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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syrnia[edit]

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

The page has been deleted many times, but the AfDs were so long ago that I believe a 2^nd one is in order. Anyway, here's my rationale: The article is non-notable, and I'm guessing it hasn't been improved much since its past deletions. Thanks, > Animum < 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it's been coverage in third-party sources, won an award, or otherwise met notability criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt to save future repeats of this. I don't see outside references that meet WP:RS; if someone comes up with some, I'll reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no links to support notability, nothing that comes even close to satisfying guidelines. Unless this is fixed, it should probably also be salted. --Haemo 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - No assertion of notability, no links to support notability, nothing that comes even close to satisfying guidelines. Probably could have been speedily deleted as a repost in the face of the other deletions. Also agree that the article should now be salted. DarkSaber2k 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This is not an uncontroversial decision, so I'll give a lot of reasoning for it; consensus in this case is based on examining arguments for their validity and considering the remaining valid arguments. Arguments for deletion below revolve around a) low interest among general public, b) the list being indiscriminate, c) the list not being encyclopedic and d) the list being undeveloped. A) The manga might be of low interest in the United States (and perhaps the West), but Wikipedia is a global resource and the works are of sufficient interest in certain parts of the world to refute the 'lack of interest' argument. B) The list has a defined scope and specific inclusion criteria; therefore, it is not indiscriminate. C) The main article exists and references this list; inclusion of the list in the main article would make it's length unwieldy ... therefore, style guidelines support the creation of a standalone article containing the list. D) The template Expand list should be added as a hatnote. One repeated 'keep' related argument in particular is not valid: The article is young => An article can be deleted 1 minute after creation if deletion if consistent with standing policy. In addition, any argument based on 'other Manga have them, therefore this one should' is on the face invalid in relation to 'wp:otherstuffexists'. Finally, if the focus of the article should be volumes rather than chapters, that is a content issue that has no bearing on whether or not the article should be deleted. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Seiya Chapters[edit]

List of Saint Seiya Chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedia article. I'm not really sure what it is, other than listcruft. Corvus cornix 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not sure what it is about either, but I think they call it fancruft. Useight 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While Saint Seiya may merit a Wikipedia article, I'm not sure that this particular presentation of information is appropriate. A list of the Manga Volumes is somewhat reasonable, the chapters within them? A bit much in the way of information. FrozenPurpleCube 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article's been here for 36 hours, and it's already up for deletion? Talk about unreasonable. I don't think listing chapters is too much information. Every other manga list does the same, and they're still here. See List of Bleach chapters, List of Naruto chapters and List of One Piece chapters. Think of "chapters" as "TV episodes" and "volumes" as "TV seasons." Like this. Episode lists even include plot summaries for each and every episode, and no one calls them "cruft." What I'm saying is, give the article a chance.--Nohansen 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing unreasonable about noticing an article and acting on it quickly. There is a reason why AFD is a five-day process. Same with other referring to other articles. List of Bleach chapters was the subject of a deletion discussion, which closed as no-consensus, but I doubt anybody was convincing on either side. And the difference with the Sopranos is that episodes are more distinct works. I'd have no objection to a list of Saint Seiya Volumes, but this would be like having a list of Sopranos scenes. FrozenPurpleCube 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, List of InuYasha chapters is the best example of a way to do this, if that's your intent then I wouldn't object to an article like that. FrozenPurpleCube 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly rename and re-focus for volumes instead of chapters. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 18 June 2007(UTC)
• Keep individual manga chapters are usually serialized in one of the weekly/monthly anthologies, so they do sometimes appear as stand-alone work within the anthology. But I agree with Scott: Chapters are relevent, but this needs to focus on the manga volumes unless it is taken out of the graphic novel's context (i.e. provide publishing dates for chapters when they were published in the Shounen Jump). Also, Saint Seiya is not an obscure series, was an extremely popular internationally in the late eighties/early nineties. - Mizi 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, totally equivalent to episode listings, and useful for all the same reasons. It needs formatted by volume though. Also, lol at calling Saint Seiya obscure. --tjstrf talk 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think you should give a new article a while to develop. If it unreasonably violated WP:NOT then why wasn't it speedily deleted?--Squilibob 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know, violating WP:NOT is not a speedy deletion criteria. --tjstrf talk 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would argue against the statement that every other major notable manga has one of these by pointing at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other manga have them doesn't mean that every manga ever needs to have one of these. For huge, incredibly popular ones (such as InuYasha), the need is there. Here, though, it seems like just a random collection of information. I agree with Mister Manticore, in that if this were to become more like List of InuYasha chapters, I would support keeping it. As of now, though, it seems as though it violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a list of chapters that doesn't seem to provide any encyclopedic value. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Why hello there, systemic bias! Saint Seiya has something like 4 ongoing spin-off manga series, merchandise, and OVA series still in production 17 years after the original ceased publication. It never made it big in the US, but Saint Seiya is a "huge, incredibly popular" manga series. In fact, we use it as the canonical example of a shonen series on the shōnen article.
  Really people... --tjstrf talk 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thank you for the information. I was unaware of the popularity that this manga enjoys outside of America, as an American. My delete stands due to my feelings on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Userfy Right now, it's too early to tell if this list will present information in a useful and coherent manner. It is in an undeveloped state and it is impossible to apply any provision of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#IINFO. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft. Why does this need its own article? Can't this be a subsection of the series' main article or something? --Potato dude42 21:47, 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 structural failure. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Load bearing boss[edit]

This was proposed for deletion recently by someone who described it as "a made-up article with no references." The tag has been removed but the article remains an unsourced neologism. Perhaps we could find some reliable sources for this, and perhaps if not we should delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete made up or not, the article is pure cruft, especially the list of video game examples. -N 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism absent a demonstration of significant coverage of this term in reliable sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism turned listcruft. Useight 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as OR. I rarely say that, but this times it seems appropriate, as the common element seems to be the idea of the author. DGG 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a one-off joke from the The Grand List Of Console Role Playing Game Clichés. It's definitely not notable, or encyclopedic. --Haemo 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - A truly horrendous example of original research gone nuts. DarkSaber2k 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not made up, it was originally sourced to tvtropes.org , a very informal wiki. Yeah, that's still a Delete since I already copied all the items in the list over their article.Spriteless 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Types of bosses in video games are generally informal, and notoriously poorly sourced; this one is no different. It's essentially original research. Leebo ^T/C 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge info on self destruction into the video game boss article or the clichés article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even as a redirect, this is total neologism. Happinessiseasy 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-sexualism[edit]

Sex-sexualism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recently invented "movement" with no sources. —Celithemis 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No relevent Google results whatsoever. From sentences like "It borrows properties from humanist movements and self-valuing movements (e.g. Satanism)", I'm guessing this is a hoax; I've added the relevent tag. -- simxp (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism.--Ispy1981 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above. JJL 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might be notable enough to merit inclusion if there was any sourcing at all upon which to base a judgment. The fact that it doesn't show up in Google isn't in itself fatal -- see WP:GOOGLEHITS -- but since it doesn't, it makes it hard for us to seek out sources which might verify this information. Given no reliable (or any other kind of) attributions per WP:ATT, it's not possible to determine if this there is any such thing as this supposed philosophy of sexuality. Get us some sources, and I might be willing to change my opinion. --Ace of Swords 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that this is the originating editor's first and only Wikipedia edit. For whatever that fact is worth. --Ace of Swords 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 03:18, 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 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moai in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture any time a big-headed statue or someting that looks like a big-headed statue appears in any medium ever, completely lacking in sourcing or any notion of the mention's significance in a real-world context. It does not benefit Wikipedia to compile a list of such "I-spotted-a-big-headed-statue" trivial references as In the Nintendo GameCube game, Animal Crossing, one of the home decorative pieces is a Moai statue or the OR/POV assertion In the very first appearance of Marvel Comic's Thor the hero battled aliens called "The Stone Men from Saturn" that resemble Moai. Strongly oppose in advance any suggestion to merge any of this content into any other article about the statues. It's trivial cruft in a standalone article and it would be every bit as trivial and crufty stuck in somewhere else. Otto4711 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What Otto said. Get rid of this. Now. -- Kicking222 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also, I've read Thor's first adventure, and I don't think the stone men from saturn looked that much like Moai at all. Someone sure did a lot of OR here, and should move all this to heythatlookskindalikemoai.com. Capmango 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's just a collection of unbelievably trivial things that look like, or kinda are, Moai. --Haemo 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alton C._Crews_Middle_School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Astrovega 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Non-notable school, fails WP:CORP. The article has no reliable and independent sources, and I dought that anyone will find any online. *Cremepuff222* 00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dought [sic] and ye shall receive. Alansohn 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons stated by Cremepuff. Cedars 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete. There's plenty of information here, but unfortunately none of it evidences any notability, and none of it is backed by citation to reliable sources. As a result, this article should be deleted per and now that we have citations to reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V, so I'm switching to keep. Thanks for creating another quality school article! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A second look: I was asked to take another look at this article as it has been substantially improved. However, I don't think it is there yet. I'm looking at one solid reliable source, and it appears that article is primarily about the teacher and the trip, and that the school is incidental. There are no citations to newspaper articles about the school winning the Intel award. I point this out not because I question whether the award was received, but because I am not convinced of the notability of the award. While it may be rare, scarcity does not demonstrate worth. It's certainly not on the level of a Blue Ribbon. In fact, the Intel award article (which is admittedly new) only cites to one reliable source, and it's a newspaper reporting on a local school winning the award, not an article on the award program itself. Don't get me wrong -- the article is clearly much better now than it was at the start of the AfD. It just hasn't crossed the WP:N threshold yet as far as I'm concerned. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your commment just above it's impossible for me to figure out what additional citation about the award would satisfy you. There's a news brief from the Atlanta Constitution which certainly proves the award's existence, but the already cited news release from Intel itself about the award it sponsors is certainly independent and reliable in and of itself, or do you dispute that? The award was made in conjunction with Scholastic, another sponsor. I skipped Scholastic's news release because it didn't seem to add anything to it. I get the impression when you talk about notability that you're shifting back and forth from WP:N, which has a Wikipedia-specific definition relying on multiple, reliable, independent sources and a vaguer notion of "importance and fame". If we have two independent, reliable sources we have notability under WP:N, correct? Please clarify. Noroton 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable, independent sources: here and here. Noroton 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per bsf + the fact that schools are inherently nn. Noroton as done good work trying to resolve the inherent lack of notability for schools (i.e. it's a school, hence merits an encyclopedia article) in this specific case. The question, however, is whether the Intel award and it's locally-judged performance mean it now merits encyclopedic treatment. In my view, the answer is clear: no. However, I was lazy in my earlier vote; the content should be stripped of guff and merged into Gwinnett County Public Schools, with a redirect to that page per Yamaguchi below, who has got it exactly right. Eusebeus 08:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools. Other than the usual refusal to consider any option other than the destructive choice of deletion by the usual cast of characters, there is no valid justification not to redirect the article. All school districts are inherently notable; almost all high schools will be able to provide ample sources to establish notability; few middle schools will be able to demonstrate notability, and this school is no exception. A review of the school's website (including the student handbook), and a search of Google and Google News/Archive uncovers no material to support notability, little surprise for a ten-year old middle school. The claim that "schools are inherently nn" is patently false and disruptive, and proven false by the thousands of school article on Wikipedia and the hundreds upon hundreds of reliably and verifiably sourced articles where consensus is clear that the articles meet all of Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Alansohn 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Kudos to User:Noroton for finding the details regarding the 2006 Intel/Scholastics award, shared by only 16 schools nationwide. As revised, the article makes a prima facie case for notability. Alansohn 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other stuff does exist . . .. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?!?!?! And therefore you refuse to consider a redirect? What on earth does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with a single word of what I stated above? Alansohn 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken no position on a redirect. And, since you asked, I mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to your reference to "thousands of school article [sic] on Wikipedia". --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools, as per Alansohn's argument. Deletion is not called for and the article should be resurrected easily when enough information can be gathered to show the school is notable enough. Noroton 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I found (see comment below) I have to change to Keep. Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redir to GCPS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to GCPS - there is some encyclopaedic material to merge. TerriersFan 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC) *Keep and expand with the material turned up by Noroton, below, that shows the school meets WP:N. TerriersFan 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - after sourcing and expansion now an unconditional keep. TerriersFan 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools per WP:LOCAL and comments by Alansohn. Yamaguchi先生 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with Alansjohn about what a Google Archives search turns up. I found several articles that could be used to bulk up the article and justify notability under WP:CORP (a/k/a WP:ORG) that Cremepuff22 mentions up near the top. If someone wanted to use those articles and if editors wanted to follow WP:CORP and WP:N, the article could be retained. I personally don't have the interest, but the fact is that the school can meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Here's one article, this might be another, and another, and this looks extremely promising, and oh, my, my, just lookee here:

LINK

<copied text removed, please do not pasted it into the article for copyright reasons>

Non-notable indeed. Um, shouldn't editors who nominate for deletion on grounds of notability start doing a Google News and Google Archives search first, and save the rest of us the trouble?? Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that compliance with WP:N and WP:V is initially the responsibility of the editor who creates an article, if everybody who marked items for deletion took the time to try to fix them first, the excellent content at Wikipedia would be buried by noncompliant articles, because the people doing the largely thankless job of cleaning up around here would not be able to keep up with the flood of inappropriate articles. It's hard enough just to try to tag them with all of the vandalism, copyright violations, attack pieces and other inappropriate posts. Besides, some people make better writers, and some make better Wikignomes. There's a place (and a need) for people with all sorts of skills here! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the time involved in a Google News or Google Archives search is much shorter than the time it takes to nominate an article and participate in the discussion, but to each his own. Even a link in the "external links" section to a relevant news article takes hardly any time, or it could be linked on the talk page. I guess I understand that, whether or not an article meets WP:N some won't want it. Noroton 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a quick google search is not all that needs to be done. The sources have to be reviewed to assess whether they provide significant coverage of the subject, and they have to be worked into the article. (External links are just that -- their presence does not indicate that the links support the asserted facts. If the facts are drawn from an external link, the link should be listed under "references" or "sources" or some other appropriate heading.) To some, writing encyclopedic articles seems to come naturally and effortlessly. I can tell you though that it takes me a lot of time to write a properly sourced article that complies with WP's policies. It certainly takes me a lot longer than tagging an article or even nominating it for AfD. Since my life is already hectic from other obligations, that is the main reason I spend most of my time here copyediting, tagging and discussing, as opposed to writing content. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Well, I developed an interest and added the above information and some other information to the article. I think everyone who voted should reconsider. Noroton 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job. Another case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe that people who nominate these types of articles need to do more due diligence. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Duh. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not satisfy my own notability guidelines.--trey 23:36, 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 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methamphetamine in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture every appearance of methamphetimine as a plot point no matter its importance or triviality. See the related Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amphetamine_in_popular_culture for three substantively similar articles which were all deleted. This article is no better and serves no better purpose. Otto4711 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussion on similar topics. Too crufty. Ichibani 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO and per precedents. Masaruemoto 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate and disguised trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just a collection of trivial mentions. --Haemo 22:15, 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 Keep. Peacent 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2's 16th Album[edit]

U2's 16th Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline speedy candidate for failing WP:CSD#A1, but regardless, almost certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL #2. I have no doubt that this article is going to be released but the fact the only detail that has been released about it is the fact that recording has started - this is generic information, and a limit amount at that. Proposing delete. AllynJ 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of sources quoted, including notable ones, eg VH1 and RTE. --Oscarthecat 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Narrow Keep - I know there is some several key items missing (especially the track list, album title and exact release date) there but it is just enough mainly due to the references.--JForget 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to above; indeed, when I added the AfD template there was nothing more than an infobox. I'm less concerned about this article now, but I still consider it a borderline WP:CRYSTAL candidate. AllynJ 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but replace the phrase "it is unknown at what point the sessions are" with some nicer grammar. Capmango 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • well...you could do that. Don't wait for the closing admin...-MrFizyx 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to do it, but wasn't going to bother if article got delete. I'll fix it if article is kept. Capmango 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think it is crystal ballery, in fact, U2 isn't likely to lie about their future releases, and mentions by the mass media makes the album more certain.--Kylohk 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep- sourced (though not all likely to pass WP:RS. More info is likely to emerge. U2 are kinda notable and all. -MrFizyx 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge→Elvis Presley. Considering the structure of the target article, the merge would lead to dispersal of the content rather than creation of a new section. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Presley[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Notability isn't inherited. Her son may be the King, but she's not the Queen Mother. Clarityfiend 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is it really called "inherited" if it goes from child to parent? Shouldn't it be called "exherited"? In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure if she fails WP:BIO or not. Useight 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Outherited? upherited? unherited? I couldn't find any biography for her. Most people don't know her first name. She does have a small entry in IMDb, but that's hardly enough. Clarityfiend 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the King's article, this can easily be integrated with.--JForget 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a Hound Dog of an article, and I keep telling myself Don't be Cruel, but this article has to be Returned to Sender. Just Because she's related to the King doesn't mean she's notable herself. If sources are found One Night before the end of the AfD, though, That's All Right. (In other words, Merge per Clarityfiend unless sourced.) Thank you, thank you very much. --Charlene 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable figure in her own right, recognized as having a major influence on Elvis' life, and being portrayed on numerous occasions in film and TV by notable actors. I agree that there's no point in doing articles about Elvis' entire family tree, but this aricle is about a persona more than notable enough to warrant a separate article. There should also be one on Vernon Presley, too, but no one's written one yet, it seems. 23skidoo 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elvis Presley, unless article can be improved with verifiable sources per WP:ATT to establish independent notability. --Ace of Swords
• Delete per nom., probably all mothers of notable people have a "major influence" on their offspring's life - providing 50% of the genetic material even if they put the kid up for adoption seems to be influential in a major way as we learn that much behavior and temperment may have a genetic component (see Minnesota Twin Family Study and read the data generated by that study). That said, it does not make the mother of every notable here also notable. Or father, and grandparents, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.I searched for her and wanted to know more. --Timtak 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent notability, she can't be called a "notable figure in her own right" because her only claim to notability is being the mother of Elvis (the article even fails to assert any independent notability). If this article is kept it sets a bad precedent for the creation of other articles about parents of famous people. The similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Carpenter was deleted for these reasons. Masaruemoto 03:41, 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 keep. Sr13 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuteness[edit]

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

There are no real facts about cuteness, and there are many things in the article that are POV. ANNAfoxlover 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although some offerings for additional reading there seems to be a big dose of WP:OR here. JodyB _talk 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Which part is the original research then? Is it the analysis by Konrad Lorenz for which a source is cited in the article? Is it the the analysis by Stephen Jay Gould for which a source is cited in the article? Uncle G 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as the OR concerns go, this isn't the first writing to link "cuteness" to both studies in neoteny and studies of how cartoon characters are drawn. I remember reading an article in 3-2-1 Contact magazine when I was a kid that did the very same thing. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know it's not the best reason to keep an article, but we have one about cool also. Useight 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a pretty good article, maybe a model for the direction "Cuteness" should go in. Cause that's where Wikipedia could really step up to the plate; there's a lot of things in the world that everybody knows about, like what's cool or what makes something cute, but serious studies can be hard to find. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it's worth keeping, the thing on pedomorphosis and on Mickey for example is interesting. Roscelese 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then add those to the Mickey Mouse article. We don't need a whole new article for one little bit of trivia. ANNAfoxlover 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem not to be looking at the article at hand, which comprises not "one little bit of trivia" but several paragraphs of verifiable analysis. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete — The soure right now isn't very reliable, but perhaps some better ones could be found. If so, the POVish content could be removed, and I think there would then be a good article. I'm sure someone could dig up some good sources if they took the time. But in the article's present condition, it should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of Konrad Lorenz and Stephen Jay Gould are unreliable, and why? I suspect that you just looked at the "References" section, and didn't note who is actually being cited by the article. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think much of this is salvageable. The "psychology of cuteness" section seems to contain good, encyclopedic information. Zagalejo 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up especially references. The article does cite sources and the topic is worthy of discussion. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a real phenomenon, and is backed up with studies in "neoteny" as well as the role of "cuteness" in various cultures, ex. kawaii in Japan. Suggest diffing against the article as it was a year ago and choosing the best parts. The article may have gone down in quality from a while back. Squidfryerchef 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it hasn't. Looking at this diff of more than a year, there is very little difference. The sections have been re-ordered, but contain much the same content. Some external links have become proper citations; and some external links to rubbish have been removed. The images have disappeared (about which one can find an argument on the talk page). And a pointer to a paper by professor Michael C. LaBarbera of the University of Chicago has gone missing.

    One editor who supported the removal of the images is the very editor who has just nominated this entire article for deletion. I note that xe supported the removal of images after xe could not get xyr own "Dogs are cute; cats are not." bias (evident from xyr edits and xyr talk page contributions) to stick in the article, leading me to believe that this nomination is what we've seen many times before at AFD: An editor cannot get their bias on one particular point to stick, so they nominate the entire article for deletion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, cute fluffy bushy awww, second of all, as the article demonstrated, cuteness has been researched (nurturing instincts etc), discussed, awarded, and I believe the topic, due to its nature, scope and influence, in itself is encyclopedic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs better sources but has definite potential - Pharaonic 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a perfectly valid article on a perfectly valid field of psychological study. Capmango 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Origional research--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please answer the questions posed right at the start of this discussion. Uncle G 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps rename - Science of Cuteness? In the least, the opening paragraph does not do the topic justice. The article then launches into the real topic which is meritorious and notable. Enhanced by active researchers, this could be a truly excellent article and I would hope to see it grow with at least some enthusiasm. Pever 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Psychology of Cuteness would be a better title. Cuteness should redirect there, though Capmango 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitive Keep The article is linked to de:Kindchenschema. There appears to be no translation for it as used in academia (particularly in biology and psychology) and I'm not sure if that term, coined by Konrad Lorenz [2], can be translated at all. It roughly translates to "little child scheme" and is used in zoology to describe the recurring pattern of typical physical proportions in the young of higher animals (down to and including humans). Lorenz' hypothesis was that those patterns of "looking cute" are evolutionary linked to parental care witnessed in many species, esp. mammals, and constitute a biological trigger. Granted, the article could use some rewriting (starting with "Cuteness is a measure of how cute something is.") and should possibly be renamed to the German term if there isn't a proper English term, but the topic itself is definitely worthy of inclusion. Remember that even though Lorenz' research has been superseeded by more complex theories in neurophysiology and ethology, it doesn't change the historical landmark value of his research. —AldeBaer 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Couple more sources: "[3]". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Speedy keep as faulty nomination. —AldeBaer 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable, and even a fairly important topic, from a psychological and biological standpoint. --Joelmills 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a real topic in the encyclopedic sense (versus only the dictionary). The main problem this article faces is editors warring over subjective "cute" pictures of their pets or favorite animals instead of covering scientific studies of "cuteness." I think that as a rule to stop constant OR and unencyclopedic problems in this article the use of pictures should be disallowed. And yes, a rename to 'psychology of cuteness' may be warranted. The Behnam 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, comparing the two WordNet entries [9] v. [10] shows that "cuteness" is different from "cute." Seeing that this article appears to cover the "cute" meaning I will make the appropriate move. Of course I will move it back if that screws up the AFD. The Behnam 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just wait until after the Afd has been closed? —AldeBaer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can wait. The Behnam 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion can take place on the talk page of the article, in the mean time. --Deskana (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are multiple sources showing that this is an encyclopedic topic. If there are problems with the treatment, change the article, don't delete it. NoahB 12:19, 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 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuneyo Toyonaga[edit]

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

Unimportant person. The only thing notable about her is her birthday. Hence, she is listed at List of living supercentenarians. A list of the oldest people in the world and related statistics is important; however, that doesn't mean they all need an article. --- RockMFR 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the 9th oldest person in the world is not notable in and of itself. There are a total of 97 English Google hits, most of which are either Wiki copies or lists of the world's oldest people. Also, as Robert Young said, with only a few exceptions, Japanese cases are only updated once per year, which means she may have been deceased and we don't even know it. Furthermore, there's no news coverage, which means that this article is not likely to expand any further than what it already is, and all it is is a copy of details from the list of the World's Oldest. If she ended up becoming the world's oldest, it could be expanded, but until then it should be deleted. Canadian Paul 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for different reasons. I believe that being 9th-oldest in the world SHOULD be notable in and of itself. However, the practical reality is that we currently are limited by strict Japanese confidentiality laws and a lack of Japanese interest in super-c's (except for first place). Therefore, we are constrained by the situation...there is little information available on this case and placement in the list should be sufficient.

Note this differs from a case in the USA or even Europe, where interest leads to local news coverage and enough extraneous information to warrant an article.

The bottom line: this article should be deleted be it provides no new information.Ryoung122 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No information that isn't included in the oldest people list. --RandomOrca2 17:01, 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. Walton^talk 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributes to Dimebag Darrell[edit]

List of tributes to Dimebag Darrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM or tribute site. Virtually all unsourced, fancruft copy violations. Needs one or two comments from key people sourced into the main article. All this really belongs on some fanboy site. Lugnuts 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fancruft.--Ispy1981 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable per WP:FORUM. No reliable sources. *Cremepuff222* 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag it for ((cleanup)) and propose a merger back into Dimebag Darrell. I don't see discussion occuring within the article (WP:FORUM?), but clearly it has grown out of control. The quotes from obituaries are certianly over the top. AfD should not be the first stop for every problem article. -MrFizyx 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial; the extensive quotations likely constitute copyright violations; a significant proportion of the musical tributes should be removed as unverifiable speculation of allusion and the remainder are as of yet unsourced. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 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 Delete. The Korean version of the article is in worse shape, and the present English version bears striking similarity to the Japanese version, suggesting a parent-sibling relationship. Perhaps if one of these other-language versions matures, a better English version will re-emerge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haansoft Linux[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Possibly dead or merged with Asianux. Chealer 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article provides information that is referencable. As far as notable I don't believe I can say much, but with the information shown available, this article seems worth keeping. Redian (Talk) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hopes of broader participation and clearer consensus. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless third-party coverage can be found and used. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The question is whether their Linux is as much used in Korea as their wordprocessor or whether "Haansoft" is yet another mee-too Linux distro nobody cares about. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at the article on their word processor, I'm not sure that it does a good job of articulating its notability either. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not, but, AFAIR, their editor managed to keep MS Word share of the market much smaller than just elsewhere else. Pavel Vozenilek 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course it would be good to have third-party coverage, and it would be helpful if the company's own web site would clearly state that Haansoftlinux has been discontinued in favor of Asianux. So we make do with whatever hints and indirections we can find on the web. I found no mentions of Haansoftlinux with a date on them later than mid-2006. Here is a trade journal article from April 2007 that interviews a Haansoft official, who mentions Haansoft and Asianux, but doesn't use the word 'Haansoftlinux'. Some further circumstantial evidence: (1) If you try to open www.haansoftlinux.com, the site that opens up is www.asianux.co.kr. (2) On the haansoft.com web site, if you try to open up 'Haansoft Linux Desktop 2.0' you get an error. EdJohnston 01:30, 24 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. WjBscribe 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KolibriOS[edit]

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

Notability to come. Chealer 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only OS that can be installed on the same NTFS disk with Windows without modifying Window's bootsector. Even linux doesn't support this option! There is not many graphical OS'es that written in assembler also. 193.232.113.222 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Chealer, but also because this is spam created to link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the OS is under GPL, I don't know if terms like "spam" and "vendor" should apply. I am not going to !vote at this time, but I am more sympathetic to keeping an article about an OS than about a distro of an OS. So far, though, I don't see the sources. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPL != noncommercial. There are many for-profit GPL'd products out there. —Psychonaut 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I really don't think a group of programmers coding a new OS in assembly are expecting it to become a raging moneymaker. I get the point, though, GPL software is not automatically non-commercial, just as obscure software with a WP page != spamming vendor. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it isnt notable yet. See coLinux for a linux that can boot from a windows ntfs disk. John Vandenberg 22:42, 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. NawlinWiki 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bickle[edit]

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

Contested prod; template was removed by anon and reverted, which is against policy. Original prod reason was "Totally pointless rehash of the main article on the film." Procedural nom; no opinion. Chick Bowen 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find nothing wrong about the fictional protagonist of Taxi Driver.--Edtropolis 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the meter running. The pop culture references tilt it just enough. You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? Then who the hell else are you trying to delete... you trying to delete me? Well I'm the only one here. Clarityfiend 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 30th best film villain is notable. Calgarycalgary 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page needs references and sources. Personally, I'd redirect to the film and cover anything important about him there. FrozenPurpleCube 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taxi Driver, with maybe a sentence or two of expansion about the character in that article. There's very little here that isn't covered in the main article, as this is almost entirely a repetition of the plot plus the interminable Youtalkintome-cruft, excuse me, I mean "popular culture" section, which under no circumstances should be reproduced in the main article. Otto4711 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would rather see the pop culture references in this article than in Taxi Driver and I see no reason why that list should be lost. - Pharaonic 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in the absence of the cultural references section, what would your opinion on keeping this article be? Otto4711 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Overview section is just a repeat of the film plot and should be drastically trimmed. (I may get to it later, if it's still there.) I've copied part of it to Taxi Driver. Clarityfiend 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on this sentiment, I would like the closing admin to take note of the large number of stand-alone "in popular culture" articles which are pretty much identical to the pop culture section of this article that are nominated and deleted on a regular basis and weigh that when considering opinions that are in whole or in large measure based on the disposition of the pop culture segment. Otto4711 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can't help thinking we should be discussing character pages in general. Do we have character pages, or put all the information on the film page? The Godfather and Vito Corleone are good examples of articles that describe the character's integration into the plot on one page, while describing the character on another. Perhaps Taxi Driver should be edited accordingly, while Travis Bickle remains? Then again, The Godfather had an ensemble cast while Taxi Driver didn't -- putting all that on The Godfather would result in an enormous article. If the cast is small, redirects may be preferred (though it'd be inconsistent). Note that we have many pages that replicate information between film and character -- Jack Torrance, Stella Kowalski and Baby Jane Hudson, to name a few. -FeralDruid 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FICT is instructive: Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article. In this instance, the article is not an encyclopedic treatment of the character and the article on the film is not so long as to require a split. Otto4711 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 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 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scibuntu[edit]

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

Notability to come. Chealer 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N, no evidence of notoriety presented. Just a small part of some Linux distros. meshach 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per meshach. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From the software source: Scibuntu 0.4-beta - A brand new Scibuntu - that rather says it all (a pre-version 1 beta) ,Pever 00:56, 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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web); votes for 'merge' not accompanied by supporting arguments. External links do not contain mentions of the topic and therefore can't be drawn upon as supporting references. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Construct[edit]

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

Article does not try to establish notability and fails notability guidelines quite badly, page created by someone with a major conflict of interest/just shy of outright spam DreamGuy 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Feminist Art Movement.--Edtropolis 20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn work of art. Almost no Ghits, no awards. Clarityfiend 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There may be some notability, but the current sources aren't independent or reliable (and I couldn't find any) Don't merge unless good sources are found. *Cremepuff222* 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Psdubow 21:47, 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, with no prejudice toward recreation if sources can be found (albeit unlikely). Sr13 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of Deception[edit]

Dreams of Deception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1. WP:NOTE: No coverage anywhere at all.
2. WP:CITE: Again, no sources at all. The only source is the creator of the article, which leads us to
3. WP:COI, so it can be considered as advertising/spam.
4. It's also either a copyright infringement, or the creator releases all the information under the GNU Free Documentation License.
   Basically, some guy (I doubt 'Seed Entertainment' is a registered company) decided to make a game and create an article about it before at least creating a homepage for it. This should have been speed deleted IMO.--Svetovid 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What can i do to prevent this page from being deleted? It has everything the other future game pages have. What is mine missing. Please do not delete it, but tell me what i can do to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:About and the subsequent pages.--Svetovid 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also try reading this. meshach 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Basically Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. Wiki is not a webspace provider. No evidence that it meets WP:N. meshach 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence that it meets WP:N. Rgds, - Trident13 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per very structured nom. The article is purely OR, so it needs some independent source (which I couldn't find). *Cremepuff222* 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:OR. If some verifiable sources or references can be found, I would change my vote, although such sources being found seems unlikely. Clamster 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 03:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will link the images and content to the seed entertainment website shortly, which is not a company, but more of a small business. I will notify you all when i have finished. thanks in advance.

Ok, i have made a link to the seed entertainment business website. Please verify. http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

• Comment -- I notice that the page has a copyright statement buried in it now, saying "All names, logos, and other game play aspects Copyright(C)2007 Seed Entertainment. All Rights Reserved.". How much of the article content is copyrighted by Seed and is therefore not allowed on Wikipedia due to GFDL incompatibility? From what I can see, probably nearly the whole article. -- ArglebargleIV 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon a bit of research I should have done earlier, I've deleted the entire Game Description section -- it's directly lifted from http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com/seedentertainment-projects with incompatible licensing. -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i am the author of the text and a representer of seed entertainment, is it still against copyright? I can't copy my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

The verified author of the work has to explicitly release that under the GFDL, and that may not be enough. Evn so, the text was promotional ranther than descriptive in nature. -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com. The copyright has been updated to allow reposting as long as accreditation is given to seed entertainment.

• Delete - Seem to be vanispamcruftisement. No reliable secondary sources etc etc. DarkSaber2k 11:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. Even though it was posted by the business who's product it is, are the others any better. Even though other people posted reviews about other future games, are they not promoting or executing vanispamcruftisement for the company who created the game? It is not like this is a false article with stolen information. I do not have large texts saying "buy this!" or "visit seed entertainment". I simply posted the facts and details about the product. If people are interested, then great. When i read other future game articles, i sometimes too become interested in that game. Please do not delete it from all of the reasons just mentioned.

Please keep you arguments away from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and keep it relevent to this article and the problems with it raised in this afd. DarkSaber2k 07:51, 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. While there seemed to be a bit of interest in merging, the merge opinions don't really seem to indicate where it would logically go, and no one's prevented from adding sourced material about it to any other article in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlightLinux[edit]

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

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, on one hand it's a NASA project which gives it some vague notability, but on the other hand it's a Linux distribution whose sole claim to fame is that it was only meant to fly in space, while ultimately not used... all the while both NASA and ESA have actually used and will be using other distributions in space successfully. Due to being a minor "product", this would be Merge material if suitable target candidate is found, but if not, I'm not opposed to Deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Not notable enough for it's own article, but should be a redirect and mentioned somewhere. It's notable enough (being a NASA / ESA sponsored project) that it needs to be mentioned, just no here. Patch86 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I suspect it is notable but only as part of a merger. JodyB _talk 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hope of a broader consensus. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — And a merge isn't necessary because there are no indpendent dources to verify the content. *Cremepuff222* 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ELKS if the article would otherwise be deleted (then have a debate about why it's there, then recreate this article... )- Peter Ellis - Talk 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only reference is broken and the article is otherwise unsourced. Fails WP:V. TerriersFan 02:44, 24 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 spayed and neutered. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price Is Right in popular culture[edit]

The Price Is Right in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - indiscriminate collection of information and a directory of loosely-associated pieces of trivia. Article seeks to capture any mention of TPIR, Bob Barker, something that reminds someone of TPIR or uses a catchphrase that is associated with the show, regardless of the triviality of the inclusion. Otto4711 18:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, referencing needed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins</span> 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure trivia. --Oscarthecat 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but perhaps put some of the better ones on the actual Price is Right article. Man, what a great show. Useight 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Otto's assessment JodyB _talk
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. --Charlene 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The Price Is Right.--Edtropolis 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh no. Why do you thing it was offloaded from there? Pavel Vozenilek 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete not on par with other ...in popular culture articles. Cedars 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Trivia is not encyclopedic. --Charlene 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Didn't mean to do that. Sorry. --Charlene 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, with the large majority of the content being deleted in the process. --Android Mouse 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is a disguised list of trivia with no real-world context. It is indiscriminate to list all the mentions of this show or any show in the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and the beanstalk(ish)[edit]

Jack and the beanstalk(ish) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This pantomime has no sources provided and there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. The article claims that the show was performed on a VHS release titled Steve Oliver: The CV, which itself garners no relevant Google hits and is not listed on the Internet Movie Database. The Steve Oliver who created this pantomime does not appear to be the same Steve Oliver who has a Wikipedia article already. I submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the ((prod)) tag was removed; then another person submitted the article for proposed deletion, but I removed the ((prod)) tag because an article can't go through WP:PROD twice. Anyway, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nom. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins</span> 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nom. --Oscarthecat 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom huji—TALK 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why delete this article about a cult hit. Just because it doesn't garner google hits. If you look at the years the show came out, you will realise that this was pre-internet! The article should stay, after all there are articles about murderers and sex offenders on here and nobody complains — 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - FYI, this anon. SPA just tried to remove the AfD notice from the article ... Oops! They did it again!. :-) —72.75.70.147 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And they tried to remove the Afd again. Edward321 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This show was written in 1993, and released to video in 1997. A look at the article History of the World Wide Web should be sufficient to establish that this was not the pre-Internet era. While the Internet was less commonly used back then, it certainly existed and was available to (at least some of) the public. --Metropolitan90 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This anonymous vandal 81.96.71.55 may be the author, Podmaster2 (talk · contribs), but that's beside the point ... after they posted a comment about this AfD on the article's main page, I moved it to the talk page, and did something that none of the other editors have apparently tried to do; educate and raise their consciousness about how things are done here ... they have been operating under the delusion that there is some kind of conspiracy against the subject, when the fact is that they have never been appraised of WP:N, WP:A, and WP:COI ... please, people, remember the time when you knew even less about Wikipedia than they do now (assuming they've read those three articles), and next time try to put a velvet glove on the iron fist when dealing with self-promoting nuggets like this one ... the prohibition against biting them does not prevent us from reaching out to point them in the right direction, does it? Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot believe the snobbery that is operating within this site. I am not podmaster whatsisname, I am a fan who remembers the play very well. Just because YOU have never heard of it doesn't mean nobody has. If I recommended for deletion someone or something that I hadn't heard of, then someone would be annoyed about it. The play was written in 1993, and at that time is wasn't as commonplace as now to put everything on the internet. If it was written and performed now then it would have a website but not then. Even in 1997 when Mr Oliver's video was released it wasn't as big a deal to put everything online. Websites were seen as a passing fad (wrongly obviously) back then. I say keep this article as the opinion of the elite who think they own wikipedia doesn't count as gospel. It's a shame there isn't a regulator to moniter bullying. I'm all for freedom of speech but are any of the objectors to this article the boss of wikipedia? Another point that seems to have been overlooked by these people is that this is an article about a play that hasn't been performed since 1997, with no sign of a revival. So how on earth can this be seen as advertising? Why advertise something from the past? Keep the article by all means and let's see some common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2007
  • As I explained very clearly on Talk:Jack and the beanstalk(ish), Internet coverage has absolutely nothing to do with it ... find some press clippings that talk about it and that would be sufficient ... no one has said anything about "advertising" ... the problem with the article is lack of Notability and Attribution, i.e., it doesn't matter if I've never heard of it so long as I can Verify what's claimed in the article by being able to look at the microfiche of a published article about it in a library somewhere ... as for "bullying," please provide something to back up that claim ... OTOH, your repeated vandalism (including your attempt to remove material from my talk page) is well documented, but no punitive actions have been taken ... yet. —72.75.70.147 00:40, 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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is nothing really to merge; there is a mention in two of the three artists' articles already, one of which is supported by reference to an interview. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DNA Algorithm[edit]

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

Non noteable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Should be merged with Daniel Bedingfield, Nikola Rachelle and Natasha Bedingfield Dalejenkins 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Oscarthecat 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regarding the non-notable information offered on this article. huji—TALK 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Not notable in itself.-gadfium 20:04, 18 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, Dalejenkins 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete and merge any useful info. as indicated. JJL 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep merging to multiple articles doesnt leave a useful redirect. There is sufficient sources that mention this band.[11][12][13][14][15][16] John Vandenberg 09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, none of the links you provided offers information which proves this band is a notable one. So I don't see why you think the article should be kept. Regards, huji—TALK 21:44, 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. Sr13 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Battles[edit]

List of Star Wars Battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I proposed deletion but it was technically objected by an anonymous editor saying keep. So I'm bringing it here. As you can see, this has gone through 2 AfDs before, both reaching a consensus to delete. That might make it speediable as a repost, but this might technically be a new article as it was created a few months after the other was deleted. Anyway, the content of the list goes into far too much detail on each battle, copying the exact text from those articles and moving them to the article. Of the four red links or non-links, they are just not linked correctly to the article (except for one which was deleted). This is what categories are for and there is already a category for the battles. This page should just be deleted. Phydend 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wookieepedia and redirect per all cruft lists. Delete—Wookieepedia already has expansive articles on these battles. I also suggest listing the individual battles with this nomination so we can sort through what has out-of-universe potential (should be kept) and what should be transwikied or deleted. — Deckiller 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your suggestion until now. It's probably too late to add the individual battles to this nomination as too many people have already weighed in on it, so I'm not going to, but it might be a good idea look into nominating them all in their own. Phydend 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 17:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily; it's always good to see if information can be transwikied first. — Deckiller 17:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh god, that's a huge amount of duplication. This needs to go. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete listcruft. Artw 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, indeed.--Svetovid 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT.--Edtropolis 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Category:List of Star Wars Battles as several of the titles are wikilinked, suggesting articles have been createdJForget 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to merge to, as it's a duplication of the individual articles. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also debating sending some of the other, non-film articles to AfD. Any battle articles we have that aren't featured in the films are unlikely to have out-of-universe info. — Deckiller 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fancruft. Useight 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to its being completely composed of duplicated texts, fancruft, and covered by a category. --EMS | Talk 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this does indeed deserve to be tossed, I feel I should point out to the posters above that essays are not policy. As such saying something deserves to be deleted for being listcruft or fancruft is not a valid policy argument. Jtrainor 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The two previous AfDs were to delete, so I would suggest in the future to use the template ((db-repost)) instead of resorting to AfD again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klibc[edit]

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

This poorly referenced article is about klibc. The article claims this is a libc implementation, which would mean it is a library. But the article describes it as a suite of commands and utilities. Either way, the subject doesn't appear to make any claim of notability. Mikeblas 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of claims of notability are not valid reasons for deletion at AFD, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Here, we discuss whether a subject actually is or is not notable, not what claims the article may currently make. In that regard, we discuss the presence or absence of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, such as ISBN 1590595858 which devotes pages 286–289 to this subject. Uncle G 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the authors of the software have titled a system for booting Linux as klibc. klibc is more than a library, but the fact that it is poorly named by the software authors doesn't mean it should be deleted from wikipedia. Bpringlemeir 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - it's from H. Peter Anvin - nearly anybody who's seen a Linux system boot has seen his name go by. This is a component in the boot process of many Linux systems - see the reference in Initrd. The article (and the software) is titled correctly; it's the stripped-down libc provided as part of the boot process before the entire libc is available. There may be a suitable merge target for the article, but the content should certainly be kept. I'd let the experts decide how to cover this in the overall Linux coverage. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not everything someone notable does is necessarily notable. -- Mikeblas 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The current state of the article is not very good. It is poorly referenced, and it doesn't indicate any notability within the article itself. Listing the programs included is probably a bit of a no-no as well. I have tried to look for sources, but most of what I've found is nothing more than the contents as included in the Linux Kernel. That doesn't make a good choice for building an article, and I'm not sure everything that's in the kernel package is worth having an article on. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the book that I cited above? Uncle G 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, why would I? The book itself isn't used as a source in the article, and you didn't even give a title, or describe its contents. It may well be covered in that book, but let's see, less than 5 pages? I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book. If there is some valid content in it, that might mean something, but with a title like "The Definitive Guide to GCC" I suspect it's not going to establish the individual notability of this component very well. Maybe I'm wrong, but you'll at least have to say why. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would read it because it was cited. Moreover: I told you outright what the book discussed. Furthermore: You could have found the title by clicking on the hyperlink. You didn't need it spoon-feed to you (as is clearly evident from the fact that you've written it above). Special:Booksources for that book is just one mouse click away. I even gave you the exact page numbers to read. Read them. Looking at and evaluating sources is what you are supposed to be doing here. When someone cites a source in an AFD discussion, and you don't even look at it, asking instead why you should look at a cited source (a question that boggles the mind when coming from a Wikipedia editor), it is nobody else but you that is not bothering. Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said "I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book." Really, you've made a poor case for use of your source as a deciding factor here by not including that information. So do your fellow Wikipedians a favor and at least give us something to go by besides an ISBN and some pages. This is especially relevant because merely being covered in this one single book doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm sure there's a lot of things about GCC that get covered in detail in that book, how many would I support having articles? Not many I think. You can call me lazy if you want, but you're just going to have to convince me that looking at your source is worthwhile. Otherwise, I'll remain unconvinced that it should have its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. Problem is: the book Uncle G cites above and the article itself say it's a library. But the article says it includes a list of programs, which makes no sense. Given no references, it comes off as nonsense -- even if only in a technical way. Since my questions about this misinformation have gone unanswered for a few weeks, I did AfD with the idea that no information is better than misinformation. -- Mikeblas 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. You didn't need AFD to fix the article. ((cleanup-rewrite)) is one of the many other tools that exists. If you see a wholly unsourced article that isn't very well written, you should find sources yourself, wield the merciless sword of verifiability, and rewrite the article as a good stub based upon sources. As you yourself say, the content as it stands doesn't agree with the source that we have. So you have verifiability grounds for zapping it entirely and rewriting the article. Only if you cannot find any (independent) sources after you have searched for them is AFD the place to come. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You don't need an administrator to hit a delete button. You only need the edit button, which every editor has. You have 1 source now. You even have exact page numbers. Be bold! Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mikeblas, but also because this list of the product's components and attributes is just spam copied from the release notes. Worthy of a readme file perhaps, but not notable otherwise. --Gavin Collins 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article remains unsourced and the content, as Gavin Collins says, is more suited to release notes than an encyclopaedia article. TerriersFan 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the article were rewritten and had reliable sources, I can imagine it might be possible to establish that the topic was notable. But we need to work from what we see in front of us, and what's here is quite disappointing. There are no third parties quoted as to the importance of klibc. Linux is notable, and if this article were smoothly integrated with our other Linux coverage, it would be worth keeping. Even initramfs is way better than this. If anyone wants this article kept because they consider the notability 'obvious', then I'd suggest we strip it down to the first two sentences, because all the rest of the article is misleading and confusing. EdJohnston 05:19, 24 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 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cortez[edit]

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

Would appear to fail WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. A technician for a band who's currently filling in for another member who is "on leave". While there are two references neither talk about the subject at all - first is a non-RS cartoon strip referring to the original band member; and the second refers to the original band member by the way of their brother and doesn't mention the subject at all. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. fails notability criteria--Candyfan 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:49, 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 keep. Sr13 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jlime[edit]

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

Notability to come. Chealer 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't claim notability or ask other sources to do the job either. YechielMan 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough for me... --Arny 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hopes of clearer consensus. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - One source does not make notability. -- Kesh 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two? Three? Four? Besides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:JNN.
• Keep It was inside LinuxFormat 94 and a simple googling shows its notability. 80.251.192.2, 19:23, 17 June 2007
• Keep Cites the founders website, has a third party review and has been in a Linux magazine. (I also just added a source for the ipkg section). Seems notable enough. 21:12, 17 June 2007 (BST)
• Keep This is the best embedded Linux distribution and the ONLY one for HP Jornada's and I heard they were going

to add mobilepro to the supported list. Its very notable in Linux world. --217.208.148.126 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like a bad idea to delete such a notable Linux Distro,it was even in Linux Format this month Page 17 issue 94 A google of Jornada Linux will site the Distro at No 1 http://www.google.co.uk/ search Jornada+Linux and see for yourself ;) This is in no way a dead distro but is constantly being updated by a notable Linux Kernel Developer see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristoffer_Ericson that in itself should be Notable enough and also a review was on HPCFactor on Jan 22nd 2007 http://www.hpcfactor.com/reviews/software/jlime/donkey-1-0-2/ Hagisbasheruk 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It also is the only existing project for Linux under the Jornada, and efforts are being made to bring it to other HPCs (turning it into an "umbrella project" of a sorts for Linux under HPCs, the only existing one). Plus, all the arguments above. B Lizzard 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everything above pretty much states it. Mr.KlicK 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Mr.KlicK[reply]
• keep handhelds.org also mentiones it. Lack of notability is out of question IMO.
  • The above arguments boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Neither of which are convincing in an AfD. -- Kesh 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination came out of a broad survey of linux distributions by Chealer as an attempt to reduce the number of non-notable articles on linux distributions. A noble, difficult, worthwhile task to be sure. However, most of these articles are unsourced, and Chealer exercised his best judgement/opinion as to which of the articles to nominate for deletion or not. Once nominated, articles such as these are placed in the difficult position of having to adhere to the strict guidelines concerning notability. The nomination process here has been subjective, and in my opinion linux distributions, being informal and opensource rather than commercial, tend not to receive the sort of press attention that commercial endeavors do. This is not to suggest that all articles on linux distributions should be kept, but rather there is a gray area here. I understand the need for sourcing material, but there are many, many articles in Wikipedia that are unsourced, won't ever be, yet are encyclopedic and worthwhile (c.f. flukeman - having recently watched the X-files episode, I was thrilled to find a Wikipedia article on it.). The nomination process for articles such as this has been rather arbitrary, and IMHO something is not quite kosher with this process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdushaw (talk • contribs) 09:36, June 18, 2007
• Comment I agree with Bdushaw, even though this distribution hasn't received much publicity it seems quite well known in the linux world and therefore notable on its own. --217.208.148.126 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By the same standards cited by the deleters above (and indeed wikipedia policy) the following articles would also be deleted: GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia, ELKS, Openembedded (and OpenPsion which is also up for deletion at the moment and how I got involved here). I am well aware of the policy that pointing out other faulty articles is no argument; however, all these articles fall into a very similar category. I am in the curious position of agreeing with sources, references, notability, etc. ... up until the conclusion in this case. There has to be a way for opensource development of linux on PDAs can have a good representation on Wikipedia. Bdushaw 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it got enough notability --80.251.192.1 11:06, 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. While initially the outcome was clearly to delete, the article has since been expanded to assert notability via the site's content being distributed by a notable independent party. Delete comments say this is advertising, but do not elaborate on their rationales. Once this web site is shown to meet WP:WEB, any advertorial tone in the text can be edited away; "redoing" the article does not require deletion. Resurgent insurgent 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine.ca[edit]

Divine.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB. Listed for AFD after User:Cappy411 removed the speedy tag. Oscarthecat 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant advertising.--Edtropolis 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, advertising.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-Notable. Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Divine.ca is a well known site within Canada. It is one of the largest websites in Canada for women. Site statistics show that divine.ca has over 300,000 unique visitors per month. In addition, Yahoo! considers divine.ca a partner and syndicates content from divine.ca. This site is similar to iVillage (a women's website based in the US), but is targeted to Canadian women.

For proof of notability, please visit these sites:

Divine.ca homepage

Yahoo! Partners Page

Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 June 2007.

• Comment. It's blantant advertising. Wikipedia is not an internet guide or an online shopping wiki where I like buy stuff.--Edtropolis 15:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That's a laughable, pathetic attempt at proof.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I nearly speedily deleted it, but I'll grant that some notability is asserted. It needs backed up with independent sources—and Yahoo is not independent of its own partnership, so it needs other media coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC); amended 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a hard time understanding why divine.ca would be deleted, when other womens sites such as ivillage.com are allowed to have a page on wikipedia. I would also disagree with the previous comment that Yahoo! is not a media source. The partnership divine.ca has with Yahoo! is evidence that divine.ca is a legitimate company and a company of note.

Other coverage:

http://www.gratisbingogames.com/20061008/scratch-win-and-raise-money-for-breast-cancer.php

http://www.infopresse.com/guide/GAM.asp?ID=3003&Section=4&SousSection=221&Type=3

http://www.divineweather.com/rules.html

http://wellness.w3.ihscnet.net/blog/

http://www.shania.com/stcares.htm

http://www.bra-g.com/news.htm

http://www.trind.ca/news/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That said, iVillage.com does not have an article. iVillage does, but it asserts notability when it says it was purchased by NBC Universal for $600 million. Granted, that's not backed up with a source, but it's at least asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of the links cited above by Cappy411 are primarily covering Divine.ca. The gratisbingogames.com link is the closest, but a) it's a little adrift of reliable, IMHO and b) only identifies that the site has been around since 2005 and is giving 5 cents per some event to a breast cancer charity. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop putting spam on Wikipedia. It violates WP:ADVERT.--Edtropolis 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To OscarCat: I have told this user not to spam Wikipedia.--Edtropolis 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Edtropolis - those links aren't spam, they are attempts to make a point. Thus your WP:SPAM warning post on Cappy411's user page was not wholly justified, as that user did not violate Wikipedia:Spam here. (Also somewhat violates WP:COI since you're involved in this AFD. -- Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. IMHO (since I'm speaking as an AfD participant here), the links were a good-faith effort to assert notability and not spam. Let's stay on the topic of the article here and save anything else for a talk page (including the AfD's). —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redo - article is poorly formatted, an orphan and of questionable notability. If users want it, they will make it again. Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As Edtropolis states, the links are not intended as spam but as a good faith attempt to establish notability. I would contend that iVillage was a notable company prior to it's purchase by NBC, as it was one of the largest sites in the United States targeted to women. Divine.ca fills a similar role for Canadian women, being one of the only online-only sites (no print component) in Canada that directly targets women.
  

Further coverage includes (this is not spam, but again, an attempt to establish notability):

http://www.rethinkbreastcancer.com/partners.html

http://www.newszoom.com/search/read/beyonce+knowles/beyonce_knowles/20/02/

http://www.leonalewisfansite.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29425&sid=6508744267dd997b63036b58e8ad7e1f

http://www.contestqueen.com/resources/inthenews.html

http://www.gratisbingogames.com/

http://www.tornade-coiffure.com/cours/evenements/media.html

http://mlm.business-opportunities.biz/page/4/

www.branchez-vous.com/inc/BRANCHEZ-VOUS_MediaKit_October2006_WEB%20Version.pdf

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/body-mind/divine/career_money-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_

http://www.incomexchange.com/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.151.96 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• The comment that divine.ca is blatant advertising because the name is a url is unwarranted. Unlike iVillage, the name of the site in question IS divine.ca, not divine. This is shown in the numerous links referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thechickpea (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC). — Thechickpea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as a blatant ad of some NN site. meshach 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redo: After reviewing Wikipedia’s own criteria for submission, it would seem that Divine.ca is being rebuffed only because its own is not properly structured.

I would suggest following the example of these similar online magazine entries listed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Zen_Monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_magazine

Surely the criteria of the notability can be met using accepted research methods, as web metrix would prove or disprove claims sited by either side.

Wikipedia’s own argument:

“Conversely, very few things are well known everywhere. For instance, Pepe may not be well-known in London, but that does not by itself mean he is not notable.”

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F

Divine.ca is well known in Canada as an online webzine for women.

I would recommend allowing article to be reworked before any final decision is taken.— 66.131.254.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete, Having taken time to visit the links proffered in support of keeping the article, I came away convinced that this is merely blatant self promotion. Further, surely like most folks on this thread, I am familiar with many Internet forums. A visit to the divine.ca forums shows relatively little interest at all. Neither the proffered links nor the site's own forums come close to suggesting notability. Oh and I am Canadian and have never head of this site. Pever 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In my opinion the article page seems to just be stating facts and shouldn't be considered spam or advertising; especially after reading some of the articles posted by other ezines. Oh and I'm a Canadian woman and have been getting divine.ca's newsletter regularly for about a year now. Mnm1108 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Mnm1108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. I read the links provided and they were not sufficient proof of notability, either as an online magazine or as a form of Internet marketing. Canuckle 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : As per Wikipedia guidelines, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid argument when discussing page deletion. As a Canadian site targeted to women, this site cannot be expected to be universally known by everyone in every country and by all Canadians. Search engine results for "online women magazine Canada" reveal that divine.ca is the 5th site listed. As these are organic listings, it would stand to reason that the site is known for being an online women's magazine in Canada. Furthermore, I would disagree with the previous comment that the forums show relatively little interest. Have you compared the forums of other online women's magazines, or is this opinion based on forums in other fields (such as IT/technology where users are generally more active)? Let's compare apples to apples. --Thechickpea 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)— Thechickpea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep : As per WP:WEB “The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7]” Yahoo distributes divine.ca's content; Yahoo is well known and independent of divine.ca.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)— 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: Google Canada search for "divine" shows divine.ca as the first organic listing when searched. A Google.com search "divine" shows divine.ca as the ninth organic listing when searched. Clearly this shows evidence that divine.ca is recognized. --Tinklebottom 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) — Tinklebottom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Upon reconsideration, keep. I finally found a page (http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home) that is Yahoo branded where Divine.ca is listed by Yahoo among "Our partners." Yahoo is well-known, Yahoo is independent of Divine.ca, Yahoo distributes Divine.ca content, and the distribution is non-trivial/non-user-submitted. WP:WEB notability criteria are satisfied, veifiability satisfied with the inclusion of the Yahoo page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—as per C.Fred's most recent comment. --Paul Erik 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mets WP:WEB as content is carried by Yahoo. John Vandenberg 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on content being carried by Yahoo. --Thechickpea 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Can only vote once. --Oscarthecat 07:28, 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple sucking[edit]

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

The title of the article makes it obvious what the subject matter is. The article was recently created by a new user with 3 contributions. It was unreferenced original research until I added some references. I could probably add more references but I'm just not sure that this is a valid encyclopedia topic. The content could be merged. I just don't know, so I'm asking for consensus here. Oh yeah and nothing links to it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Disgusting. Violates WP:PORN.--Edtropolis 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you find a normal and widely-practiced sexual activity disgusting and worthy of suppression. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you; there are other wikis out there which may better suit your worldview. —Psychonaut 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last comment by Psychonaut was not called for. Edtropolis is welcome to contribute here and saying that his or her "worldview" is not appropriate for Wikipedia is completely ridiculous. Comments like these do not make new users feel welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't notice that Edtropolis was a new user. I did look at his contributions, which are mostly AfD !votes, and assumed that he was familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR, and other policies which make his !vote rationale completely inappropriate. Edtropolis, since you are evidently a new user, I apologize and withdraw the second sentence of my comment. But please consider editing Wikipedia for a while before diving into AfDs, so that you can familiarize yourself with our conventions and learn what are and are not acceptable rationales for deletion. —Psychonaut 11:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoo boy. I'm sure that I'm going to catch nine different kinds of hell for recommending this, but here goes: Merge to foreplay. Groupthink 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:PORN is just an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your delete vote smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is thus invalid. Groupthink's suggestion seems to be a better one: merge and redirect. Also, if you think mere nipple sucking is disgusting, then I dread to hear what you think about such articles as donkey punch, cleveland steamer, anal torture, urethral play, rusty trombone which I find truly revolting. I don't find nipple sucking disgusting at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As George Carlin once infamously observed: "Betcha can't eat just one!" ;-) Groupthink 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had to google that just to find out what you were talking about.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as encylopedic (if not more so) that the aforementioned cleveland steamer and rusty trombone! Lugnuts 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But yeah, this is a much more normal and common sexual practise than either of those two, and you can't really argue with me on that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the "Dirty Bristow" comment on the rusty trombone article is the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia! Lugnuts 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's irrelevant to this debate, and anyway although that slang term seems to be in use it isn't referenced to WP:RS and may be a WP:BLP violation although I've left it for the moment.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - gonna remove it per WP:BLP on second thoughts. Back to the nipple sucking debate please.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is just as encyclopedic as other articles we have on much stranger sex techniques. These have been subject to many AFDs ending in keep, especially donkey punch, so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply. Given the limited time, I'm willing to keep it with expectation of expansion as more and better sources turn up. I'm comfortable with merging to foreplay, as well.--Chaser - T 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a merger into foreplay might be difficult as that article is in a poor state just now anyway, and having a huge section about nipple sucking might seem strange.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. True, Wikipedia may have things like this under this rule, but this article is something else. It is gross and will be a vandalism target. What if the if the article was just made by a vandal? Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder, we are not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If an article is a encyclopedic topic, it should be kept, no matter who created the article. I'm trying to ascertain here whether it is encyclopedic. I don't see what's so gross about it either, especially in comparison with other sex articles.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is gross and will be a vandalism target stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Not a valid argument to delete. Lugnuts 14:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True and something being a vandalism target, in itself, is a completely invalid reason for deletion. Yeah, let's go delete the George W. Bush article...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And 20,000 high school articles...--Chaser - T 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment whose inclusion rests on notability, and has no correlation with vandalism. This is quite obviously a notable sexual practice, but whether it deserves its own page I just do not know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't see how you can find nipple sucking gross. It's one of the first things I do to a woman during foreplay, without fail.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's lovely, but we're here to talk about whether the article should be deleted or kept based on policies, not whether we find the practice gross or our own private sex lives. Thanks.--Chaser - T 16:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Others have stated (as an invalid argument for deletion) that it's gross. I'm just trying to highlight that others may not for that purpose; I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM quite liberally.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Thekittybomb 16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... and your reasoning is? Groupthink 16:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not a vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AFD is heading for no consensus.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like a keep. The delete votes are citing reasons that are not policy based. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to foreplay. Dalejenkins

Keep - it's not about whether its dirty, it's about whether it encyclopedically written and notable enough. I say it fits the latter if anything. Guroadrunner 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep topic is clearly encyclopedic as a fairly common sexual practice, and the references now included are enough to pass at least the minimum bar of WP:V and WP:N. The article should be expanded and improved with more and better refs, but that is not a reason to delete. DES ^(talk) 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge the closer to discount comments where the only reasopning is "Gross" or other vareints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreplay. There are adequate references from the Kinsey Reports to Masters and Johnson to document this as a part of foreplay among humans. The fact that some editors here find the idea "disgusting" or "gross" is pretty hilarious, but irrelevant to the topic being encyclopedic. Later in their lives they may find it less so. It easily satisfies WP:N, but there is not quite enough in the present article for it to stand alone. Edison 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the present article needs to be expanded and better referenced, but this is not a reason to delete. If you agree "it easily satisfies WP:N" I would think you would want to improve the article, not merge it into something else.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. DES said it well. This is totally appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I don't think a merge to foreplay makes any sense. Not to be too explicit or anything, but nipple sucking is not solely for foreplay (obviously it often takes place during coitus itself, also it might not lead to sex). Thus it can be referenced in the foreplay article (diligent editor HisSpaceResearch has already taken care of that for us!) but it should have its own article just as French kissing, erotic spanking, and oral sex do--all practices which may or may not be part of foreplay. When someone has some spare time and does not mind getting into trouble, they should create a "Wikipedians who think nipple sucking is gross" category. I won't add myself to the cat, but I'll totally watchlist it.  :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Foreplay if it's not expanded after some time.
  Arguments like "it's disgusting" and "it could be vandalised" are logical fallacies and against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.--Svetovid 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see it clearly notable as a part of foreplay, but as a standalone fetish it should, well, stand alone, like the other 100,000 things people become sexually obsessed with.An example was the "Specialist" on HBO's Deadwood [22] Merge the prelude/accompanyment to intercourse into Foreplay and perhaps keep what's left as Nipple sucking (fetish). (And I can't believe I just typed that).Edison 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's clearly a very common sexual practise, and much more common than an extreme ("1 in 100,000") sexual fetish.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish? Obsessed? ...--Svetovid 09:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - there's nothing really wrong with the article (bit stubby!), or the subject. My only thought is that it can't really be developed much more beyond what it presently is, without going into different options/techniques, which verges on WP:N. As part of foreplay it would at least form part of a whole article and placed in context - who's going to spend the whole night just sucking nipples? Rgds, --Trident13 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good show for a new contributor. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Routine part of human behavior; anyone thinking this is remotely relevant to PORN is a little out of step with the world, and it wouldnt matter if it were. WP NOT Censored means it literally. Sufficient references. Of course there can be more. One good study found, but there's quite a bit of relevant fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc/etc. DGG 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could use some more work but it is encyclopedic. - Pharaonic 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep my heart says dl but I can't find a way to separate this from the other sex act pages on WP. JJL 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article needs more work but it fits the encylopedia aspect of Wikipedia, and it is NOT porn. It is simply a normal part of human sexuality.Lord Balin 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, There seems to be two issues, the validity of the article heading and the validity of the content. The article title seems properly retained. The content is almost without merit - but could be rapidly being transformed. When first visited, there were 2 links. There is now 1 to a how to site. The comment "some genetically female people..." leaves me concerned that this is not even heading toward encyclopedic content. Pever 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I was the person who included the comment about genetically female people; the point being that the presence of breasts does not necessarily indicate a female gender identity (i.e. the word "women" may not be appropriate), but "female-bodied" is still accurate. The "how-to" site was always there; see the diffs in my vote, below. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with foreplay, if not, delete. I made an attempt to bring the quality of this article up to an encyclopedic standard; before; after. The second paragraph was related entirely to erotic lactation, and the "one good study found" that DGG mentioned actually had to do not with whether a man had sucked his wife's nipples, but whether fathers had tasted breastmilk at their partner's breasts. I don't feel that oral stimulation of nipples on its own merits its own article. What is there to expand on—the physics of oral suction? Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't exactly studied this in depth (or actually at all) but I imagine there is plenty to expand upon here. Above DGG made reference to portrayal in "fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc" which seem valid for inclusion in the article, but one might also discuss the history of this practice and cross-cultural differences (I assume different cultures have different attitudes toward it and that attitudes may have changed over time, though even if attitudes were relatively static across time and place this fact would be worthy of inclusion). Also doctors or "sex experts" may have weighed in on the practice of nipple sucking (maybe 100 years ago medical professionals recommended against it, who knows) and this could be included as well. I could be wrong about all of this, but I'm guessing there's more than enough material out there to expand this article and make it more encyclopedic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Bigtimepeace's arguments above (not just the comment directly above, but in the rationale for keeping way above): this is a common human sexual practice, meriting inclusion. It should not be merged under foreplay for the reason that it is not solely used in foreplay. And yes, there is plenty of material out there to expand this article. Note also that this article has been moved/renamed to Oral stimulation of nipples. --Ace of Swords 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. How... clinical. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. I shudder to imagine what this might mean for Dirty Sanchez, Hot Karl, Rusty Trombone and Cleveland Steamer... Groupthink 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a sec, the link to "Hot Karl" is to a rapper?!? Oh gawd, please don't tell me I need to make a disambig page... Groupthink 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently you did need to make a disambig page, and you did a shitty job of it, which in this context means, oddly enough, "good work!"--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is a harsh mistress. If she requires me to wade ankle deep into excrement in order to add a disambig page, then I take a shot of pennicilin and obey... ;) Groupthink 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I moved the page so that it would be more complete in its title. I should have made a note of it here; please excuse me. Joie de Vivre ^T 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It is an encyclopaedic topic, so you should add more references. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Foreplay or Sexual_fetishism First sentence of the article reads, at present, "A person may engage in oral stimulation of nipples as a sexual practice." -- But this isn't a "sexual practice" anymore than oral stimulation of the nose or the toes or the earlobes, or any other non-genital body part (e.g., the lips, while kissing), is a "sexual practice".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 June 2007.
  • Could you possibly read what a fetish is before suggesting something? This sexual practice is more distinctive than oral stimulation of the nose or ear. Also, how do I sign posts for others?--Svetovid 10:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How to sign; answered on your Talk page. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers, I got it now.--Svetovid 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is more distinctive than stimulation of the nose or ear, and I agree that it does not necessarily or even frequently constitute a fetish. However I do feel that it is mainly a form of foreplay and that it should be merged there. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Mike18xx, actually it is a sexual practice. Sex practices do not have to involve the genitals, which I would have assumed is a fairly obvious point. Thus I'm not sure about the rationale for this delete vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMO this should not be merged to foreplay, be cause it can occur before, during or after intercourse, or as part of an erotic or sexual encounter that does not involve intercourse. it should not be merged to any fetish articel, because for most people this isn't a fetish (although no doubt there are some for whom it is). if it had to be merged somewhere, the only target that seems reasonable to me is Human sexual behavior. but that is already large enough, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Yamaguchi先生 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's as valid an encyclopedia article as many other Safe sex articles, e.g. Autofellatio, Uncircumcized, Masturbation, French kissing, Erotic spanking, Oral sex, etc. It's certainly amongst my favorites. Unless we have the urge to merge, that is not an option, because this can be part of the act, or So Much for the Afterglow. I can't believe I wrote that, either! Bearian 01:43, 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. Sr13 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holman Scale[edit]

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

2 non-wiki ghits. It may exist, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Contested prod Kathy A. 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Has no sources and fails criteria in WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without sources, notability is unestablished and it fails WP:V (I don't interpret the blog in the google results as a reliable source).--Chaser - T 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete - WP:V is impossible.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only place you'll find this term is on blogs, primarily here: phisherman. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," see WP:NOT. StudierMalMarburg 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Just because it's "used frequently by fishing bloggers" doesn't mean it can be included on Wikipedia. It is not WP:V, and no sources will ever be found. WP:SNOW it already! *Cremepuff222* 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Unattributed rubbish, per WP:NFT. Dhaluza 23:48, 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. Bucketsofg 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Patanjali Vidya Mandir[edit]

Maharishi Patanjali Vidya Mandir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A school in India that fails WP:ORG. PROD in October 06 was contested with comment: "Google shows it exists". That is undoubted. However, the article contains no hint why the school should be notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with comment Google shows I exist, but it doesn't mean I get an article. Nothing to suggest notability here. The school website, "under construction", is a deadlink.--Ispy1981 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's more like a dictionary than an article.--Edtropolis 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The present article is completely uninformative. A pity as Wikipedia has very poor coverage of Indian schools. I'm sure there is plenty of scope to expand the article if anyone was interested enough to take it on. Dahliarose 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V due to no sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to not establishing notability or context. The school does exist and could be notable in some form, but the current article is not worth keeping. Camaron1 | Chris 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Per WP:CSD A7, and page has been so tagged. Unremarkable subject with little to no context about it nor any information which meets WP:N and WP:V. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:29, 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 Keep. Walton^talk 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Creek's Field of Flight Entertainment Festival[edit]