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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Figure Skating Club[edit]

Georgia Figure Skating Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local branch of national organization (United States Figure Skating Association); see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Club activities listed are typical of thousands of other figure skating clubs and not evidence of notability. Has never been a major training center for the sport of figure skating or played a notable role in the history of the sport; compare Skating Club of Boston, Philadelphia Skating Club and Humane Society, and Broadmoor Skating Club for counterexamples of skating clubs that are notable. Dr.frog 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This might merit an article if sources could be found to back up its notability assertions. If it really is one of the largest clubs, or if the Peach Classic is as important as the article makes it sound, then perhaps this place is notable. Without sources, however, this is a delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Before deleting, please let me add the notable skaters and coaches. I didn't realize that an article had to be full and complete before it was added. I thought that the articles could be added to. Rlichtefeld 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must assert the importance of the subject. What makes the Georgia FSC more important than any of the other thousands of figure skating clubs throughout the world? The other notable skating clubs listed above have been the training home of multiple national champions and World/Olympic competitors over a period of several decades. I am not aware of any such notable skaters who have trained at or represented the Georgia FSC (which has been in existence for less than 10 years), much less enough of them to make the club notable in its own right as an elite training center. Dr.frog 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The skaters you listed are not considered "notable". Dr.frog 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlichtefeld, I believe the "lowest" we go in terms of notability is World Junior level. Got anyone from there? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable organization. And I don't think competiting at the novice level is inherantly notable for an encyclopedia. Kolindigo 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to assert notability per WP:N. If there is a skater associated with the club who competes at the national level, I may reconsider. --Kyoko 19:03, 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. The Sunshine Man 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get the Guns[edit]

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

This is a bootleg compilation that was not released by Eminem. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for music. It has no sources, very little editing activity, and very few articles link to it. Daniil Maslyuk 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Eminin is so notable that even prominent bootlegs of him ought to be included. This apparently contains tracks not available anywhere else and so it is a major bootleg. Herostratus 21:03, 16 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, Nabla 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and suggest merge in the normal manner. There are 20,000 hits for this, making it a useful search term that should redirect to Eminem if it doesnt warrant its own article. John Vandenberg 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks notable to me: just because it's a bootleg, does that make it non-notable? -- MightyWarrior 09:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followday[edit]

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

Was tagged as "speedy - notable" (?) which was contested, and removed as there is a vague assertion, and CSD A7 doesn't extend to neologisms. However, the title only returned 20 google hits, none of which seemed to be relevant. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of use can be found nor are any sources provided. The New Jersey claim of origin tugs at my heartstrings, but a search of Google and Google News/Archives finds no relevant source that can be used to support the term. As such the article fails WP:NEO. Alansohn 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Bren ^talk 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a dicdef at best, but thre's not even evidence of widespread use. -- Whpq 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Whpq Thehalfone 08:47, 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 redirect to Warriors (book series). History will be left intact since there appears to be strong interest in merging, whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark River (Warriors)[edit]

Dark River (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article on a book that doesn't come out until January of 2008. Nothing in the article suggests that the book will be notable. The article is filled with speculative terms and the main content of the article is a action summary from an excerpt of the book from the previous book in the series. This should be deleted until after the book is released in half a year and notability can be proven and sources can be found. Metros 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warriors (book series), which has an empty header with only a link to this book name. Any crystal ballery can be removed from there. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Outcast We don't have enough info on them, so it makes sense to make a small article on both of them. ~Crowstar~ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per Zeibura. Can always be recreated in the future.Legalbeaver 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have modified it so that it has a infobox with a fair bit of info. I have also added a reference that should be reliable enough and that has a page on the book, Dark River. (Amazon.com). If anything, the idea of merging Outcast with it is also a good idea.~Bella 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now This will be a notable book, Metros, there is be no question about that. However, the reason this should be deleted is simply because you can't write an article with sources on a book that hasn't been published. The only thing we know about it is the two page preview at the back of The Sight. The information about when it will be published could easily be merged with the main article. When the book comes out would be the appropriate time to rewrite this article. KjtheDj 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Child-Cavill[edit]

Amber Child-Cavill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These are some child actors that play toddlers in some series and that more or less it. IMO, being filmed when an actor carries you around doesn't make them notable for an encyclopedia. Also nominating:

• Isabella Hammill
• Raymond and Joseph Cartigiano
• Freyja and Phoebe Coltman-West

I was considering a separate nomination for each but the reason is the same for all. Tone 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all in absence of any non-trivial coverage. --Tikiwont 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really something for an encyclopedia IMO.--Sandy Donald 18:55, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Deans[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Only claim to notability was being the final (and surviving) husband of Judy Garland. Ozgod 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - his coverage in umpteen Garland biographies attest to his notability. He wrote a notable (and apparently best-selling) biography of Garland that went into multiple printings and has been cited (albeit unfavorably) in other scholarship on Garland and so appears to pass WP:BIO as a creative professional. Seems kinda silly to have articles on the rest of her husbands and not Deans (yeah I know, but still). Otto4711 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vincente Minnelli and arguably Sid Luft certainly pass the WP:Notability, but merely being the last husband of Judy Garland and his written his (and only one) book Weep No More Lady does not necessary (to my understand of WP:Notability) make him eligible of his own encyclopedia article. His marriage to Garland and subsequent book could be suitable subsections of her main article. I also feel Mark Herron is a potential AFD, but I will re-examine his article and google his name to see if he achieved anything other than being another husband of Garland. --Ozgod 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if an article becomes too long and cumbersome it is appropriate to break off to sub-pages. To incude a discussion on each husband's life would be problematic; to include a bio on one would overstate his importance relative to the others. A double edged sword. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concur with Otto, and provided some references to support verifiability. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - this is a tough one, but given that his notability stems entirely from having been married to a famous person and written about it, I'll say delete. Korny O'Near 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still within the bounds of Wikipedia:Notability... Ranma9617 02:18, 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--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Morris[edit]

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

This one's been speedy deleted a few times for A7 and G11... It's been recreated again with a bit more work with the references... However the subject simply isn't notable enough (and I think it's taken that the author of the article is the subject). Does not meet WP:BIO, sole reference is not a WP:RS. Oh, and the station itself is hardly a roaring success - it'll close down in about 10 days time.

In summary - not yet notable Thanks/wangi 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I'm not sure Adamiow was the author (in that case it would be vanity, although he was a contributor), still, delete per WP:BIO and WP:RS. His name is mentioned in the article for the station. That's enough. This guy doesn't need publicity. He needs a job.--Ispy1981 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a guy with a job (and not even that for long, it seems). Doesn't come remotely close to the criteria for entertainers on WP:BIO. —Cryptic 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firstly, I am not the person that the article is based on. I am just a fan, who happens to have the same first name. Secondly, I believe that he is a notable person. He has worked on two nationwide radio stations, broadcasting to in excess of 200,000 listeners on Capital Disney, as per RAJAR results. I also think that the comments on Capital Disney's success aren't really relevant. In reference to his future jobs, I don't think that is a matter for here either. Adamiow 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: If Adam Morris is indeed notable then you should have no problem updating the article to meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines. If you're not Adam Morris then I think you need to do a bit of work on a couple of images: Image:AdamMorris.jpg & Image:AllanLake.jpg — who is the copyright holder? A photo being uploaded to myspace isn't a general release to use it somewhere else. Thanks/wangi 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I will sort out the copyright for the photos in due course, after this page is sorted. Adamiow 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see any evidence this person meets WP:BIO. There is no significant additional claim of notability beyond the versions that were speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11 (and for sake of full disclosure I am one of the admins who previously deleted this per a speedy tag).--Isotope23 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I am assuming radio presenters are part of Entertainers on WP:BIO. However, this criteria is very unclear, as I could say Adam has a cult following and his work on Capital Disney is significant, as the station is a major station, with awards and audience figures to show. Adamiow 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, have some reality and perspective when talking about "cult following"... Cult following is used to define fan behaviour of the like shown toward the Rocky Horror Show. Capital Disney was never a major UK radio station - it was DAB / satellite only. Thanks/wangi 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I accept the cult following situation, but I was just trying to demonstrate there are no clear criteria with regards to radio presenters. However, I very much disagree with your views on Capital Disney. The station is a major UK radio station, as the audience figures show. It makes a much larger impact than many stations on the RAJAR results. As well as this, it has won numerous awards, including the Sony Radio Academy Digital Station of the Year, which is the highest accolade possible for the station and for any station which is not local or on FM/AM. Adamiow 09:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cross in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - another largely unsourced indiscriminate collection seeking to capture every trivial or non-trivial reference to or appearance of a particular German/Nazi/neo-Nazi symbol/decoration in any context without regard to its meaning or importance either within the work or in the real world. Not as egregious as the deleted "Swastikas in popular culture" article but still quite poor. To forestall one inevitable response, strongly oppose merging any of the content into Iron Cross. This article was created as a place to dump material that wasn't wanted in the main article and it is no more encyclopedic in another article than it is on its own. Otto4711 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only non-trivial material, as explained in the nomination, is the use as a hate symbol. Which could be merged, since it's one sentence. --Haemo 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources--Sefringle^Talk 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 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--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate[edit]

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another list that qualifies as WP:NOT#INFO. All the info needed can be found at individual playmate's articles, no need to have a list like this. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Listcruft.--Ispy1981 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I am pro beautiful women and honoring their birthdays, I don't think that this type of list is encyclopedic for any group of people regardless of whether it is my favorite baseball team, my personal friends or a list of bunnies. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This isn't a list of the Playmates birthdays, it's a list of their years of birth (birthdates), time of first appearance and age at the time, age at time of death (that needs to be made clearer), etc. Everyone of them is a bluelink. I kind of like the idea that there's an 84 year old lady out there who was Miss January '55. Say what you will, but it's informative, well organized and it passes the notability test. Mandsford 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is not informative, is irrelevant, and duplicates information that exists in other lists on Wikipedia. These ladies simply aren't that important that we need dozens of separate lists about them, and their age is one of the less important things about them. --Charlene 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's high time the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" was redefined or reinterpreted. <KF> 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a poster child for indiscriminate. If there were a Playboy wiki, or even a pin-up wiki, it might fit in, but I just don't see what function the list serves beyond making a list. For example, I could just barely see a justification for List of Playboy Playmates by age at first appearance which might conceivably tell us something about the ages considered appropriate for nude models in different eras. I don't think it would survive AFD, though, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add fold-out illustrations, for the benefit of Wikipedia users (no current nude picture of Miss January '55, please) Mandsford 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only vote once, please. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant list. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless list and violates WP:NOT Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ace of Swords 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Everyone [sic] of them is a bluelink." Then make sure the information is present in the individual articles, and delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it does boggle the mind that we have articles on every playmate, but since we do grouping them this way rather than by age at time of appearance, or by order of appearance, or by height, weight, cup size, whatever, seems unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's a list article and it's not indiscriminate, one has to be a Playboy Playmate to be on the list. The list makes it easy to see which former Playmates are still alive and how old they are, and how old they were when they appeared in the magazine. The list doesn't count as "indiscrimiinate collection of information" because it does not fall under any of the 10 sub-sections listed on WP:NOT#INFO. The data is within a table. The article is neutral, verifiable, and contains no original research. "Cruft" is a subjective term meant to belittle any piece of information. Even if there was a common definition as to what "cruft" is, there is no policy against "cruft." As far as I can tell, there are only two articles on Wikipedia that list every Playmate on one page and I think this is a useful article. Everyone on the page is notable, and the article is useful for comparing their current ages. --Pixelface 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Third option. Can't we use sortable tables to generate a list with this functionality that also allows sorting by date of appearance, date of death, age at time of appearance, alphabetically by name, etc., thus serving all the desired functions at once? --tjstrf talk 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to suggest the same. Sortable tables reduce the number of articles about the same thing drastically. --Tone 09:29, 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 redirect to Young Snipe. Sr13 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Listen, & Learn[edit]

Look, Listen, & Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original work, but a mix tape of other artists' music. Non-notable. Also AFDing the artist, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 eaolson 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources providing actual content. Track listing alone is not encyclopedic. Jay32183 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:53, 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 redirect all. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1[edit]

Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original album, but a mix CD of other artists' works. Non-notable. Also going to AFD:

• Young Snipe, the artist (artist may be notable, arguably, but these mixes are not)
• Look, Listen, & Learn, another mix tape
• Ben Frank:The Mixtape, another mix tape

---

eaolson 20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as no assertions to notability have been made. In addition, Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 and Ben Frank:The Mixtape are both borderlining on CSD A3, as they have nothing other than a track list and an infobox. - Zeibura^(talk) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep per WP:MUSIC: "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Assuming this was verifiably released by a label, I'd say there's no reason to axe this, although some expansion is obviously needed. Numerous other professionally released Category:Mixtape albums have been kept. That said, the definition of an album in that quote might not be relevant, given that the album was released on the artist's own non-notable label. MrZaius^talk 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The line line in WP:MUSIC about albums inheriting notability is weak and disputed...I default to: Has the album received any indepedent coverage to justify it as an article on its own? No? Merge it into the main article, there's plenty of space. Track listings with no other information are indiscriminate in my opinion. — Scientizzle 16:19, 25 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. - KrakatoaKatie 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Day Miracle[edit]

Memorial Day Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Fails WP:NEO, as there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term. The article is completely unsourced. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Okay, I never heard of it, but it's apparently a great moment in pro basketball history, right up there with the Immaculate Reception, the Miracle on Ice, the Helicopter Game, etc. Mandsford 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's not on par with the Miracle on Ice, but it's an interesting moment in NBA history. The NBA itself lists Sean Elliott's game as a legendary performance; in addition, the book 'At the Buzzer' devotes an entire section to Elliott's game-winning shot (which also appears on the cover of the book - see top image). As for the nom's claim that "there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term," I found 91 Google News hits for "memorial day miracle" + "sean elliott"; the term also appears in the two sources I mentioned above. Zagalejo 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there seems to be many reliable sources for the event and the name; there seems to be a very clear link to the NBA reference at the bottom of the article. How did you go about determining that there were no 'sources using the term'? Kuru ^talk 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I remember the moment well and it was an extremely important event in basketball that needs to have an article.--Southern Texas 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of sources, as Zagalejo says, that use the term "Memorial Day Miracle." However, I still think the article covers a non-notable topic. Mention of it certainly belongs on relevant pages (such as Sean Elliott, San Antonio Spurs, 1999 NBA Playoffs, etc.) but the shot in itself is not notable. It received significant coverage as described in the notability guidelines, but only because every NBA game is covered by mainstream media. There are no separate articles for John Havlicek's dramatic steal or buzzer-beaters by John Paxson and Robert Horry. I know this is the dreaded what about X argument, but I think it's reasonable to assume that those events form a solid peer group. Articles in the category "National Basketball Association lore" (of which the MDM article is a part of) point to an individual player's page such as Gar Heard; why should this be different? SliceNYC (Talk) 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily just the shot; the name refers to the game itself, which was an improbable comeback capped by a rather difficult shot. If you want to play the 'what about x' game, you can probably find hundreds of articles on notable individual games, including basketball ones: The Phantom Buzzer Game, The Shot. I'm sure they have varying levels of subjective notability; I certainly wouldn't compare this to the Miracle on Manchester or the Music City Miracle (ok, maybe that one), but it is clearly referenced as a significant historical, not current, NBA event in news media and books as noted above. It's possible I'm missing your point; you're saying you're comfortable that it meets the notability guidelines, but not your personal threshold for inclusion? Kuru ^talk 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the guidelines can be deceptive. Sure, the game received lots of coverage that would qualify it as notable, but that's because NBA playoff games are highly scrutinized events even if it's a blowout. Informally surveying the basketball articles on here, it seems like notable games are incorporated into the playoff series' article or the individual players article. Also, I'd prefer not to conflate the shot and the game as you seem to be doing; the shot makes the game better-known. If the game was decided by one point but without a last-second shot, odds are nobody thinks to create a page for it even if there was a big comeback. SliceNYC (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I know nothing about basketball but I assume that the NBA site is reasonably authoritative for the sport. Although this is the only source establishing notability, I think it's just enough. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:27, 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 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Moore (politician)[edit]

Charles Moore (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable minor political candidate, whose only claim to fame is achieving 2% of the vote in the Congressional elections in (apparently) 2004. Fails WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS If the article is deleted, please also remove his entry from Charles Moore (disambiguation). Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable, failed candidate. Montco 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment anyone have an idea of what Libertarians usually get in the State of Washington? Is he by any chance doing spectacularly well? DGG 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I'd keep his mention in the dab page, which might help avert some reader's confusion. After the article on the Jim Robinson of Free Republic was deleted, his name stayed on the dab page. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titans of Justice[edit]

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

Delete article on insufficiently notable fanfic site. Doczilla 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, low notability fan fiction published on free blogs and forums. (Emperor 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fanfic and not notable. Kusonaga 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete fanfic - NN. --Fredrick day 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inattributable. Murgh^disc. 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Capmango 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Does not meet any inclusion criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (web). -- Satori Son 01:55, 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 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SaLon Gallery[edit]

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

Speedy A7 was declined by admin User:Rklawton, who recommended AFD. Notability is not established. Conflict of interest is likely given the author's username, which also has no other edits. YechielMan 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Leuko 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this article was originally listed as db-spam. I removed the spam bits. Notability is claimed via artist(s) represented. I thought it might be useful to give editors a chance to improve the article. If no such improvements are forthcoming, then count my vote as "delete", too. Rklawton 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Assertions to notability are there as Rklawton says, and the press page on their website claims they've been reviewed by some guides and magazines which look like they might be reliable sources. Can't find any of them on the internet, but if these can be obtained as hard copies and used as references, I think it'd be keepable. - Zeibura^(talk) 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Delete per Victoriagirl's reasoning. - Zeibura^(talk) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:ORG, the primary criterion of which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I write this recognizing that the SaLon website claims that the gallery "has already appeared in the March 2006 editions of the Hill, Grove & Kult magazines, the October, November & December 2006 editions of Gallery Guide for Europe, the January 2007 edition of the Resident Magazine". This leaves the reader to wonder what is meant by "appeared"... a feature article, a profile, a column, a review, a listing, an ad? Really a non-issue, as the article itself doesn't attempt to provide such sources. Victoriagirl 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It was me who nominated it for speedying. If you have to write your own article, then methinks you're not notable enough. Chris 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while this may be an indicator that problems may exist with the article, self-authorship is not a deletion criterion. Rklawton 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: True. But, this says "We also tend to discourage authors from writing about themselves or their own accomplishments, as this is a conflict of interest. If you have made notable accomplishments, someone else will write an article about you eventually." Chris 08:13, 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

There seems to be consensus that there isn't enough reliable material for an article. There are also biographies of living persons concerns. After one year and hundreds of edits the references remain of remarkably poor quality. The subject may merit a line or two in List of internet phenomena if it can be shown to pass the standards for inclusion in that article, and can be sourced adequately. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frosties Kid[edit]

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

sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources. tried to add tags for cleanup but tags are deleted and they say i should "prod or afd" instead. Elbowdrop 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Frosties if WP:RS exist, otherwise delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has some notability as a Meme/Urban myth. i have been involved with the article since its creation and it has gathered more comment than it is worth. Wikipedia should mirror the internet and have raised the subject of its deletion on wikipedia email. A google search on Frosties Kid raises over 40,000 links [Frosties Kid search] I cannot really see how a deletion is appropriate. The article does need sourcing. but a delete is inappropriate Mike33 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Little or no notability, virtually no sources to speak of, and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have two votes:

Merge if more proof of a meme/urban myth can be shown, right now, it can't be. Otherwise...

Delete unless he does make the 2008 team, right now, there's a serious lack of notability since anyone off the street can be in a commercial (hell, I've done an anti drug commercial before, and I don't consider myself notable). That, and the sources aren't reliable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment calm down. It is not a biography. Sven Ruygrok just happens to be the internet meme. Does wikipedia echo internet memes, yes. Does Wikipidea become part of a meme? no way. The article has stood for the last year. It does need clean up. WP:BLP warriors - prove how it worked last week and falls from grace this week? Mike33 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could you please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Thank you. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is so uncool in Afd. please save remarks like that to my talk page. unjustified. Mike33 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you'd like more evidence of how widespread this meme is, check out the article "Why the Frosties ad is the worst of all time" by Alistair Foster in the Evening Standard on August 14th, 2006. It's an article just about the commercial and the reactions its inspired. It's not All Your Base, but it has widespread coverage including coverage in mainstream sources. Chris Croy 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Frosties. One newspaper article and Snopes does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also smacks of spam by the cerieal company to gain more free publicity. Someone might consider reviving WP:MEME with criteria which would consider the significance of memes. Edison 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, with a sidenote that I'd support a merge. He appears to be the equivalent of Mikey over here in the United States, but research turns up nothing much. Perhaps a local over there can turn up something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the merge idea was kicked around last fall. without canvassing I can find some of the editors who opposed a merger. During the WP:BLP storm I asked for clarification about this article. The feedback I received is that it is meme. If we are going to start deleting all meme then surely we have lost sense of those guidelines. The article has gone through ad infinitum changes. As it stands today I think it has credibility. Mike33 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am voting keep based on the fact that Little Mikey thrives and because I don't really think people should just keep taking stabs at the apple. The article is marginal, but somewhat encyclopedic. If Lucky Vanous had an article I would surely vote to keep. I am not sure where the notability hurdle is on human spokespersons, but I support as an interesting topic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if I understood all the text. red links certainly dont help your argument. Little Mikey may well be a good example (its been a featured page), however, The Frosties Kid, will never get to be a featured page. It has its own validity, but certainly not to the extent of Little Mikey. Mike33 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On a lighter note my home page is google and use the search "frosties kid wikipedia" to edit. what am i gonna do if it gets deleted? its gonna sugest I recreate the article! Mike33 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's deleted per concensus, I'd suggest going to Deletion Review. Recreating the article post deletion is a sure-fire way to see it deleted as per WP:CSD#G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as an offside. I have no wish to recreate the article if it passes through Afd. Lighter note is just a wikilove. Mike33 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...my sense of humor was not working at that moment. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one article does not notability make. The lack of results for search strings like "frosties actor" combined with just one (reprinted in four places) for "frosties kid" simply isn't convincing notability. Interest in the subject matter appears limited to the urban legend, which isn't itself notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In this Afd and the last, my arguments have always been based on the Idealist idea the the article is about the advert and the interest it created (see Frosties kid talk "what is this article about"). During my editing of the article it has remained purely about the advert and has never been a biography. Search strings like "frosties actor" are a little weasle, and certainly dont help to form consensus. Further to that, AfD is not a vote. It is about consensus. The article was raised because tags were removed, and a consensus decision in Afd is often a great way of resolving matters. As for WP:NOTABLE, that is a guideline. I beleive it passes notabilty guidelines. In terms of validity, The simple question we should ask is "does this article make wikipedia good or bad by its inclusion?" Mike33 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per Mike33. Lugnuts 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Dhartung. The Parsnip! 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, redirect to Frosties. Any article that's only known as "The Frosties Kid" seems a little silly to me. Include the rumours and info on any ad campaigns in the Frosties article. It's not important enough to have it's own article. Barbara Osgood 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is no Frosties it is a redirect to Frosted Flakes and would simply create a new edit war. I have archived Talk:Frosted_Flakes about the frosties kid long predating an article. The advert was never aired outside the UK and Eire. Mike33 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... then redirect to Frosted Flakes. Comment if it's redirected from Frosties, why does the article begin Frosties (or Frosted Flakes in North America) If the Frosties is noted first prominently in the article, surely the disambig page should link to "Frosties", with "Frosted Flakes" being a redirect? Barbara Osgood 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Frosted Flakes would create more mess (see Frosted Flakes archive. A redirect? Either you haven't made your self clear, but this AfD has never been about a redirect. My answer to you is that a merge with a North-American page is not an option. Disambiguation pages should list the most notable instances with preference over others. Frosties in the US is more notable as a cool-ade than frosties as a kellogg brand. You seem too have headed very far off topic. Mike33 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator says "sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources". Has been featured in articles by the Sun (UK's best selling paper) and the Daily Mail/Evening Standard/ Metro (all part of the same group but separate newspapers - 1 national, 1 London-based, 1 regional I guess). Also mentioned by Scott Mills on BBC Radio 1 (national radio) ([1])Very well-known in the UK, if not in the US. '"Frosties kid"' gives 9000+ hits on Google. 'Frosties suicide' gives 27000+ hits on Google. Paulbrock 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure where you get the 9000 figure from on google, my simple google search tallies 40,500 [Google Search using "frosties kid"] Google also directs me to try related searches (Searches related to: frosties kidfrosties advert frosties kid suicide frosties frosties kid dead frosties kid myspace frosties kid death kellogs) I haven't yet needed to use any of those wonderful search suggestions, and would not think it very wise to! Mike33 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, the 9000+ search was [2] Paulbrock 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of potential WP:BLP problems. Doesn't sound like this guy wants a wikipedia entry (yeah, I know it's not under his name). Capmango 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BLP problems would pose a cleanup. Aside from that, unless the party in question comes out and says "please remove it", we can't really make those assumptions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:BLP issues and lack of reliable sources. RFerreira 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing Comment - I just seem to be repeating the same arguments.

(1) This was raised as tag dispute and a further reason was notability. Notability is not a criteria in Afd but very helpful - in various googles it hits over far over the 1 or two articles suggested. (passim 40,000, 9,000plus, 27,500 etc)

(2) "The Frosties Kid" might well be a living person, but the article is about the advert, its reception as a meme and media reaction to the meme. In terms of WP:BLP one could use the same rule to delete Essjay controversy and you would find a very big no way. A bee helps to create a new flower but the bee does not become the flower.

(3) Mergers have been considered before. Frosted Flakes is largely a US article and The Frosties Kid didn't sit on the page for very long and went through an edit war.

(4) A delete is only acceptable if the article makes Wikipedia bad. If editors consider this article makes wikipedia bad then please start removing all cruft from Wikipedia, some of the editors commenting have contributed to articles that are very Cruft.

(5) None of the original editors seem interested in the article, but it has been policed successfully for the last 11 months. It is a constantly vandalised article, but this certainly dosen't make it bad.

Mike33 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Frosties ...it's no longer current but is relevant and it is referenced ...? the fact that is is regularly vandalized would seem to say it is notable ?

^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vandalism does not make the subject of an article notable... The Parsnip! 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most Notable articles on Wikipedia are also the one that are either Locked to stop vandals or are the most vandalised it shows that it is a "Well Known" subject and people are interested in it (regardless of notability) "The Frosties Kid" is Notable since it has been referenced in several UK newspapers (Note this is more that the article on Slashdot has!) ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources, and we're not here to regurgetate tittle-tattle and rumours.--Sandy Donald 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Poorly written article, but notability sufficiently established even if the subject seems trivial to me. Obviously not a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't come into it. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:36, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped At Stalingrad[edit]

Stopped At Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not qualify under WP:BK. Feshbach Fan 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating Image:Haysto.jpg for same reason. Feshbach Fan 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not wualify under WP:BK, and furthermore is a clear and definite advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lazy article, which I am improving; shouldn't be held against it--the subject is N, not the article.. I've removed the detailed contents, which is the inappropriately advertisment part, and added references so far to about 8 reviews in academic journals, with quotes from some of them. Reviews demonstrate N of books. as condition (1) of WP:BK.DGG 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in 398 libraries, according to WorldCat [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/a76c858f16a34440a19afeb4da09e526.html}, including many public and it seems like all major academic libraries and a great many college libraries as well. DGG 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep War historians consider this book to be a significant contribution to the study of the Battle of Stalingrad. It has also been reviewed in various military history magazines, but I don't know if these are on line. I will look through my stack when I get a moment, also. KP Botany 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:BK, as noted by DGG and KP Botany. Victoriagirl 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to meet WP:BK. --Charlene 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the criterion "...subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... with at least some of these works serving a general audience," I'll have to recommend weak keep. All of the refs recently added to the article do not serve a general audience with the exception of the Times Literary Supplement cite. That last cite just barely qualifies the book under WP:BK. "One" isn't exactly the same as "some", but for a pub as significant as the TLR, it'll do. IMHO it fails the other WP:BK criteria. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an aside, I would admonish the nom for making a disruptive point, but unfortunately, I do think it needs to be noted that it's disingenuous of the WP community to assert that an article on Hayward's book is worthy of inclusion while Hayward himself is not (see here here) for more. Seems to me like that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I still think that this should be pointed out. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to clean up the Joel Hayward article, and it looks like it's actually going to survive (nope, it's been AfD'd). It still needs work though, and some of y'all might be interested in making some improvements (but not me, I've had my fill). Groupthink 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per previous comments. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, though. Edward321 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:BK as the subject of multiple, non-trivial works about it. I found a few reviews just by a quick Google search. Also, although WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really a legit argument for whether a subject is suitably encyclopedic, all the same the fact that this book gets 692 hits on Google shows it's fairly well-known. --Ace of Swords 21:29, 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 Delete. « ANIMUM » 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims by date of birth[edit]

List of Muslims by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is just too vague. We are talking about 1 billion + Muslim people in history. Not to forget, WP:NOT#INFO. What could be acceptable, would be perhapes a list of important Muslim religious scholars or something like that but to list people just by religion is too indiscriminate. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a chronological list of people by any faith is ridiculous. Otto4711 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, even implying the word "notable" it serves no purpose. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate list of info and as a directory. Useight 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, Delete. This is a weak list to begin with. I can't believe that Sadat, Khomeini, Omar Khayyam, Saddam Hussein, etc. aren't on here. It does meet the Wikipedia standards for silliness by including squash players and comedians in there with historical figures, but it's not well researched. If you're serious about something like this, you would look at the lists of people born in each year, pick out the notable Muslims, list their A.D. birthdates (1979, 1980, 1981) along with their Moslem birthdates (in A.H. 1399, 1400, 1401). How many folks born on the 10th of Ramadan? But anyway, do we need a list of Moslems by birthdate, any more than we need a list of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? Not a very well done list. Mandsford 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list would just be way too long.--Sefringle^Talk 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless.Proabivouac 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are getting too many ethnicity lists - there really should only be a handful. Cedars 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of births and deaths on Coronation Street[edit]

List of births and deaths on Coronation Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One list more in the series of articles in contradiction with WP:NOT#INFO.Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.--Tone 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - wouldn't that list cover almost every character? As per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per WP:FICT if these are important rather than trivial - which I doubt - put them in the main article. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this is a disguised list of trivia with no real-world context. Such information is unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 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 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynotic[edit]

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

Not verifiable. Can find no sources that indicate that this is a real language (or that 'Lynotic' is another name for a real language, as has been claimed on the talk page). Proposed deletion was contested. Pan Dan 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong/WP:SNOW Delete: Unverifiable hoax article with no WP:RS. Leuko 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Half Make a redirect to West Frisian Janvanhorn 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Haaf[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? I don't see that they even claim to be related, not to mention actually verifiably being related (or a language at all). Leuko 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless sourced. Looks like an hoax, not one of the 7594 enties/languages listed in ISO 639-3 - Nabla 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus it screams hoax. Bearian 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Youth Organizations[edit]

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

Delete. This is nothing but a list of internal links to other full articles (and some nn groups as well). The same material is duplicated in the Freemasonry2 template which is on every Freemasonry article page, and as these are different groups, there is no way to redirect to one page and have the redirect be accurate. MSJapan 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJ ust a list, and not even a complete one at that. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted by the nominator, this article accomplishes little that the template does not do better. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category already exists for it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category already exists for it. --Tone 13:31, 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 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haberarts[edit]

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

Bringing here to determine consensus, contested speedy deletion

• delete This article doesn't even hint at notability. Coren 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, fails WP:N. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:45, 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 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxes[edit]

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

Unreleased book by vanity press. Questionable notability. WP:NOT a crystal ball, at the very least. Deproded by author with no explanation.

• Keep - Tuxes is in fact available for pre-ordering - see Amazon. BeachSidePress is not a vanity press - Mr. Fivelson has never paid us. Some additional information about publishing that may shed some light on the subject: it is usual practice in the industry to begin selling a book many months before its publication date. And the book is available on Amazon and from our website now. I beg the question: what determines the existence of a book - sales, or the passing of the publication date which by common definition is a fiction. (See inside Kramer's 1001 Ways to Market Books) Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fivelson, AFD nomination for the author. eaolson 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BK. As noted above, the book has not yet been published. Speculation as to whether it will meet WP:BK after publication is pure crystal ball. Victoriagirl 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - same as Victoriagirl. With additional comment - as said by BeachSide Press, it does not appear to be a vanity press, but a brand new small press. Their site states that they pay royalties, do not charge the author a fee, both the reverse from vanity press practices. Felisse 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the author will pass AfD, but the book still doesn't meet WP:BK. Coren 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. John Vandenberg 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr13 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sampled songs[edit]

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

Tagging for the nominator the following articles:

List of sampled songs starting with a non-letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of sampled songs starting with Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prodded this article, the template was removed so now I list it here. This article (with subpages for every letter) lists sampled songs. In my opinion this is in contradiction with WP:NOT#IINFO, indiscriminate collection of information. Besides, as the article says, Obviously, this list is by no means exhaustive or complete. And there are no references, apart from two listst with similar content.

• Keep -please keep the lists. i love going thru it and seeing the songs that have inspired others to make music.its interesting to me atleast.i have spent hours listening to these songs to see the samples and i like figuring out how they did it.again please keep the list.this information doesnt exist anywhere else.oh and in case you do delete please let me have a copy of it =(
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Tone 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bravedog 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree there is a problem with this list, but I think you still have to note the deletion on all the sub-pages. FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone with AWB be so nice and do this instead...please...? Thanks in advance. --Tone 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've been wanting to nominate these lists for deletion myself for a while now. They are indiscriminate lists, directories of loosely-associated topics. The lists reach across every style, genre and thematic structure of music to bring together any song that has nothing in common with any other song beyond someone went in and copied a beat or a musical phrase from another song. These lists tell us nothing about the sampled songs, the songs that include samples, the history, process or technique of sampling or music in general. Otto4711 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep <sigh>. Valuable information to those who seek it. <KF> 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how valuable the information might or might not be (besides being largely if not completely subjective) does not answer the policy concerns the article raises. Otto4711 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above (Otto4711). JJL 17:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Otto says it exactly. Also, "Valuable information to those who seek it." is a tad weak (similar to WP:USEFUL). Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - might as well list every song recorded in the last five years. Rgds, --Trident13 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ye flippin' Gods, major WP:LIST issues. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto7411. Exactly. --Charlene 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The list has always been messy from the start and seeing as it fails WP:NOT#INFO, it just needs to be deleted. No actual resources either. Douglasr007 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very, very trivial inclusion criterion. Might as well make a list of "all songs played in clubs". --Haemo 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A song list(s) that violates WP:NOT#IINFO? What are the chances of that? Masaruemoto 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 05:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., and others.--JayJasper 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors from Germany[edit]

List of actors from Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is a random collection of names only which is not being maintained. No effort has been made since the deletion of the good, comprehensive list (which would have been worth keeping; see User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) to improve this one here. Category:German actors serves the purpose of this list much better. <KF> 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete to the category, as per nom. Bravedog 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, merge with what? <KF> 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think Bravedog means merge with Category:German actors, KF. Dalejenkins 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better as a category. JJL 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category is better for a potentially immense list. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better as a category. Agathoclea 05:40, 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 redirect to Steve Cole (author). Sr13 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cows In Action[edit]

Cows In Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Brand new series of books of dubious notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: A7/G11. Leuko 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like an intriguing series of kids books, but not notable otherwise. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of Cows In Action article and am dissapointed that my article has been nominated for deletion. I'm new and i don't know a lot about how to improve an article. The reason im not putting more into it is that the chances are somebody will improve my article. I am not advertising this book. Astrosaurs and Cows In Action are one of my best books and i was inspired to write an article about them. Don't delete my article please because if you do, I probably will create it again. Please let it stay on and if it is not improved in 1 Month Delete it. This article will probably be improved by other people. I just started it so people would look at it and put more into my article so its not rubbish. User Woggy June 18th 19:09

The issue is not the quality of the article, but the notability of the topic - which is an issue because Wikipedia articles are meant to be written based on reliable sources. If the article is deleted, please don't recreate it (it will simply be deleted again). Per my suggestion on your talk page, how about changing it to a redirect to the author's article, and including something about this new series there? If you'd like to create an article, there are loads and loads of articles requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or any of the red links at Newbery Honor would be fine topics. We like new users, and definitely do not want to discourage you from contributing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved my Cows In Action article now and i am still working on it. There are links to different articles in the article and a contents list. I am hoping that this is enough to stop my article from been deleted. I didn't know much about how to improve an article, but i have found out and its looking better than it was now. Im really hoping now that you won't delete it as i will and probably other people will improve it and make it better. It now includes information about the books but no images as i don't understand how you get images. The books that are not available yet i can't write much on. And i am sorry that i can't. More information on the upcoming books will be available when the book is published. I am also going to include something about Cows In Action on the authors article. User Woggy June 18th 20:23

Woggy, like Rick Block noted, you have to demonstrate notability. See this page for what we're looking for, and also see this page for what we consider to be reliable. Sorry, but unless it's notable, it's not going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I spoke up for a keep on Astrosaurs, the other famous series of books written by Steve Cole, but Astrosaurs is much longer running and much more successful than Cows in action. I would have a hard time supporting C.I.A. on notability grounds at present; if it goes on to be a Blockbuster success as well, then maybe it can be revisited at that time. Don't be discouraged though, Woggy. Losing an article to an AfD is a rite of passge that all Wikipedia editors go through. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Article does have notability. I put some in when i wasn't logged in yesterday. Thanks for the suggestion Rick, But somebody did it for me. There are a lot of redirects to different articles in my article. User Woggy 15:27 (UTC) June 19th 2007

• Comment. I think it would be reasonable to keep this as a redirect to Steve Cole (author). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to keep it as a redirect to the author. I am not at all dissapointed that its been nominated for deletion. I have 2 questions. If somebody else creates it again and its improved and its notable, Will it be deleted? In the future when Cows In Action gets more books and is more popular will i then be allowed to restart the article again? I mean like in 2 years or 1 year. Because im new, Im not sure how to create a redirect. Could you tell me? User Woggy June 19th 2007 (UTC)

• Woggy, if the books become notable, then they will survive a future AfD. Procedure for creating a redirect is found here. Your understanding is appreciated, thanks. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 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 as a redirect to Ralph Klein. Changing that into an article about the event, not the person, is left to editor's discretion. (And, obviously, even the person may become WP-notable later) - Nabla 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Huygen[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet notability guidelines. The references are more about Klein and his antics, mentioning Jennifer in passing. UnfriendlyFire 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep lots of news attention, but it will probably fade...borderline, but currently notable. JJL 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete belongs on Wikinews if anywhere. Also a bit of a coatrack as mentioned above. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge This material can stay in the Klein article. -- but Legislative pages do tend to go into politics eventually, & I doubt she'd mind the publicity. DGG 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Although it's been over a year since this happened (and therefore her notability is not temporary) I'm not sure she's as notable as the event, which was notable; reliable sources (canada.com, etc.) say it may have contributed to King Ralph's abdication. However, I don't think merging it to Ralph's article is an answer, since that page is already long enough and the event was one of the most notable of his reign. --Charlene 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No significant biographical content. All the relevant facts about the book-toss event are present under Ralph Klein's Controversises section. Canuckle 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As creator and sole contributor to this article I don't feel qualified to pass a vote on this issue. Furthermore, I know her personally and am as such biased. However, I will endeavour to add an argument in its defense.

As stated in the article, the incident and its fallout received significant provincial news coverage for a number of days and was significant enough to receive national coverage as well. Furthermore, it is my personal assessment that it was a contributing factor to Premier Klein's early resignation, although how heavily it factored in is open to debate. That the incident merits mention on an article as major as that of Ralph Klein I think suggests that, should the opportunity arise, we should endeavour to maintain at least a stub-length article on the issue. I strongly disagree with the assessment that it is superfluous; rather, I would submit that, having passed the test of at least marginal notability, we should maintain and improve it in the spirit of the free availability of information.

I have a friend that, before either of us knew her, wrote a school paper on the incident. While this anecdote is in itself rather insignificant, it serves to illustrate that the event, while small, is not necessarily trivial and as such, I submit, merits keeping.

However, by way of correcting DGG: no former Alberta Page has served in provincial politics to date. Alumni tend instead to find jobs in the civil service at various levels.

For what little it is worth, she received a small degree of media attention again on June 14, 2007 when she became the first Alberta Page ever to address the province's Legislative Assembly.

Thank you for your consideration and I appreciate all of your votes, for or against. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On further reflection, perhaps this should be merged/redirected into an article on the incident itself instead? That might present a suitable compromise. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was thinking along the same lines. The event certainly seems notable. JJL 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Monash University. - KrakatoaKatie 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Monash[edit]

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

Ex-amateur radio denied a license who now streams on the 'net. No assertion of notability. Coren 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• statement that Radio Monash is ex-amateur is assumption. Please provide proof of this statement Coren. Cazza411 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability (A7).Garrie 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Monash University after editing down to essentials. --Bduke 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per BDuke. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per BDuke. Orderinchaos 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have made some changes to the article - sources conflict each other and none are WP:RS, but at least we have some clear idea of exactly what we are voting on now :) Orderinchaos 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BDuke. It's been on the air for quite a while, but RS appear to be a problem, so merge for now. John Vandenberg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain Notability asserted given organisation's history and the fact that it is still operating. Should remain separate from Monash University as it is in itself independent despite financial contributions from the University and it's operating location. In fact Monash University administrative support further asserts the notability of the organisation. I suggest people take the time to read Talk:Radio_Monash. --60.241.201.106 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The concern being raised here (by Australians who would want to keep this article if it were encyclopedic) is that Radio Monash has not been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. John Vandenberg 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  John, recent publicity of "Radio Monash" (as it is currently named) is naturally restricted to closely operating organisations such as, obviously, Monash University (including staff and students) and affiliated groups and thus I would be surprised to read of Radio Monash per se in newspapers and magazines. Yet I believe that the significance of the evolution leading up to the organisation as it operates today is such that it warrants an 'encyclopaedic' representation especially since the organisation still exists albeit under the name of "Radio Monash". I ask that you read this page from cbonline.org.au that mentions some of the historical context in which 3MU evolved, and the self-published history that can be found here. Community Radio is clearly an important aspect of society (and I am sure you are not arguing to the contrary) - the roots from which Radio Monash has since evolved in their own right, in my opinion, warrant notability. You can read more about that in an article by Dr. Jeff Langdon called "The Social and Political forces that led to the Development of Public Radio in the 1960's" published in 1995. I, however, do believe that this article does lack somewhat in historical context and detail, hence I can see why so many perceive that this page should be merged or deleted - but clearly I do not agree with those perceptions. The page should be expanded on and boast the significance (which I argue is readily seen if one looks) that this organisation holds which is distinct from the University itself.--60.241.201.106 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"naturally restricted to closely operating organisations", I dare say that's pretty much one of the definitions of "not notable". That's a good argument for delete, not keep! Coren 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha sure, if you take it out of context it is. --60.241.201.106 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. However the context is plainly visible above, and fully supports my comment. Coren 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay Coren, if you say so. ;) But to everyone else who isn't as steadfast in their opinion, you should be able to see from what I wrote that Radio Monash and all prior names are one and the same. There is clearly historical significance and it is my opinion (but clearly not the opinion of others such as Coren) that this is weighty in terms of notability. I also think that the authors of the article (of which I am not one) convey this. To clarify the quote of myself by Coren, I am trying to say that the organisation is now limited in its publicity due to licensing and being a youth/student service. It's exposure is reduced due to the relatively inaccessible nature of the medium (being the internet). This is akin to the way of Australia's Channel 31 where the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting coupled with licensing requirements hinder the station's viability since more and more households are changing to digital thereby making Channel 31 inaccessible. I would not relate the reduction in Channel 31's audience to a reduction of notability. Nevertheless, if people choose to deny the history as significant then indeed Radio Monash is not notable. --60.241.201.106 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing notability with popularity. Nobody here, I think, is claiming that this radio station is somehow unimportant. It does appear to have relevance to Monash University (which is why many here are suggested that the article be merged (back?) into the U's article). But it does not match the minimal guidelines for notability by itself. This is no reflection on what you perceive to be a significant part of history, but on the appropriateness of having an article. Do you have any idea how many amateur/community/college/student radio stations there have been since Marconi? Coren 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Coren I think you are the one confusing popularity with notability. 60.241.201.106 makes no reference to popularity, and the statement that "I would not relate the reduction in Chanel 31's audience to a reduction of notability", seems to have deliberately been taken out of context in order to fuel your argument. The writer never equates popularity with notability, or vice-versa. My interpretation of the writer is that the audience (and you could potentially argue popularity) is irrelevant to the notability of the station. Although Chanel 31 is less obscure to some than Radio Monash, Radio Monash is arguably of equal relevant notability. Just as Channel 31 was Australias first Community TV station, Radio Monash was Australia's first 100% online student radio station, as per the evidence of notability I've posted.Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per BDuke. Ichibani _u^t_c 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidence of Notability & Independent Reference In answer to John Vanderberg, as per no newspaper articles re Radio Monash, and in additionally to Coren who ASSUMES no notability, this link shows Radio Monash was Australia's first completeley online university radio station. I think that answers the question on IMPORTANCE. Admittedly the reference is somewhat obscure, but obscurity is a poor measure of validity (note Mendel's laws of genetics were published 1866, but languished in obscurity until the 1900's; they are now considered seminal works in the field of genetics)Cazza411 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain but reclassify after having read various arguments, I agree with --60.241.201.106 to keep page, but classify as a "start" page. I think it is worthy of notability, if a little obscure for those in the Northern hemisphere ;) however the quality of the article content could use some improvement. Article talk page said it was started by a fan. Note it seems Coren is not a person to accept individuals disagreeing with him/her, and I felt that he/she was deliberately attempting to provoke and argument with --60.241.201.106. Rather childish behaviour really. Cazza411 11:33, 25 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 all. Sr13 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship[edit]

UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable championship for a minor non-notable wrestling promotion, fails WP:V which is why the content was removed and fails WP:N, claims of being a member of the NWA is in itself not enough to warrant notability as even the smallest indy fed can pay the dues and call themselves an "NWA" federation, there has to be more to it than just paying the NWA due to achieve notability for the promotion. If Prod is removed without sources being provided it will go straight to AFD. Andrew_pmk | Talk 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffere from the same problems as the UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship article and all pertain to articles about the same federation maintained by the same user:MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCW-Zero Mexico Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UCW-Zero Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UCW-Zero Ultra-X Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

note: the bundle was added after user Coren voted just so there is no misunderstanding MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The federation has no inclusion requirement beyond paying the dues, and the championship has no notability of its own. Coren 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my !vote for the whole bundle, for the same reasons. Coren 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the original prodder I vote delete does not in any way show notability, did not even attempt to show notability or verifiability when removing the prods MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete All, all fail WP:N. Bmg916^Speak 16:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All BMG said it best. This kind of stuff gives the project a bad name. Darrenhusted 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - WP:N Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, not notable in any way. Nikki311 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmentalism[edit]

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

Appears to be OR/personal essay and may be a neologism, not quite sure as the ghits give a lot of usages in varying contexts [4]. Asked for notability but couldn't work this out with sole editor of article so bringing it here.   ⇒ bsnowball  15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Only sources and reference are on blogspot? Original research anyone? Coren 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (See my comment below)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The creator of the fragmentalism article edits with a very strong anti-science POV. Other essays he has written should be examined. As for fragmentalism, I can't find any reliable sources beyond the first cite in the article, and that is unavailable to non-subscribers. If someone could find the abstract, or better yet quote relevant sections, it would help us evaluate it's reliability better. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent edits to the article, I change my vote to keep. The newly cited material may find a better home at reductionism. Skinwalker 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. Doczilla 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not sure if this is a real concept, but if it is, it is written poorly--Sefringle^Talk 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Changed my mind after recent additions--Sefringle^Talk 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The issue here is not about how well written it is or if my views seem mildly antiscience to some strongly pro-science people, the main issue about deletion should be concerned to show whether this term is a neologism invented by me, and if it is a legitimate term used in academic discourse. If it can be shown that it is not a neologism invented by me and that it is a valid term then the article should stay. I believe it is possible to show this and below I present evidence that though it is not a commonly used term, it is a valid term used in intellectual discourse. The term appears to have first been coined by the American psychologist, Alexander Goerge Kelly [1905-1966] see Biographical notes

I present her some good examples of the use of this term: 1. "fragmentalism, which is that truth is collected piece by piece" [5] 2. "FRAGMENTALISM or REDUCTIONISM whole is equal to the sum of its parts whole is different from the sum of its parts that all things in nature are inter-dependent with each other...two opposing beliefs about how we come to know about nature." [6] 3. "This is why we WILL and ARE seeing fragmentalism taking over the world, except in the area of corporate consolidation, one of the very fuels toward the fragmentations." [7] 4. "fragmentalism - the notion that knowledge is a growing collection of substantiated facts or "nuggets of truth", independent of human reconstruction." [8] 5. "every fragment has a memory of the whole," [9] 6. "individualistic and ethnocentrist fragmentalism" [10] 7. It was Alexander George Kelly, referred to above, who "suggested that his philosophy of constructive alternativism was an approach to science that was an alternative to the scientific method favoured by psychology, for which he coined the term accumulative fragmentalism." [11] 8. "The deviation from the principle of ameliorative equilibration takes the shapes of monotelism, fragmentalism, and reductionism" [12] 9. "We celebrate fragmentalism. He most assuredly did not." [13] 10. "The three worldviews - fragmentalism, pragmatism, holism, - as identified by Greig, Pike and Selby (1989)" [14] 11. "Fragmentalism in knowledge is a natural response to professionalism and especialization out of which come the absence of overall conscious whole, of self-conscious attitudes and trends, of relevant critical theory and arguments against ever-increasing distance between professionals and real life,nature, social attitudes and the true-honest relationships of man with each other. Fragmentalism has, unfortunately, in one way or another, become 'scientific religion' of the academicians who are expert on one property or feature of man’s activities, actions, interactions or behaviour." [15] 12. "As a matter of fact, some have made public that the very creed of postmodernism is its declaration of "fragmentalism" as the real fate of man." [16] 13. "...one of the most persistent themes up to 2020 will be judging the economical, financial, technical and scientifically globalization in opposition to fragmentalism maintained by the smaller cultures, so long neglected and now brought to life. Here are the reasons we have reserves about setting up global cultures or a regional culture, that is an European culture with an European consciousness - because it is essentially for any culture to underline the difference." [17] 14. "That is the solution, not beating the worn out drum of fragmentalism which is european (reserved for Africa) by nature." [18] 15. "When a unitary and comprehensive outlook seems to be looking in on us in our unaccustomed state of heightened or vivified receptivity, we feel a disconcerting awareness, an overriding consciousness somehow posed over against our ordinary and less intense fragmentalism of cognition." [19] The term is also used in the following place: 1. [20] Concerning the article by M L Pope (ref 1 in article) see also: [21] Overall, given this wide-ranging evidence, I think it is incontestible that the term 'fragmentalism' is NOT a neologism invented by me, that this article is thus not OR, and though it is not commonly used, 'fragmentalism' is certainly a legitimate term used in academic discourse in quite a wide range of disciplines. On that basis, I recommend the article should stay. I would further propose to see the article revised to include some of the above new material so as both to clarify it and to give it greater weight. Peter morrell 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite Although this is not a well-referenced article as it stands, this term does appear to be used in some parts of the philosophy of science. For example:

Andre Kukla Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S298-S305. It is also used in cognition under the term "accumulative fragmentalism". I will edit this page to remove the anti-science POV, and add higher-quality references. TimVickers 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've posted a request for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. TimVickers 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bizarre as it is, and generally unknown as it is, this does seem to be a philosophical position that has been referred to, criticised and developed by a number of different professional philosophers in professionally recognised journals and books. Anarchia 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've further rewritten the article to make it clear that the most common usage is pejorative. TimVickers 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on rewrite.

• this seems to me to make it clearer that we are dealing with, at best, synonym for the critical/'pejorative' use of 'reductionism', so don't see that it needs an article. tho with the caveat that i can't access the subscription only references (none of the others use the term in anything other than its normal dic. def. if they use it at all) perhaps putting the relevant quotes in the fns wld help.
• second, we seem to have another coinage (definitely no neologism now:) "accumulative fragmentalism" which might deserve an article (tho at a single page of ghits [22] i don't know) but is a little tangential here. see what others think, but i'm not sure it changes that much, sorry.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to check the references yourself, send me an e-mail and I can send you copies of the Pdfs. Apart from that, if it is a term discussed in peer-reviewed journals, even just a few, then it easily passes the notability criteria. TimVickers 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for verifiability it would be better if you quoted them in the article, then anyone can see for themselves. cld you also pls make it clear where you are summarising or quoting directly (the italics are confusing, are they meant to indicate direct quotes?) half the quotes (fn 3, 4 & 5) only use the the word fragmentary in its usual sense or don't use it at all. hence when looked at closely it now seems to be OR in the sense that the article is describing usage in primary sources instead of summarising definitions from secondary sources & again, there appears to be no difference between the claimed usage & reductionism. possibly closer should consider MERGEing on these grounds.  ⇒ bsnowball  08:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a requirement in the policy, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can provide copies of these references if you wish, but articles are more than an collection of quotations. TimVickers 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The rewrite is much better, and has sufficient references to establish the term as really used, if perhaps still marginal. Philosophy isn't my forte, so I defer validity to someone else, but the article now actually reads like it should be in an encyclopedia. Coren 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merging reductionism and fragmentalism is not a preferred option as these are two different things. Fragmentalism is the breaking up of the world into parts and the assumption that these parts are real. Reductionism also involves that but takes the parts and builds them into models and mechanisms and then assumes that these 'reduced' models comprise a fair representation of reality. Both involve assumptions and both are conceptual acts, but it is clear that they are sufficiently different from each other to keep them in separate places and under separate names. In point of fact reductionism is the secondary conceptual act and fragmentalism is the primary. Thus if anything it is reductionism that should be merged under fragmentalism and not the other way round. They both underpin the modern scientific worldview that has spawned such things as the Periodic Table of elements, the Linnean taxonomy of living organisms, the anatomical names of body parts, the features of the Moon, the names of planetary bodies, the names of continents and countries, etc, etc. On this basis, I would say the suggestion is not therefore tenable. Peter morrell 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting --Pgreenfinch 18:54, 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 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Article has been tagged for months and, while some discussion ensued on the talk page, the article remains a plot summary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2 for similar plot summary article deletions. To answer one objection I imagine will be forthcoming, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not serve as arguments to save this article. Otto4711 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteness I don't even see how an article called "Plot of X" could be salvaged into something else. Coren 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:IINFO is policy. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any useful info. to the main article. JJL 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE1fm[edit]

NE1fm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, station only launched a few days ago. Speedy deletion contested. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, for a number of reasons. Firstly, just launching is not a reason to delete something. Secondly, this is a station broadcasting on FM, across a major city, on the same level as Metro Radio and BBC Radio Newcastle. It's launch was heavily promoted and significant in the city. Furthermore, all FM-based stations in the United Kingdom have articles. By deleting this, it's essentially opening up a can of worms as to whether local stations are notable at all. It should also be noted that Adam Cuerden's opinion is, like mine (as I created the article), biased on this subject - He originally deleted the article totally out of process, and is biased due to his connections to Hitz Radio UK (Hitz Radio have had problems with one or two members of NE1fm's staff, and they've looked to have many articles deleted because of their own personal issues.)

If this article is deleted, I won't look to have it re-instated again, but I find it absurd that it has even been nominated for deletion - It's an FM radio station, and every FM radio station in the UK has an article. Just because this is the newest one doesn't make it any less notable. The articles does require expansion, but the topic is very much notable. Esteffect 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, WHAT?!!! WHAT connections to Hitz Radio? I'm a bloody biology student who listens almost exclusively to classical music!!! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A further comment from me here - NE1fm is a community radio station. All of the community stations in the UK are listed on this Wikipedia page. Many, as can be seen, have articles. Deleting this article would certainly raise the question as to whether any of them are notable. I also add that many internet-based stations that have nowhere near the exposure or reach of NE1fm currently have articles also. I'd also finally like to request Adam Cuerden not close this AFD as he has ended others on other topics he is biased about early. Thanks. Esteffect 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please prove your claims of bias, or retract them, and please stop repeating them. See WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought If this article is deleted, then I move that every article about an organisation which launched within the last six months be given the same treatment and deleted as well. Eugenespeed 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's hardly the main point: It's launched very recently and the page does not assert notability, and, despite the personal attacks, no-one has made any attempt to make such an assertion. The only argument so far made is "There's other articles on similar subjects." However, those articles (presumably) assert notability. This one doesn't. Its recent launch just makes its failure to assert notability all the more glaring. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launch date is irrelevant in my opinion.

Reasons article should be kept:

1. It is the first full time non-commercial community radio station in the Newcastle / Gateshead area.

2. It is the end product of approximately 10 years of other lead up broadcasts.

3. It is the official broadcaster of Newcastle's The Green Festival

4. In it's first week, Maximo Park were guests on the station. (Al Smith's - The Tuesday Club)

5. It is fully licensed by OFCOM

6. It has recieved write-ups in local Newcastle based print media. (e.g The Evening Chronicle)

7. It is on air now (and online) and people are listening to it.

8. It is listed on UK Community Radio websites.

9. A team from the station was invited to partake in the North East Radio Academy fun night.

10. It has a parent company, who are council funded, called CBIT (Community Broadcast Initiative Tyneside)

Well, if any of that was in the article - particularly Evening Chronicle writeups - we wouldn't be having this conversation. Add it! =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• facepalm* I just looked up the Evening Chronicle article. This is it. A short sidebar merely saying it launched isn't a non-trivial source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This has been in the Evening Chronicle actually, we have the article in the radio station - although it was not published on their website. We could upload the article after scanning it in, but no doubt you would then complain of the validity of the article. Again, I question your actions in deleting articles in the past for a number of reasons which I will not go into. It's insane to say a new community radio station (the first for Newcastle & Gateshead) is not notable. If you actually did any research you would see we were operating, we are on the Ofcom website, we're broadcasting on FM and online and the list goes on... In my opinion - if you delete this, again you will have deleted an article you have voted on, and as already stated, will question the validity of all articles on radio stations. I would be inclined to raise this with the rest of the Wiki admins. I personally question your increased interest in NE1fm & its participants and motives for 'just wanting to delete it' Kev Akas 13:47, 21 June 2007 (GMT)

• Strong Keep. The station is significant enough within the Tyneside and broadcast communities for people to want further information regarding it, and find other information about people and shows associated with it. A small entry on a global community radio page is not going to satisfy the appetites of most people looking for a definition of it, and judging by the forums these people are likely to be significant in number.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.193.115 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. I can't find any reliable sources about it, and none are present in the article. My opinion could change if the article is improved, but since I don't see any way to improve it mysekf right now, this is how I feel. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:00, 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 No consensus. — Scientizzle 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Blond[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO criteria. Valrith 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Almost no information is provided, and what little there is would make more sense as a list than anything else. The lead section is the only section in the article, which lacks even a table of contents. Finally, the article has been tagged for expansion since March 2007, with little or no additions since then (5 if you count a bot edit, a revert, and this nomination, 2 if you don't). Therefore, it can be gathered that Shelley Blond has little notability in the community. There is simply not enough information in it to qualify it as anything remotely encyclopedic, and furthermore it merely takes up space on our servers. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit as to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover and not bound by constraints of a paper encyclopedia and there's not practical limit of bandwidth. See also Wiki is not paper.--Oakshade 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes, I agree, Wikipedia can have as many articles as it wants, but articles like Shelley Blond simply don' t provide enough information on the topic. If there was some more information in the article, then yes, I would vote to keep the article. However, as of now, it seems that deleting the article is the only option (unless someone adds something major to the article, and fast). Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The original voice of one of the most, if not the most, popular video game characters in history. --Oakshade 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Arguably notable enough for inclusion (even if just barely). Article could use some fleshing out, but deletion is probably not the solution. Coren 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her screen and videogame resumé falls far short of WP:BIO. Edison 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, minor actress with no notable roles. Perhaps if she had won an award for her VG acting, but she did not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say Lara Croft in the original Tomb Raider, the version that made the game iconic, is a notable role. --Oakshade 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. OK, it was only a voice role, and only for the first game, but Lara Croft? Puts her over the line for me. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Radney[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability is a runner-up spot on a contest to perform on the Grammies - since then, seemingly nothing. fuzzy510 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into article on grammys/the competition. Not note on ownBalloonman 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — One of two runner-ups in a competition fails WP:MUSIC. The single "source" is a Yahoo! profile, and that doesn't qualify as being an independent, reliable source. *Cremepuff222* 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's_third_album[edit]

Lindsay Lohan's_third_album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another speculation-filled and mostly-unreferenced article about a supposed upcoming album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR, WP:V etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Either delete or move sourced information (if one can find actual references) to Lindsay Lohan article.  hmwith  talk 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep A source is there now, but dunno, it's only one line about her in the thing. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as gazing into the uncertain future until such a time as the album's name, track list, and specific release date are available from reliable sources independant of the artist and the recording company. See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline. -- saberwyn 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the above mentioned Wikipedia:There is no deadline we should delete when sitting on the fence about semi crystal ballish weakly sourced articles. No need to scoop anyone. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that a successful singer wants to release a new album and has been making overtures to people to help her do so is not a notable event. This is speculation, pure and simple (and the source seems to be her own wishful thinking, more than anything else). The article, too, is in horrible shape. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:11, 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.