the word. Even if making this serve as a table for linguistic comparisons and moving (which is what I am against), I can imagine only one possible place where this article could fit, which is the Wiktionary’s appendixes, similarly to the abovementioned Swadesh lists. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a fixed set of words and phrases to be given for each language should be defined, and it is also a good idea to sort the languages by language families. Chortos‑2 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to a more appropriate project. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 18:51, 21 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 to Space simulation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space combat[edit]

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

Totally uncited, an article about fiction should not be at a title that doesn't mention it's fictional, scope is limited to video games for reasons which are unclear, obvious magnet for advertising and fancruft Eleland 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my AfD: Redirect to Space warfare rather than Space simulation since the title "Space combat" implies actual reality. Eleland 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article has no value for the purpose of this Wiki. Delete. Malan89 22:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Space warfare as a perfectly viable search alternative. ◄Zahakiel► 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zahakiel, this content is either a split or duplicate of Space simulation (a video game genre) - although space combat could be described as a sub-genre of space simulation, there's no reason why the two can't be discussed in the same article (the collapse of the genre is noted in the same manner in space simulation). QuagmireDog 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yuck, this article is novel, original synthesis. Redirect to Space simulation which covers this topic in a much more well-written and attributed manner. Groupthink 14:01, 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 keep - nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Armenia[edit]

Hinduism in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Withdrawn because of improvements by gourangaUk. andy 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Contested prod. Article is unencyclopedic and not NPOV. Its purpose seems to be to provide a platform for Hare Krishnans to complain about persecution. References are almost entirely to the ISKON website or to POV web pages - there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:VER - "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" andy 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Couldn't have said it any better myself. --Nonstopdrivel 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This is a list of statistics and news events, setting aside the question of the reliability of the source. Important, as there are human rights issues involved, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has references. Just because you don't agree with them is no reason to delete the article.--D-Boy 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article is part of the "X religion in Y country" series. The article is also well-referenced, and if it does not represent a NPOV, that is not a reason to delete, but a reason to improve. The topic itself is notable. --musicpvm 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's an important topic - no-one is saying otherwise - but a very bad article. The issues are the quality and independence of the references (they are poor and in the main not neutral) and the neutrality of the article. If anyone wants to improve it by supplying real references and rewriting the polemical bits I'll happily withdraw my nomination. andy 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- andy 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Clean It is hopelessly written at the moment, full of Original Research. If someone has the balls to remove all the junk and turn the article into a reasonable stub, I'll support keeping it. I don't quite understand the well referenced argument, since there aren't any citations and half of the external links are in fact spam. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Keep Now that it has been superbly cleaned by Gouranga. Good work. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Relevant aspects of the topic can be covered at Hinduism and forked as necessary based on developments at the main article. This is POV pushing original research and should not be kept, although w/out prejudice for recreation should the main Hinduism article require it. Eusebeus 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and DaGizza. I don't quite see the necessity of creating articles about a religion's presence in each and every country in the world - only if there is sufficient information. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the existance of Islam in Armenia--Sefringle^Talk 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This deletion debate is about the poor quality of Hinduism in Armenia -- lack of adequate references, POV, etc. The existence of Islam in Armenia or any other Wikipedia article has no bearing on these issues. andy 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than it would be POV to delete this article but keep Islam in Armenia. We need to be consistent on wikipedia with religous articles.--Sefringle^Talk 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't understand the rationale behind the POV argument - you should read the links in the AfD nomination at the top of this page to familiarise yourself with the policies. Hinduism in Armenia was a rubbish article (it's not any more so it will probably be kept, anyway). What have other articles got to do with that? You might just as well say that it would be POV to delete it and yet keep Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, which is another article that has absolutely no bearing on the quality of Hinduism in Armenia. If you think that Islam in Armenia should be deleted then you can nominate it by using ((afd)). andy 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except I don't think Islam in Armenia should be deleted. I don't think either should be deleted. But it would be POV to keep one and not the other.--Sefringle^Talk 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Where's the POV? If there were articles about Hinduism in Armenia, Islam in Armenia, Christianity in Armenia, Judaism in Armenia, Buddhism in Armenia, Paganism in Armenia and so on and they were all well written and well referenced articles apart from Hinduism in Armenia why should we keep that article just because the other ones were better?! Rubbish is rubbish. This was a rubbish article until Gouranga(UK) fixed it. andy 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we can stop arguing about this, because it is irrelevant, seeing how you now want to keep the article. --Sefringle^Talk 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep POV is not a reason for deleting an article unless the POV problems are intractable. I would keep this article a while longer and see if it can be cleaned up. We can always delete it on the second go-round if it does not improve. --Richard 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's also the unreliable references and the fact that the meat of the article is just a list of (unreferenced) news items. AfD should be a wakeup call to the author(s) to improve it or lose it. andy 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean-up & Keep - Yes the article is currently a mess, but if the unencyclopedic information was removed the article could have some justification to remain, or at least be merged (along with other smaller articles) into another page such as Hinduism in Eastern Europe. It might be better to have one detailed article than several smaller ones? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since done some rough clean-up of the article. Gouranga(UK) 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty good. It looks keepable to me but I'd like to leave the AfD running for another day or so to get some other opinions, particularly about your idea of merging similar small articles which sounds very sensible to me. andy 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per gourangaUk.Bakaman 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Anwar 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid topic, looks a lot better than it did a few days ago. IP198 19:44, 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. Peacent 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue pro studios[edit]

A recording studio that is a subsidary of a company not that doesn't even have its own wikipedia article, and set up by a person who doesn't have on either. Google hits for the company are slim. Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obviously non-notable, seeing as their parent company is a redlink and few GHits exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Strikes me as odd that the article's author would make wikireferences to other nonexistent articles, without creating said pages to lend some semblence of credibility to the article. --Nonstopdrivel 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a clarification, I created the inter-wiki links (all the links were just bold text before) so I could click on a link to the page about the company, and that's when I saw it didn't exist. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I understand. There have been many times when I was wikilinking an article and noticed how little corroborative information there was. Good eye. --Nonstopdrivel 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, CSD A7. Article about a company which doesn't assert notability. - Zeibura ^Talk 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:40, 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 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard sons_of_Dial-up[edit]

Bastard sons_of_Dial-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable internet t.v. show. ~ Wikihermit 21:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. So someone thinks it's cool; that doesn't make it notable (yet). -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete alexa ranking of 7,000,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 01:31, 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 delete. Sr13 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AgentVi[edit]

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

Non notable company. All the references are from the AgentVi website. ~ Wikihermit 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lacks evidence of notability. Dicklyon 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and appears to be advertising. --Nonstopdrivel 00:31, 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 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baraza framework[edit]

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

Non notable product/system. ~ Wikihermit 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and possible copyvio. Product has precisely one ghit outside of Wikipedia—which is not only verbatim the same text as the Wiki article but also has itself been deleted from the server on which it appeared. The Google cache of the page can be found here: [7]. --Nonstopdrivel 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and thanks to Nonstopdrivel for the cache link. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if possible speedy. Deletable even w/o copyvio. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). Bucketsofg 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo di Nicolo Machiavelli[edit]

Fathers of notable people are not inherently notable themselves. Bringing this to AFD just in case I've missed something about him. Recommend Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason that I decided to bring this to afd, because he didn't seem notable and there were no resources I could find that said he was (and I can't read German either). So I will change this to a withdrawal. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're giving articles to failed lawyers. He has a blurb in Britannica Online...in the article about his son. Not notable enough to carry his own article.--Ispy1981 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is little information that can easily be put into the Niccolo Machiavelli article, I say Merge.--JForget 00:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Niccolo Machiavelli for reasons stated above. --Nonstopdrivel 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The German transwiki of this page [8] includes references indicating notability. Apparently he had a published diary independent of anything his son did. I would also argue that the fact we even know is name 500 years after his death is indication that he is notable. ~ Infrangible 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As witnessed by the references, the topic has scholarly relevance. Beside that, it provides useful contextual information and can be expanded. Stammer 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per Infrangible and Stammer. The article ought to have an image, though. Also, WikiProject Translation might be interested in merging info from the German article. --Quuxplusone 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep two references satisfy WP:N and BIO. --Kevin Murray 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in own right. Has been the subject of a scholarly work. --Folantin 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important historical figure--it is rather frequent that the parents & children of a very notable person was also notable, especially in cultures were family connections were very important.DGG 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be a speedy keep after the nomination withdrawal? Stammer 18:52, 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 Keep. This is based on the keep case becoming stronger over the course of the debate. Tyrenius 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Patrick Willis[edit]

Judge Patrick Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local judge who presided over a questionably notable trial. No references are given to suggest he's notable outside of the county he serves. Metros 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this article be kept, naming conventions should be considered. This should probably move to Patrick Willis (judge). Metros 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! If the nominator will rescind his nomination, we can clear up that matter right now. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avery trial was also covered by national news services, including MSNBC and Nancy Grace on CNN. Court TV planned to televise it, until it was determined that the trial would last six full weeks which would exceed the amount of time Court TV could devote to it. It was discussed at law schools outside the state of Wisconsin as a study in trial procedure.

In addition to this trial, Pat Willis has had a broad impact on the entire state of Wisconsin and the surrounding area due to his work with the carferry (S.S. Badger) and the Burger Boat company (which is known internationally, and has provided yachts for Middle Eastern royalty). He is recognized throughout the Midwest as an authority on trial procedures, and has been a noted speaker at judicial conferences. 19:07, 15 June 2007

• Keep. There are at least 11,000 ghits on Judge Willis, so he is not entirely unknown. Article could use some fleshing out and citation. --Nonstopdrivel 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but only 556 if you search for the string: "Patrick Willis" + Manitowic (see this result. A lot of the 11,000 seem to be unrelated to him (I'm assuming you used the string "Patrick Willis" + judge, yes? Metros 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually only 116 if you click through them all... - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Unconvinced Cite some sources and contact me for a keep vote. --Kevin Murray 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per comment above. - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What type of sources should be added? Initially there were links to outside and inside sources, but they were deleted. 13:20, 16 June 2007 Paprikaphd

• That is bizzare that the nominator of the AfD removed the reference links; I put them back just now. The references are weak mostly pertaining to the one trial, but along with other references they could build notability. --Kevin Murray 23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the references because they didn't seem like references at all. They just seemed like news articles that mentioned him, not so much as references. Going through them one by one...the first one proves he exists. The second, third, and fourth ones proves he presided over the Steven Avery trial. Nothing to prove he's notable. Also, the fourth one should be removed as blogs are not considered reliable sources per our standards. Also, another reason I removed the links was that it's excessive to have 3 links to the Steven Avery trial if the only comment about the trial in the article is: "Judge Willis recently presided over the highly publicized Steven Avery homicide trial." Metros 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Metros, I agree with removing the blog, but the others seem appropriate to keep. Surely you were acting with good intentions, but it seems like nominators in AfD's should not be modifying the articles while "prosecuting" the notability -- it's kind of like two rights adding up to a wrong. I think that you'd be better off criticizing the references rather than removing them. --Kevin Murray 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To author: WP does not allow editors to write articles from their personal knowledge without providing verifiable citations to sources. This article can not stay in perpetuity without sources, although it seem premature to pull the plug without giving you time to provide citations. How do you know all of this about him? There must be some record of his accomplishments. --Kevin Murray 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in the article is true and verifiable, I'm working on getting sources. Some of them are harder to obtain because archived records are not available on line and I want to make sure the citations are accurate. I'm requesting that you give me a little time to fill in the blanks before deleting. I understand that I can't have unverified comments, and am in the process of sourcing them. --paprikaphd 08:13, 18 June 2007

• Keep With the references to the trial and the State of Wisconsin site on judges, I'm convinced of the notability. But I do believe that more references should be obtained over time. --Kevin Murray 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What in those sources provided notability to him in your opinion? 1 simply listed his name in the registry of judges. 3 said he presided over a murder trial. Metros 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As the judge in a notable trial I think that he beomes a legitimate person of interest. Readers of the article on the trial would have questions about him. Notability is defined in WP as being noticed, and he was by the significant press coverage. Once notability is established an article can be written using minor verifiable source material (Wisconsin site etc.); however, the references to most of the information in the article are lacking. But this is not a reason for deletion, but rather a reason for more research. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Steven Avery. As the judge in a semi-notable trial, it is the trial, and not the judge, which is notable. This hideously conflates news coverage (and, relatedly, the mass reproduction of AP/Reuters spawned wire stories which produces absurd Ghit numbers) with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rightly or wrongly Patrick Willis is all over the national news and prominently featured as doing this and doing that regarding the trial. This begs the question, who is Patrick Willis? It is our job at WP to answer those questions for our readers, if we can. Precedents exist in other trials such as Lance Ito from the OJ Simpson trial. I say when in doubt, what is the harm of inclusion to the benefit of our readership. This article would not have gotten to AfD in its current improved condition -- it is not a great article but it exceeds our minimum standards. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been improved since the deletion nomination, and now meets the WP:BIO criteria, and continues to have citations added on a daily basis since the article's creation. --paprikaphd 07:36, 19 June 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballybeen Housing Estate[edit]

Not-notable housing estate in a large city. Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable housing complex (6 unique hits from Google.com). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, no assertions of notability. - Zeibura ^Talk 00:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If small rural towns are notable, why not major housing estates? What the article needs is historical background, and it probably won't be found on Google. Note the tentative reference to its Protestant identity; asserting notability may take some diplomatic skill in the context of Northern Ireland. That's no reason not to write the article. Compare another (English) housing estate article, Oliver Close. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quick comment first: a search for Ballybeen, rather than Ballybeen housing estate, will generate a lot more results (20,000 +), and from a quick check through the first couple, most refer to the housing estate in Dundonald, which is the subject of the article. (I think there is another small village called Ballybeen somewhere else in Northern Ireland.) But keep as valid place article; the population of the estate must be approaching ten thousand. It was 9170 in 2001 FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dundonald as per Flowerpotman, most likely in the "Places of interest" section. Unless some reliable sources say further why this is notable, I still don't see anything notable enough about this place besides just being the biggest housing estate there. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dundonald, as suggested by Moeron above as well. Nothing notable here.xC | ☎ 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Switched to merge as above, unless the "second largest housing estate" comment can be verified and more info added to the article. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:22, 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 delete. Sr13 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Defense League[edit]

Often forums aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, but in this case it's a forum association. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, so Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete on lack of notability --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Captain panda 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SparsityProblem 01:34, 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 Delete. Particularly for lack of verification for any notability. We can't just go by google hits. Tyrenius 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Rhodes and the River Band[edit]

Dusty Rhodes and the River Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this music group fails WP:MUSIC and is not notable; was tagged speedy but tag was removed - still not notable. Most content added by user who is brother of a band member - see history and talk page, so seems a little vanitycruft too. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The COI issue concerns me, but they have toured/performed with notable acts, the band's name brings up a ton of google hits, and they appear to have been around for a while. More refs need to be added though. --Bongwarrior 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Band has 141,000 ghits, including a number of reviews. Article needs definite copyedit work and additional citation. --Nonstopdrivel 00:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What search string did you use? I get about 80% less putting quotes around the name. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, with 15,400 ghits (using quotes), there is evidence of notability. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on figures with far fewer search engine hits, and as I stated, this band does have reviews with other websites. --Nonstopdrivel 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among those hits can any that rise to a Wikipedia reliable source be found? I see Wikipedia, mirrors, and announcements of the group's concerts usually be ticket sellers, the bar in question, or what have you? Does that make a band notable? If so, let's just chuck WP:MUSIC out and fixate on whether the venues that a band plays hypes the sales of tickets via internet. This is a group without a chart appearing single, right? Many groups with a chart appearing single are not notable what differentiates these guys. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - A single, future and undocumented album does not a notable band make. I can't find anything on the 'net about the band besides trivial coverage (per WP:BAND, event listings, ticket sales, etc). Coren 22:25, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wafulz 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Educational Technology Conference[edit]

Alabama Educational Technology Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be too notable. Just a conference for local teachers where they discuss policies and local matters. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I wikified it a bit, but am concerned that an annual conference that started in 2003 may not be notable. Full disclosure: This is in my hometown. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SparsityProblem 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete it doesn't seem to be very notable.

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

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

The result was keep. There is some merit in arguments advanced for renaming the article, or merging it with Welsh Peers, which also survived its deletion listing. This would answer the nominator's objection to the term "welsh nobility" as potentially misleading. I leave matters of merging and renaming up to the editors of the article. --Tony Sidaway 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Nobility Family Seats[edit]

Welsh Nobility Family Seats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for this miscellaneous collection of information. It might be better if there were a Welsh Peerage; but WP is not the place to invent one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information to article on Welsh Peers which is also here at AfD but should be kept. --Bduke 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because it is part of a larger series of Family Seats which will give examples of English, Scottish, and Irish family seats. Many of these family seats are already articals in Wikipedia. I only listed them in connection to leading Welsh-titled peers (those Welsh peers whose primary title is of a Welsh named origion). Drachenfyre 07:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this list shall be expanded, and is itself part of a possible larger series of family seats connected to that page. Eventually many other family seats will be listed, I only started with this Welsh list because it was the one I am most familure with. Please take this into account when you consider the merging. In my opinion, the Welsh Peers page will be too cumbersom to have this added to it, and the Family seat page itself will eventually become unwieldly when all the additional family seats are added for England, Scotland, Ireland, and elsewhere. I suppose what I am asking is please consider the larger series that shall be added eventually when in connection to the Family seats page. I ask that people also realize that these family seats themselves will be expanded upon, and 64.134.101.98 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)((correcting signature)) Drachenfyre 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implore everyone to look at the Scottish Nobility Family Seats as well, this will be part of a larger series of family seats complied into an easy reference. Drachenfyre 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator seems to be expressing an opinion through the AfD. The assertion might be correct, but this is not the correct forum to evaluate the assertion that there are no Welsh peers. --Kevin Murray 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bduke. Eusebeus 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kevin Murray. Edward321 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article Welsh Peers as a major heading; per Bduke. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge article with Welsh Peers although I dont know which should be the lead. The is no such thing as the Welsh Peerage but there are Welsh based peerages.--Vintagekits 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nom Astrotrain 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Any useful info can go into the Welsh Peers article. --John 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Welsh Peers should be deleted as well Astrotrain 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or renamed possibly as Landed Gentry Seats in Wales. That would make more sense. There are no such things as Welsh peers (to the best of my knowledge) only the Peerages of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Wales is thrown in with England. David Lauder 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding this and Scottish Nobility Family Seats, I would suggest that if we are having lists of family seats, they should be grouped by Peerage, ie Family seats of the Peerage of Scotland, and England, GB, UK, as this is how peers are arranged, not by the geographical location of their houses. Otherwise merge the Welsh list to Welsh Peers as above, and merge Scottish list to (eg) Peerage of Scotland. Edward Waverley 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about adding them to the other peerage pages. But potentially the list will become to large for the origional page, so felt it best to simply create a new page for them "Gentry Seats" is doable as David Lauder suggest. I would favor listing the Gentry Seats by the tittle's territorial qualification or place name origion (thus, "Gentry Seats of Wales," "Gentry Seats of Scotland," and "Gentry Seats of England"), so that you would group the Scottish place-name tittles together, and so on. Drachenfyre 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that proposal actually! Astrotrain 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My own view is that "Gentry Seats" sounds a bit tacky. "Landed Gentry Seats" or possibly "County Seats" or "Family Seats" would be better. David Lauder 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lauder: I agree with your last statement. I would suggest "Family Seats" to be the better option, preferenced with the constituenty country before hand, thus "Welsh Family Seats," "Scottish Family Seats," and "English Family Seats." I do not think every title holder could be said to be "landed" anymore. Unles we use it as the territorial designation. County Seats I am partial to as well. As of corse most of these families now have residences elsewhere too. Finely, what of "Historic (country) Family Seats"? This broadens it somewhat. Would this be satisfactory to change the votes? 70.11.113.234 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Drachenfyre 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've persuaded me - though I would propose Family seats in Wales, etc, to make clear it is the seats which are in Wales, not necessarily Welsh families. Welsh family seats could be seats of Welsh families anywhere. Is Family Seat normally capitalised? Edward Waverley 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were saying "Family Seats" or even "Historic Family Seats" (no need for '(country)' as no-one has a Family Seat in a connurbation) that might be even better because of the number of families forced, over the past century, to part with their seats. The articles might then have greater meaning. David Lauder 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on many different points. We should move the finer discussion to the page itself. But on the outset I would prefer to link the title to the seat, with titles associated with constituient country. Drachenfyre 05:09, 23 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 per consensus. Peacent 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Peers[edit]

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

Contested Prod. There is no such thing as the Welsh Peerage; this indiscriminate collection of information is a list of peers, one of them a Campbell, others quite English, who take their titles from Wales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article gives some interesting information on the peerage in Wales and of course explains that there are now no Welsh Peerage. It is not called the "Welsh Peerage", but "Welsh Peers". I believe there is a legitimate interest in listing those peers with a connection to Wales. So, keep, but merge in the information on their country houses. --Bduke 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it lists those peers whose titles have a Welsh place-named origion (Anglesea, Dwyfor, Abergavenny for instance) or its territorial qualification is within Wales, such as Baron Champion, of Pontypridd in the County of Glamorgan. It currently states in the artical that Welsh Peers do not form a seperate peerage from the English, British, and UK peerages in and of itself, simply identifies those peers whose titles are of or in Wales. The tittle holder may or may not be of Welsh ethnicity, but the title-holders ethnicity is not the point of the artical at all. There is a valid interest as to what peerage titles are in Wales, as opposed to elsewhere. Drachenfyre 06:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Further note, the title of the Campbell mentioned is Earl Cawdor, of Castlemartin in the County of Pembroke. It is the territorial qualification within his title in the Historic counties of Wales of Pembrokeshire that qualifies him for this list. Additionally, if you read the artical on the Earl Cawdor, you may be surprised to note that this branch was itself decended from a cadet branch which moved to Carmarthenshire, Wales, and represented this region in Parliment. But this should not be grounds for deletion Drachenfyre 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with all the reasons above from those that would like to keep the page, particularly those of the creator of the page. Having contributed to the page myself, it is an excellent resource as a lot of successful people tend to move out of Wales and be more 'UK' based, and this gives us an indication of their roots e.g. Michael Heseltine. Equally, some people gain their 'success' from moving the other way e.g. Alan Howarth, Baron Howarth of Newport. Perhaps as a compromise, the name of the page should be changed so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps 'Peerage in Wales' and then start with an opening paragraph that explains background to the peerage in the UK etc. Glamorgan 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was myself thinking that Welsh Titles may be a compromise to avoid such confusion. I thought Welsh peers was more in keeping with the current British peerage divisions, as opposed to names such as Peerage in Wales or Welsh peerage. Drachenfyre 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator seems to be expressing an opinion through the AfD. The assertion might be correct, but this is not the correct forum to evaluate the assertion that there are no Welsh peers. --Kevin Murray 14:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - simply that, there are similar articles on English, Scottish and Irish peers. True there is no such thing as a distinct Welsh Peerage, but there are Welsh Peers. Rgds, --Trident13 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and merge in Welsh Nobility Family Seats as a major heading. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Drachenfyre as a valid article on which peerages have territorial links in their titles with Wales. No need to rename: any possible confusion about whether this is an article about a "Welsh Peerage" is cleared up by the contents of the article, and the current name has the benefit of being short and direct. Bencherlite 08:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but chnage name once afd has been finished. Lots of useful information here, SqueakBox 01:47, 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 delete. This article catastrophically fails verifiability and by not having proper inclusion criteria it risks neutral point of view problems. While the deletion nomination was flawed, this article is an irretrievable mess created one afternoon by an occasional editor who didn't even log in. No reason to suppose it will ever be anything more than it is. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political clans in Philippines[edit]

List of political clans in Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is nominated for deletion by 159.53.110.143. I'm completing the nomination for them. No opinion Delete. Resurgent insurgent 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: And have you any grounds to proffer for the deletion?  RGTraynor  18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like listcruft to me. Do we have lists for families whose members serve in the parliaments of any other country? Resurgent insurgent 02:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet. Let's see if we can get sources and a neutrality check. YechielMan 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would be better to create articles about the prominent political families of the Philippines (the Filipino equivalents of, say, Bush family or Kennedy family) and put them into a new Category:Political families of the Philippines. Organizing the list by province is probably not needed since there must have been political families whose members served in government from more than one province. --Metropolitan90 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - it seems like "trapos" are the Filipino equivalent of political parties, it can perhaps be deleted when an alternative is created (as mentioned above) SalaSkan 12:25, 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, KrakatoaKatie 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & clean up I see two problems: (1) lack of references, and (2) lack of explanation of the notability of the topic. But, I see merit in the subect, while not in the article (list) as presented. --Kevin Murray 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps each and every municipality has one. And that's 40,000+ of those. --Howard the Duck 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the list states that the inclusion criteria is only nationally notable "clans" (in the national government). John Vandenberg 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why is it listed on a per province/city basis? And which is national and which is not? Are "clans" with members in the lower house not national? --Howard the Duck 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I dont know. But as-is, the list isnt out of control. Unless someone does know that this list will turn out to be an indiscriminate list, I dont follow your reason for deletion. If you know this subject well, is there a better inclusion criteria that would make this list less likely to become out of control? John Vandenberg 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the best time to be preemptive. Many political clans claim they're not, and their critics say they are, which will lead to edit wars. Also, this will turn up to be a directory, eventually. --Howard the Duck 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Salaskan. John Vandenberg 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with a different article This article makes a list of political clans, but does not make a thorough discussion of political clans in the Philippine context. My take is that the main topic, that of political clans, should precede any such list. --- Tito Pao 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From this discussion, I've come to realize that I'm not sure what a "political clan" is in the Philippines, and this article certainly doesn't explain it. As I suggested above, I thought it was a family with multiple members in government, but now I'm not sure about that. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 22 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. Peacent 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom (pokemon)[edit]

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

Creating AfD page for Lreford (talk · contribs), who added a link to this on today's AfD page but didn't create a corresponding entry first. Anyway, this is basically a hoax the creator claims is a Pokémon, but is obviously something made up in school one day. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, fairly obvious nonsense. The pic says it all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CSD G1 excludes hoaxes, which is what the subject is. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced non-sense. --Cheers, Komdori 22:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as made up in school one day. The picture's awesome, though. Useight 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
• Delete per above. Blatant parody, perhaps even subtle vandalism. --Nonstopdrivel 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These kind of articles detract from serious, scholarly work being done in the field of Pokemon research. ~ Infrangible 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that was the best thing I've read all day. Useight 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's an unreal pokemon. Bigtop 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom (get it?), and because I can't find an exclusion to WP:HOAX for things that are really, really hilarious. I'd love to keep it just to see how many people we can get to go thru the steps of trying to catch one. Capmango 17:00, 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. Lack of Google hits is indeed not a good reason to delete, but lack of third-party verification is, and that concern has not been addressed here. No prejudice to recreation if reliable third-party material can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Colney Cricket Club[edit]

London Colney Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket club. Only 233 Google hits. Astrovega 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. A type of cricket club is still notable. Images needs to be smaller.--Edtropolis 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just as not all football clubs are notable, so with cricket clubs. This one appears to miss the mark by some distance. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:GHITS is no criteria for deletion, and historical information in article attests to notability. Capmango 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree, WP:GHITS is not a reason to delete. If it needs working doing to make it more presentable, then so be it. There are other entries from similar cricket clubs that appear to have been left untouched. It is my impression that ((User:Astrovega|Astrovega]] has had a problem with this since it's creation. This is a free encyclopedia and London Colney Cricket Club will only become more notable with more visible presence. As can be seen from the article, it does have a period of history. 212.74.97.211 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable independent sources. If the article is kept, it needs to be cleaned up severely- it's a massive mess.-Wafulz 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a village cricket team playing in a non-notable local league, of which there are thousands in the UK. Indeed they are currently near the foot of Division 3 in the Hertfordshire Cricket League - it is hard to get less notable! There is no article for the league - surely this should be created first? The slabs of history completely lack any independent sources, there is no claim to notability and the article is a clear failure of WP:V and WP:N. TerriersFan 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Important comment - I have now deleted the long history section as copyvio from here pending better authority than the unattributed statement on the talk page. TerriersFan 22:27, 22 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. Peacent 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DECA (organization)[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing organization. Corvus cornix 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DECA is a fairly large student organization that exists in thousands of high schools and colleges throughout the United States (and a limited number in some other countries and US territories). DECA (and other student organizations like FFA, FBLA-PBL, HOSA, etc.) faces the issue that it's hard to prove the notability of the organization because you never really hear about the national organization, but you always hear about the local chapters who are doing things in the community. Metros 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metros, I respect your opinion, but there are no claims of notability in this article, whatsoever. Corvus cornix 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added one. It is one of only ten organizations to be recognized as student organizations by the Department of Education (see http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/vso.html). Granted this is only one reference for now, but I think it shows a pretty strong case for notability. Metros 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a student mentoring organization similar to Junior Achievement. BusinessWeek capsule. It's easy enough to find articles about individual chapters, a bit harder to find an overview. But it's been around for 60 years and operates in every one of the 50 states. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no claims of notability in the article. Corvus cornix 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD is not cleanup. Perhaps you could speak to the question of notability, instead of wikilawyering. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way am I wikilawyering? By all rights, I should have listed it for speedy deletion as a non-notable organization whose article makes no claims of notability, but I listed it for AfD so that other eyes could see it. WP:AGF. Corvus cornix 22:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep for now per Metros; I'm inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt for now. It definitely requires substantial copyediting and referencing, however. --Nonstopdrivel 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can agree with Corvus's concerns, this article makes a poor show of establishing the notability of the subject. Some third-party coverage would be appropriate to establishing the notability of this organization. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Metros' addition of the Department of Education link asserts the notability of the organization. I agree that it's given short shrift in the article, but that's cause for expanding the article, not deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know that numbers aren't everything by any stretch of the imagination, but [9] asserts 172,000 students in 4,500 High Schools, and [10] asserts 13,000 students at 200 college campuses. From WP:CORP, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." While the above are primary and dependent sources (and so more would be required,) is there really any doubt that DECA/DEX is an organization that is national in scale? I'd say that this is a case for a reasonable exception / strong encouragement to locate secondary sources that would lock notability completely. LaughingVulcan 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a single external source; I wouldnt say it's recognized by the US office, but simply listed--the page simply reprints their blurb. But in order to improve the article so that maybe it will be kept, I removed a good deal of the puffery and excess detail.DGG 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm surprised that this article would be deleted without checking for external sources first. I say we give it some time, because DECA has been an official non-profit organization in the United States for over 60 years. "DECA Inc. is a nonpartisan, non–sectarian 501(c)(3) association of students, teachers, and administrators and is recognized and endorsed by all 50 state departments of education and the U.S. Department of Education." That may be from their website, but I work for one of the state chapters, and we have the photographs and documents that back all of this up. Anyway, I'll locate some press articles and other references and post them here within the next few days. NOTE: DECA is listed on many High School websites such as this: http://www.wayne.k12.in.us/bdecac/info.htm I don't know if this helps prove any validity, but the associated schools certainly are an external source. Here's a book: http://www.amazon.com/DECA-Continuing-Excellence-Robert-Berns/dp/0965180999/ref=sr_1_1/103-1162646-9711822?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182184064&sr=8-1 by this guy: http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/edhd/stl/bios/rberns.html
  • What do you mean, "give it some time"? The article has been here for two and a half years. Corvus cornix 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you so bent on deleting it? It's a fact that it's an organization, and the article simply states that with links to the pages.
  • The problem with the book you gave the Amazon link to is that it is published by DECA, and thus is not an independent source. (Please keep in mind that I'm on the Keep side of this. While I can see good faith in the nomination, to me deleting this is equivalent to saying that the article on Boy Scouts of America should be deleted, though that article is better sourced. But I had to note the above.) LaughingVulcan 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Here's one that's not by DECA: http://www.goodheartwillcox.com/products/detail.asp?id=361 I'll have another one posted in a little bit...
      • Here is another book that is not by DECA but has DECA information in it: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/index.html
• Keep - This article is definitely about a notable organization, whether it boasts it or not, between the events, teaching, books, recognition, and oppurtunities it offers, I completely agree with LaughingVulcan, it's like putting Boy Scouts of America up for Deletion Redian (Talk) 02:15, 21 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 tickled to death. JoshuaZ 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Tickle Short[edit]

Nickelodeon Tickle Short (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't appear to be notable. It's about a clip from a television station tha aired 12 years ago. I can't see any historical value or usability in research to justify this being an encyclopedia article. ClarusWorks 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable. ~ Wikihermit 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bogus and unencyclopedic, probably fancruft. --Nonstopdrivel 00:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OMG, someone must have been desperate to create an article. Unencyclopedic, non-notable, no reliable sources. Must I go on? The Filmaker 23:19, 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 Merge to Inyo County, California. Tyrenius 01:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in Inyo County, California[edit]

List of school districts in Inyo County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of redlinks that has essentially remained untouched since created in 2005. Perhaps a merge into a list of California school districts, or turn into a cat... or just delete it. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary list. Two years unedited, near orphan and most likely unwatched is long enough. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this any different from the other 57 articles in Category:Lists of California school districts by county, such as List of school districts in Orange County, California and List of school districts in San Mateo County, California? How are you proposing that redlinks be categorized? And why is such an obviously large task of writing about all of the school districts in California being given a deadline? Uncle G 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why don't put it instead in the Inyo County article instead?--JForget 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Obviously there is no interest in maintaining, much less expanding, the project. Let the orphan die. --Nonstopdrivel 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Inyo County. Information about the education system is within local interest, and is well covered in the article about the place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No need for separate article. - grubber 19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the county article, like the list of cities and towns that is already there. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThese are necessary as a way of handling the articles that will be made by merging the trivial articles on individual schools. DGG 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merging will only make the county article a list of lists, so the "cure" is worse than the disease. I don't have any problem with these lists full of redlinks. I often refer tot them when creating articles to make sure I am using the correct name, and not creating duplicates. Dhaluza 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Capmango's argument (just below) convinces me. Uniformity isn't an absolute concept by any means, but it's useful to have this information as an article if all the other California counties will have similar school-districts lists. Deleting will just cause confusion for readers, it seems to me.Merge Overall, I like Dhaluza's arguments, but I have no problem with the county article looking a bit more like a list of lists. Nothing wrong with a list of redlinks since, for one thing, it helps readers understand that they don't have to type in each district's name in order to search for it. It could very well be useful for readers to know simply that this number of districts exists in the county and these are the names. I see no need to keep such a short article when the county article is small and could easily accommodate the extra information.Noroton 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at the risk of being accused of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, every county in California has this list, and it would be really odd for every county except Inyo to have it (this is an organizational sanity argument, not an otherstuffexists argument). Not surprising that it hasn't changed since being created, as one would only expect the list to change if school districts were added or merged. Capmango 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. It's a few redlinks. Why clutter a county page with them? We have to draw the upmerge line somewhere, i say draw it here. Heck if I saw that while browsing random articles I would've speedied it.--Wizardman 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I don't see any big problem with merging this into Inyo County, California which has room for this information, especially if it is useful in the long-run to help create school district articles and would serve a similar purpose to what is already in the article. Camaron1 | Chris 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To Inyo County, California as another example of Schoolcruft. A list of school districts (all redlinks) within a country is unencylopedic, does not meet notablity, and will not serve any useful purpose. A reduced bit of information about the school districts in the context of the county education system would be acceptable. There is no reasonable basis for this list to remain as an article in it's own right. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as above per User:Sjakkalle, etc... Eusebeus 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does eveyone want to merge a bunhc of redlinks, when this as actually almost speedyable by csd a3?--Wizardman 16:37, 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 Delete. Peacent 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Mitic[edit]

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

Contested prod. Other than cleanup and wikification, the article has only been edited by the subject himself. When I found it, it was a carbon copy of www.viktormitic.ca. I tried to clean the article up a few days ago but my changes were mostly reverted. I can't find much about this artist, and I don't think it meets the notability standard. KrakatoaKatie 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The author of the article was no other than Viktor Mitic himself. He lacks notability; and has no sources; and is probably telling lies about himself anyway. Definitely delete; and please: immediately. Meldshal42 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AGF. Still, no notability, no claims of notability. Delete. Corvus cornix 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficiently notable, trying to promote his art business. StudierMalMarburg 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The author of this article doesn't appear to be very noteworthy, and has essentially posted an autobiography to Wikipedia. If anything, this should be moved to a userpage, it doesn't have any place in the regular namespace. ClarusWorks 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for non-notability, probable COI, and blatant POV: "If you look deeply enough into Viktor Mitic’s hectic new paintings, which seem always to be in the throes of being born from the boards upon which he builds them (he doesn’t use canvas), you will perhaps be able to see all the way back through time to the days of a rigorous, professional art training he once received in his native Serbia." Oh, and did I mention extremely poor writing? --Nonstopdrivel 00:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete for being self-aggrandizing jibberjabber. Eddie.willers 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ease our pain. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete No assertion of notability, problems with COI and copyright violation. Edward321 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• yeah, okay, delete, but come on, everyone. Be nice. WP:CIVIL WP:AGF!!! Capmango 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish recipients of the National Medal of Science[edit]

List of Jewish recipients of the National Medal of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unusual intersection by religion/ethnicity. Prone to severe original research. Untouched for a year. Unprecedented. overextensive subdivision. No other subdivision of its kind: List of Christian recipients of the National Medal of Science, List of African-American recipients of the National Medal of Science etc. Bulldog123 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom Bulldog123 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — No consensus policy has been approved regarding intersections of ethnicity/religion and other factors. List is unambiguous, limited in scope, notable and is not in any sense defamatory. However it is in need of additional sources. The tendency of possible editors, the duration without edits and precedence are not valid criteria for deletion. Nominator is highly argumentative, so I'm not planning to return for discussion. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But notability of intersections is considered a guideline, and opening the floodgates is also an issue. WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL please. Bulldog123 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference:

People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.. CG 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; it's just an alphabetization of this list at JInfo.org. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — same results could be better achieved using the Semantic MediaWiki or categories. Cedars 02:53, 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 delete as basically being a directory listing.-Wafulz 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Taxi and Limo Operators[edit]

Toronto Taxi and Limo Operators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is essentially a list of Toronto's taxi and Limo operators, and Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. TheWhile the little bits about licensing could be merged into Toronto or Toronto Licensing Commission, The rest the article should go. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have amended the wording of my nomination to emphasise that I am bringing the article here for a delete; I would not have nominated the article otherwise. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Transwikify to Yellowikis.--Edtropolis 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteand transwiki - Per WP:NOT#DIR and per Edtropolis. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that there is no transwikification queue for Yellowikis for the closing administrator to submit this article to. Any editor who wants an article transwikified to Yellowikis or to any other wiki for which there is no transwikification queue must be prepared to do the work of transwikification xyrself. I've transwikified the article to Yellowikis, because it makes a useful to-do list.

  Also note that merger and deletion are mutually incompatible, because of the requirements of the GFDL. If you want the lists removed but the rest of the article content retained, then exercise the ordinary editing tools that you posess in order to make it so. Don't bring articles to AFD where you don't actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. Trimming the article of its lists and merging it elsewhere are things that you can do yourself, without an administrator needing to use any administrator tools. Even editors without accounts posess all of the tools necessary for doing that. If you want content kept, here or in another article, then deletion is not what you want. Uncle G 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge paragraphs: taxi section with Toronto licensing authority; Limos with Greater Toronto Airport Authority - if the material is not adeq1uately covered there. Delete everything else. An alternative might be to convert the article to Toronto taxi and limo licensing leaving these two paragraphs and deleting all the lists. I merely express a suggerstion: I leave it for others to carry it out. Peterkingiron 09:01, 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 delete. The list is basically a mirror of a sole source. If someone wants to create a well-defined list with multiple sources, they can message me or another admin to retrieve it.-Wafulz 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest heists[edit]

Article is poorly sourced, unotable, and a bad subject format. Andrew615 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Listcruft.--Edtropolis 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up per Wikipedia:Cruftcruft --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep subject of the article is encyclopedic, but the article needs better sourcing, and a clearer explanation of teh selection criteria. Alansohn 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First of all is The History Channel not a good enough source?.And I don't know about criteria or sources, I just trusted the 1 source I was able to find, this is the only professional source I could find for such a topic.Rodrigue 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The source provided lists them as "ten of the largest, most ingenious heists in history." That's great selection criteria for a TV show, where photogenics is a desired quality, but we need some sort of objective criteria for a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to grant for now that the subject is notable, but thus source does not establish the largest heists, as the title describes. Alansohn 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The sole reference is not to The History Channel but rather to the Canadian History Television website, which does not identify the author of the list of big heists. The website does not identify any group of editors who make sure the content is accurate and of a neutral and scholarly point of view. No source is listed for the information. I have seen amazing crap put on the TV screen by a number of TV organizations, so no, a TV channel is not always a good enough source by itself to serve as a reliable source. It also appears to be largely an entertainment channel, running a large number of TV dramas such as CSI and JAG. Edison 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. If these heists are so notable individually, perhaps entries could be created for each of them. --Nonstopdrivel 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is VERY close to a copyright violation here, but if that's not concern enough, I'd still say it's a problem because lists of the largest X just tend to proflierate. If somebody wants to make articles about these heists, certainly the documentary would be a valid demonstration of notability, but listing them all together? Not what I consider the best idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once the individual cases have articles, someone could collect them in a Category:Thefts of over 10 million dollars or a Heists considered the biggest ever. But the current state of the article in question is awful. --Quuxplusone 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Several of them already have an article in wikipedia:Great Brinks Robbery, The Great Train Robbery of 1963, and the Lufthansa heist, and they aren't even very well sourced. Rodrigue 16:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps this is a better source [[11]], it seems alot more accurate, it only says greatest robberies, but look at the amounts.It is most likely an accurate list, arranged from highest to lowest, of the most money ever taken from a robbery.Don't know about its techical reliability, but the info should easily be verifiable. Rodrigue 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think that you should do some more checking to see if there are articles about the various heists, and add a blue-link to them. I never know why people feel it necessary to do a blue-link to words like car or bank, but not to something that would add to the understanding. Second, the statement that a ranking of the heists would require adjustments for inflation and currency conversions that just "can't be done", that sounds like an excuse for not doing more. Finally, what's the definition of successful? Did they get away scot-free? Not clear from the article. It could be a good subject, worth expanding upon. Mandsford 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since this source [12] seems better in that it lists in order the largest to the tenth largest heists, the list needs to be rewritten to conform to that source. Rodrigue 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete/Userfy Until Verifiable The problem with the 2spare source is the same as previous ones: the source does not define its criteria or list its own sources. Looking at the comments below that list of 10 "greatest" (whatever that means) at least two people cite thefts for larger dollar amounts than the ones in the list (1) ~$100M Antwerp Diamond Center theft in 2003 [news article here] and (2) ~75M euro 2005 KLM Diamond heist [here]. Neither appear in the source, or in this article, which bring both into question. I'd say copy the existing data to the creator's sandbox until verifiable sources could be found as the topic itself seems of interest to those researching notable large crimes, but without a case-by-case citation of EACH item, or at the very least a scholarly reference covering the entire topic, this kind of article can only cause people to doubt Wikipedia's reliability. No prejudice against the topic, just the current execution. -Markeer 13:19, 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.--Wafulz 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Chaimovich[edit]

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

Vanity pianist. Won a couple of awards in his youth. Big deal. `'юзырь:mikka 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His web site seems to be in German. Not enough sources to comply with WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO, and WP:COI concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:49, 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.--Wafulz 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze composer[edit]

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

Software vanity. `'юзырь:mikka 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: However the article looks a lot similar to other existing softwares like NVU, Dreamweaver and Amaya. If this should be removed, then so should all others. Otherwise it is unfair. All of them seem to be written in a similar manner. Moreover, it is written in an objective manner and does not seem to be like an advertisement.

• Keep. This software does exist.--Edtropolis 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dog does exist as well. And a pop-up calculator written by my son. Also a good advise it to actually look into the supposed policies you are quoting.`'юзырь:mikka 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "This software does exist"? Yes, but that is irrelevant. There should NOT be a wikipedia article for every existing piece of software. The guidline you link to; Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that software needs to be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)" in order to be notable enough that it warrants an article. I am unfamiliar with Blaze composer, but the article does not establish any notability, an therfore my vote would be to delete this article.Dr bab 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. Major contributor/creator of the article is the software developer. The software (Blaze Composer) does exist, but this article reads like an ad for the latest edition--Ispy1981 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Almost word-for-word what I intended to say. --Nonstopdrivel 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources explaining notability. Weregerbil 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources. Looked for independent review via google and could not find anything but download links and blurbs that were taken directly from the author of the software. -- Whpq 19:09, 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 Speedy delete as copyvio. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biorobotics and locomotion lab[edit]

Biorobotics and locomotion lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a specific, non-notable lab that studies biorobotics and human locomotion. They build successful robots. Interesting, but unencyclopedic. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) And uncited. Delete. --Nonstopdrivel 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of assertion of notability and for reading like a press release. Someguy1221 01:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - as a copyvio taken from http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/locomotion_and_robotics/overview.htm - tagged as such -- Whpq 19:12, 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.... I mean, wtf? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panimdim[edit]

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

Wild speculations about a rare family name `'юзырь:mikka 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing special about this family name. Doesn't seem to meet requirements of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete swiftly and mercilessly. This article transcends speculation. I think it enters the realm of parody, if not downright vandalism. A Google search on the Tober study returned exactly zero hits. --Nonstopdrivel 01:08, 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 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.O.O.P[edit]

W.O.O.P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fictional organization. I would consider a redirect to Totally Spies.--Edtropolis 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's a non-notable toy. But I would consider redirecting.--Edtropolis 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete-It's a non-notable game probably invented by a group of friends. I can't find any references.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, while it isn't necessarily germane, who still uses periods in acronyms nowadays anyway? And the acronym itself is highly suspicious. Sounds like someone was having a "whoop" at Wikipedia's expense. Delete--Nonstopdrivel 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No assertion of notability, and no sources given. Web searching also draws a blank. Delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to assert notability, and seems to violate WP:NOT#INFO, namely Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on how to play a game. --Kyoko 07:16, 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. Peacent 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Keyword Driven Approach to Software Test Automation[edit]

A Keyword Driven Approach to Software Test Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod of unencyclopedic how-to guide/essay Katr67 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another test framework. Essay, ad, likely a copy-pasta from somewhere, notability not established, technical text not suitable for encyclopedia etc. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to find evidence of copyvio using Google, but nothing turned up. Katr67 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - Blantant Advertising.--Edtropolis 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - I can barely understand this mess, much less determine how to clean it up. Furthermore, it's not notable. 128.158.145.51 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at the title and thought, "oy." Delete per above comments. Non-notable technical...Someguy1221 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Long essay-like unencyclopedic mess whose only source seems to be a single section of a web page. —David Eppstein 00:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is the keyword. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged this article for deltetion about 2 months ago. The creator removed the tag but it seems they made no effort to improve the article.--Greatestrowerever 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Capmango 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an essay -- Whpq 19:14, 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 no consensus. Daniel 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sargis Bahirâ[edit]

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

Sargis Bkheera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - include this redirect? → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, I'm going to regret this.) While I'm in favor of stub articles, I feel that this one cannot be developed beyond its current incarnation, and its very purpose is a thinly veiled coatrack article -- an attempt to discredit Mohammad and/or Muslims. The comment by the creator on the talk page reveals an intent to POV-push. No reliable sources are mentioned and, I warrant, none exist. (I plan to do some research on this subject this weekend, and may provide comments later.) A previous AFD of this article is here, which resulted in a decision of delete. -- Merope 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G4. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article in its current form is different from the previously deleted version, which focused more on original research claims about Islamic theology's connection to Assyrian Christianity. G4 does not, in my mind, apply. -- Merope 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I assumed the previous article (which admitttedly I've not seen but presumably the closing admin can review) would've paraphrased the two sentences from the current article somewhere within it and if the decision was to delete the previous substantial version then, unless this one is different - it's only two sentences and not sourced - it should be a CSD G4. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please, have a look here: [13] EliasAlucard|Talk 23:100 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: Thanks. I reviewed the two refs cited at that link. The second ref cannot be a regarded as a reliable source. Nevertheless, I couldn't find any text to suggest Bahira was Muhammad's teacher. The word "teach" does not appear in the first ref and only refers to Muhammad's teachings in the second. If Bahira's notability is based on him being Muhammad's teacher, then those refs do not appear to support this. If it is because he met Muhammad, then again that is not a notable event on its own as we can't have an article on everyone who in their life meets a notable person. As others have suggested in this AfD, it would be better to incorporate this info in another appropriate article, provided it can be properly sourced. It can be expanded over time and once sufficient sources are available, it can be extracted into its own article at the appropriate time. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources only mention this guy's name in passing as some monk who once interacted briefly with Muhammad. Christian apologetic websites like to read into this the possibility that he "taught" Muhammad, but otherwise, he's not notable. We don't need an article for every person named in every historical document about Muhammad's life. - Merzbow 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are reliable scholarly sources about this legend, although it is seldom treated as an actual possibility. See [14], for instance. However, I'm not sure about the title of the article with Sergius as first name and Bahira as last name , as these seem to usually be separate names, possibly for the same (likely mythical) individual. Also, no scholarly references to this guy seem to put the thingamajig over the terminal a. There is some material here for an article, but given the dubious title and lack of relaible sources for its current form, as well as its apparent ownership by someone pushing a viewpoint, it might be judicious to delete it and let someone start a new article with a more appropriate title and well-referenced content at a later date. Sci girl 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. That is precisely what I imagined was the case. I'd be happy to contribute the article about the character's use as a tool in polemics, after doing the appropriate research. -- Merope 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Sci girl, I'm not pushing my viewpoint. This is what I've read about the guy. I've read it on several websites in the past. Also, there's no reason to delete this article and begin anew. If the name is wrong, we'll just redirect. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:21, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply I think the article is biased, because this figure seems to be accepted among scholars as legendary. It does not cite the early sources for this account, although they are widely divergent. For instance, the article to which I linked mentions several of them: "Sergius was described by Lithgow as a 'diverted Thalmudist,' by Th. Herbert as an Italian, by Whetstones as a monk from Constantinople, and by Sandys as a Nestorian monk." I feel that properly constructing an article about this figure would require extensive historical research, and that keeping the article as it is misrepresents a probably mythical individual as a historical one. Sci girl 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There's no good reason to delete this article. Yes, as of now, it's not the best article Wikipedia has to offer. That's because the sources I provided were arrogantly removed, and on top of that, Muslims feel this article is insulting to Muhammad because the article claims he had a Christian teacher. Wikipedia is not about religious censorship, no matter what religion it is. If you give this article time and allow it to expand, it will become better and a lot more encyclopaedic. Nominating it for deletion this fast, is unfair. For example, have a look at this article: [15] It was nominated for deletion at the very beginning. The same reasons were given, "no sources from academic scholars", "no credible sources", et cetera. With a few votes, it was kept. People started working on it. Look at the article now: Aslim Taslam. 19 references. Much better, don't you think? Believe me, if I knew more about this guy, I'd add whatever information and sources I'd be able to contribute with. But, as it is, I'm not an expert on this guy. I'm sure there are Wikipedians out there able to fix this article to the better, but you have to give it some time. If, let's say, three months from now, no one is able to find any useful and credible sources about this guy, nominate it for deletion again and I'm sure it'll be gone. But, I just created this article. Give it a chance to improve. Meanwhile, leave the sources that were removed (aina.org) because I'm sure they'd be useful to other Wikipedians seeking to improve this article. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Elias continues to advance the argument that non-RS sources should be kept simply because they are better than nothing. This is not how Wikipedia operates. - Merzbow 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me, what was the problem with the sources I provided? If you believe there is something wrong with aina.org as a credible source, please provide a source that actually refutes its claims. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:34, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources, not on me to refute unreliable ones. The "Assyrian News Agency" and a sculptress/amateur historian are not a reliable sources for an article on a 7th-century historical figure. - Merzbow 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possibly as an upmerged redirect to a broader article such as Muhammad before Medina. Even if, as some above claim, he be nothing more than a figment of Christian myth used by Christian apologists, the subject meets the notability guidelines. However, the need for reliable sources and neutral point of view may make an article about him difficult to write. In it's current state, improving, upmerging, or making it the subject of an article improvement drive rather than sending it to AfD would seem to me to be better options. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rephrase, to make clear that this is one, moderately hostile tradition. Merging as Caerwine suggests would be acceptable; but a general article on Christian legends about Muhammad, down to his floating coffin, would be a better target. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now as this topic has potential, if only (as suggested above) as a section in a larger article. If there is no serious attempt to upgrade this article with scholarly references and content, it can be resubmitted for deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here is a journal article objectively discussing the alleged meeting: [16]. It is apparently a vehicle used by those critical of Islam, however that does not make non-notable. ~ Infrangible 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "journal" is published by no academic institution I can find. The "Mar Aphram Institute" returns no Google hits, and the "Northbrook Institute for Research and Development" leads to a basically dead webpage. This individual is not notable unless discussed in detail by scholarly sources, which have not been provided. - Merzbow 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Journal of the American Oriental Society talks about him [[17]]. Other books do mention him [[18]] - while I dont know much about this topic, I dont think he is "made up" by Christian extremist as some have suggested here. Chaldean 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment That article essentially treats him as a legend; its title is in fact "A Syriac Bahira Legend." The story is attributed to "tradition" and its current form (as described in the article) to medieval Christian polemic. Sci girl 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone above. It's understandably a touchy subject, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Add references, removed potential bias, and improve on non-bias, and you have a potentially Start-class article. Mouse is back 04:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep provided the references are inserted. Whether he actually lived is not relevant--if there is information on the legend, or if the f istoricity is discussed in sources, that's enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Keep as per Caerwine, Septentrionalis. Edward321 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable references. The article is a POV. --- A. L. M. 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Make the article mention that this person is legendary, and tag it as needing input from a subject matter expert! I am concerned that removing the article would at the very least give the appearance of religious censorship. Capmango 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no content or proof of notability--Sefringle^Talk 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Though not entirely reliable, it is certainly not a POV artical, as no discernable bias or spin is employed. The artical should make it clear that much of what we know about Bhira is weakly substantiated; however, it is important that what little is known, regardless of strength of evidence, is brought to attention. If sources are speculative, then it should be made no secret. A subject is not disqualified if it lacks absolute credence - the very concept of it constitutes an artical of theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.182.56 (talk • contribs)

• NOTE for closing admin: Please review the article in its current form (and if possible compare with one that was deleted before based on AfD consensus) to validate it meets criteria for WP:BIO (Generally, person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.). Being a 7th century historical figure, there should be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability in his own right. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:41, 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 delete despite the cleverness of this hoax... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pofigism[edit]

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

Delete a smart joke which looks like a genuine philosophical article. It was created by known joker who once moved Soviet Ballroom dances to Soviet Bathroom dances. This is a mock Russian term derived from the expression "a mne po figu", i.e. "I don't care (e.g., what happens)". It is used colloquially to refer to an attitude of indifference, passsive neutrality, etc. In other words, it is a Russian langaage dicdef, i.e., doesn't fit even English wiktionary. `'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to contributor: much as I enjoyed reading it, I have to warn you that this kind of editing is disruption of wikipedia and you may get yourself blocked from editing. On the other hand, your article will be very welcome in Uncyclopedia. `'юзырь:mikka 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the Radio Free Europe reference states the following:

  The comments on the celebrations, suggesting that Russians were defying the economic crisis with their unwary optimism, were challenged by a headline in the last pre-holiday issue of the business daily Kommersant (by the way, most Russian newspapers have ceased publication until Jan. 12). Rather than optimism, the paper described the feeling as "pofigism" -- a colloquial expression best translated as "utter carelessness."

• While I think the English term is more appropriately "apathy," and I agree "it is a Russian language dicdef," that is a WP:RS. And, although I am not apathetic about this, I will abstain for now. --Evb-wiki 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, the way the term is presented in the article is a WP:HOAX, so delete. --Evb-wiki 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no single appropriate English term here, a typical untranslatability problem with vague words. While "apathy" is close, this term has a different emotional load. Like I wrote, the term "pofigism" is literally the " 'I don't care' attitude", or as Free Europe put it: the "Devil-May-Care Mood", which has a broad spectrum, from happily messing with something dangerous not thinking about consequences, to apathic doing nothing. `'юзырь:mikka 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure that English has no word for such recklessness, wantonness, abandon, indifference, and disregard? I'm sure that wikt:пофигизм would welcome it if you could think of any. Uncle G 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't believe that Russia can still beat America in some ways? :-) `'юзырь:mikka 01:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does America have to do with it? Uncle G 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it does, this topic is not applicable to Wikipdia (see WP:NOT. Delete without remorse. --Nonstopdrivel 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does the fact that there is no English translation indicate that English speakers are uptight about everything? ~ Infrangible 01:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Isn't it one of the most common ethnic stereotypes about specifically British? I guess America does have synonyms. Try search within ebonics. `'юзырь:mikka 02:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Пофигизм iself is a perfectly legit encyclopedic topic, as it's a significant part of Russian mentality (along with Russian avos'), but the article is original research in its present state, so it should be deleted, unless it's completely rewritten. MaxSem 08:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed about "russian mentality". Assigning various negative traits to whole nations is creeping racism. Thank you for pointing out for another bunch of crap in Russian avos'. I will try to figure out what to do with it. `'юзырь:mikka 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pofigist gives 15400 hits in google, пофигизм gives 252000 and пофигист gives 429000. I am sure it would be a huge gap in wikipedia's coverage if it had no article on such topic. And how can it be a hoax? Can you please point out any incorrect information in the article. There are several sources describing the issue. In fact the topic is somewhat difficult to describe in encyclopedia as it is both ethical term as well as an issue in Russian art. There are also several "pofigist societies". Anyway I think the improvement of the article would be much more positive than deletion.--Certh 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources do not even come close to suggesting the term refers to a "philosophical and ethical teaching." It merely refers to an attitude or a way of approaching life. Regarding the idea of improving the article, you are free to give it a go. --Evb-wiki 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that the search engines find. When you do so, you'll find that quite a lot of those hits are discussion fora where people have chosen "pofigist" as their pseudonym. If you want to make a case for keeping which actually holds water, look through what the search engine returns and see whether you can find any actual sources in there, and cite them. Sources that merely use the word in discussions of other things aren't any good, either, as they are of no use in constructing a proper article. As already pointed out above, for example, the Radio Free Europe article that you've cited doesn't actually discuss the concept of pofigism at all. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it's completely rewritten. Pofigism is just a Russian slang word, means being totally indifferent to everything. // vh16^ru talk 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per vh16 above. I'm from Belarus and we mostly share the culture with Russia, so I know Russian slang. -- Paul Pogonyshev 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per being an obvious prank. May be rewritten though, if presented as a slang term as numerously stated above. --ssr 19:39, 21 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. Peacent 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktropolis Space Center[edit]

Nicktropolis Space Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this article and the prod was removed by an IP. This is just a subset of the article Nicktropolis and has no need for an article by itself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article in no way establishes the notability of this space center outside of the game. Dr bab 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Gaming.Wikia has the source.--Edtropolis 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please. The article lacks context and predicts the future. Notability is simply assumed. This is fan talk. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only possible reference seems to be a forum post (not reliable per WP:Reliable sources.) Not even worth merging. Marasmusine 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, Rob C and Maramusine. What else can be said really? DarkSaber2k 12:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt on everything else, WP:CRYSTAL is reason enough to remove it. Capmango 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero reliable sources -- Whpq 19:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Blue[edit]

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

Interactions (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something Normal (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hunter Street (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)