< June 25	June 27 >

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. --Core desat 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now but one moment let me stay[edit]

It's a poem. The article must be deleted or move to Wikisource. -- Magioladitis 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm going to clean up what's there.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - No ghits, not verifiable/notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More details about this poem can be found on Rhiannonsmoore (talk · contribs), however I'm not sure whether it is correct. John Vandenberg 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears valid: [1]. John Vandenberg 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the poem removed and there is an article instead, I think we can keep it. Magioladitis 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poem is unknown, althought there is no guideline on when to include poems, AFAIK. Clearly some poems, like Jabberwocky or Ozymandias, are acceptable; also clearly it would be insane to include all poems. As this poem is thoroughly undistinguished, I can't imagine keeping this. --JayHenry 18:54, 28 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, no consensus to delete. Merge proposals do not belong on AfD. -- Visviva 13:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Meow[edit]

Non-notable radio show guest. Article has no third party reliable sources (only sources are Stern show website and a new york times article that doesn't mention his/her name.) Needs to be severely cut down and merged to the Wack pack article. — Ocatecir ^T 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you want to merge this rather than delete it, AfD is probably not the place. Capitalistroadster 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its already there, I want the history deleted so it can't be simply reverted. — Ocatecir ^T 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging from this article and then deleting the history would be a violation of the GFDL; this is why it is not appropriate to bring merge proposals to AfD. On the other hand, "merge and redirect" is a valid outcome of an AfD discussion. DHowell 03:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this is fairly well referenced compared to other Stern show related individuals, but it still isn't enough to maintain a verifiable page. Optigan13 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject's inclusion in the Howard Stern media empire has made them one of the most well-known trans people in the world which is no small feat. I wouldn't expect to see many sources outside the Howard Stern show as the show itself documents it's own work and people so unless someone writes a book or pulls a stunt they pretty much stay in their universe. Siobhan Meow has been cited in some articles about squatters rights in NYC so that certainly could be added to article as well. Also the article about the Wack Pack folks is already pretty lengthy so re-adding this there would seem to hurt both. Suggest better writing and quoting show transcipts of appearances. Benjiboi 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by your own admission the subject doesn't have many sources outside of the stern universe. How do you reconcile this with WP:BIO's requirement of significant coverage by independent third party reliable sources as the threshold for notability? — Ocatecir ^T 09:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I need to. Subject was plucked from obscurity and made famous by Howard Stern and his related media. Few if any other media outlets gain much by re-circulating Howard Stern content and may even be prevented from doing so. If "significant coverage by independent third party reliable sources" is the standard then much of WP is much worse off than this article. Benjiboi 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For third party reliable sources which do mention the name, see this 2006 article from The Brooklyn Rail, and this 2002 article from City Limits. DHowell 03:46, 4 July 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ashford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable character who started his own autobiography, SqueakBox 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —Eddie 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thoroughly non notable, fails WP:N, WP:COI.--Sandahl 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable. --MichaelLinnear 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many reliable news sources, including interviews, documenting his activities and in many different languages. There is also a big campaign to get his website shut down. Clearly, this article is receiving attack because of what he is doing. Christopher Connor 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After looking at the article and Googling him, I've concluded that disgust with his cause is affecting this discussion. WP:NOTCENSORED. COI is an editing guideline, not a reason to delete in and of itself, and the article has had other editors. His notoriety also seems to have increased since the last AfD, when it was more iffy. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This guy has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. He has rather outspoken and inflammatory views, and this has attracted a good deal of media attention. This sounds like the very definition of notability to me. JulesH 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a non-notable person, unless pedophilia activism per se is to be considered ground for non-inclusion. __meco 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources for notability and for the facts. The article should probably be reduced a little. DGG 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whether editors and readers agree or disagree with Lindsay Ashford's viewpoints, this individual is definitely notable. Not only is he a leading force in modern pedophile activism, he has also been featured in many articles and several news programs. All the while, the article, as it currently stands, does need some editing to make it more NPOV, because criticism takes up a disproportionate amount of space in comparison to the discussion of the actual perspectives Ashford promotes. If anything, the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. Thus, unless better evidence is presented for deleting this article, I suggest that we keep it. Homologeo 08:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The magnums[edit]

There are zero hits on google about this "gang" or its founder and the supporting articles provided by the author have no mention of it. There is no reason to believe this group even exists. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May wish to examine/add Sword Boys to this AfD as well... 68.39.174.238 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax, certainly non-notable. I note the article claims they are often found guilty of "grand theft auto", which is not the name of any crime in WA (it is just called car theft). At least the "Sword Boys" were mentioned briefly in a panicky and overly credulous TV news story on Perth gangs. The Magnums, alas, were not. Euryalus 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Where is the assertion of notability or the sources to back it up? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify, the speedy delete only applies to the magnums. I have no opinion on the Sword Boys. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; I cant find any sources. OTOH the Sword Boys have been a well known street gang in Perth since the mid 90s. i.e. as that name by police and any media. I'm about to trim that article down to the verifiable facts. John Vandenberg 09:26, 27 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. Friday (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonersh Players[edit]

This is a non-notable theatrical group. I could not find any secondary sources to confer notability, and most of the article is unreferenced or referenced only from their web site. Kevin 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to fulfill notability requirements at this time. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three reviews quoted on their website, but without giving sources; the articles also says reviews, without specifying where. Depending on that, this might be notable, but for a local group like this the assumption is the reviews are not significant. DGG 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per article -- "amatuer", "friends" -- and as per nom. Bearian 18:05, 28 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. --Core desat 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Chapter of Psi Upsilon[edit]

According to WP:ORG, individual chapters of national organizations are not usually notable in themselves. Prod removed by creator, see article talk page for his explanation, which, summarized, is that he disagrees with the guideline. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn suborganization of a fraternity. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD-A7. Article makes no assertion of the chapter's notability outside of the very local area. The consensus at WP:FRAT is that individual chapters shouldn't have articles unless they are especially notable for some reason.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RTFM -- The original author explains, clearly and concisely, on the article talk page (as acknowledged by FisherQueen]], who has at least read it) the far braoder impact of this chapter. This ought never to have been brought to deletion -- it is an example of proper recognisition of outstanding achievement. -- Jubelum
Delete--for consistency's sake, this needs to be deleted. The case for notablity has not been made (I read the discussion)DIDouglass 04:42, 29 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 & Redirect. The merge, however, will be a hack job cut-n-paste since I know very little about this kind of stuff... — Scientizzle 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject To" Mortgage[edit]

This is WP:OR fork from mortgage. The "subject to" is not actually a mortgage product but a non-notable deduction from the purchase price of home, such an assignment of an exisiting mortgage, loan or other liability. Gavin Collins 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mortgage assumptions are actually quite common (at least here - about 40% of mortgages are assumed) and not a big deal. It could take up one small paragraph of the mortgage article; why does it need its own article? --Charlene 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least portions of this text to mortgage and redirect. The mortgage article needs a section on transferability generally, that covers the rights of both the lender and the borrower to assign or convey their respective rights under the document and the security. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to mortgage, per Smerdis of Tlön. No need for a seperate article.--JayJasper 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to mortgage. The article has no references and no apparently useful material. It gives no insight as to why the effective assumption of a non-assumable loan could be considered legal, or why the previous borrower should be allowed to trade away a pledged security. The main article Mortgage should be able to deal with this issue. I'll join in the call for a merge, to simplify the closing. Note that the first three commenters seem to have different ideas of what a "Subject to" mortgage actually is, so it can't be a totally simple concept. I like Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion for a new section in Mortgage to explain transferability. EdJohnston 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Even though NFT is not a csd category, article made no claim of notability, had no sources, and was of interest to only a small group in England. Be bold.— Ocatecir ^T 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughterball[edit]

WP:NOT — Wikipedia is not for something made up in school (or in the street) one day. The fact that it was made up as such is mentioned in the article itself. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God I wish Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day was a speedy category. Improbcat 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is notable, my gym class thought of it first while playing dodgeball in 1970. Acroterion _(talk) 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That deserves a barnstar of Good Humor! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and I second User:Improbcat's wish for a WP:NFT-flavored speedy category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have no idea if there's a proper place for proposing such a thing, but a CSD for things made up in school one day would be very helpful. Such things are never going to be notable, and are always going to be deleted. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and I wholeheartedly third the WP:NFT speedy category idea. dtony 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete non notable silliness. Bigdaddy1981 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and hit the creator in the head with a baseball, or something hard. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:04, 26 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 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Purdy[edit]

Non-notable actor, only credit was a short from six years ago. Corvus cornix 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NN. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N, only one credit to his name, and it's a film that isn't even on Wikipedia (not that said film is non-notable...). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I also note that a single use account created this stub. Bigdaddy1981 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N 128.12.69.52 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, there is nothing else but a brief mention of his participation in Hero, but does not explain his role.--JForget 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The film is apparently not notable enough to have an article. The picture looks so amateurish that I suspect this may be a user taking on the name or coincidentally with the same name. Hu 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Magioladitis 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (while I edited the initial nonsensical article to make a proper stub of it, I won't argue for keeping it) --Bonadea 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete per everyone else. Film doesn't seem to be notable, but I wouldn't be the best one to judge that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 27 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. Reproducing Bearcat's google search shows a lot of relevant hits including tours/shows in the US & regular performances at Country music festivals. Notability is therefore established. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Higgins[edit]

Claims of notability, so I'm bringing it here instead of nominating for speedy deletion. This band fails WP:MUSIC in that the only Google hits I find for '"Wild Minds" higgins "Coming Home For Christmas"' are their own website. Nothing at allmusic.com, nothing at artistdirect. Corvus cornix 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable ChrisLamb 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced claims of "a massive following of fans" notwithstanding, these chaps are totally non-notable. Bigdaddy1981 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Tagged as such. Naconkantari 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, allmusic is not a fully reliable gauge of notability for bands that haven't gotten known in the United States; it's not at all unheard of for allmusic to have no entry whatsoever on bands that are unknown in the US while simultaneously being chart-topping stars in their home countries. The article does need some cleanup, certainly, but they've toured in both Canada and the United States and have performed live on national television and radio in Canada. Plus you get far more useful Google results with the term "The Higgins" country music. That clears the bar in my world. Keep. Bearcat 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Trio (gang)[edit]

This appears to be nonsense. If there really were "1k killings" attributed to the gang and they were wanted by the Detroit Police, I would expect to be able to find a news article about it, or at least mention on the Detroit Police website.[2][3] -- Anomie 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Appears to be a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLamb (talk • contribs)
Strong delete, obvious hoax. I wish they'd make a CSD for hoaxes already... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:46, 26 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. --Core desat 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead (album)[edit]

Prod removed without comment by an anon. Album belongs to either A. a non-notable band, or B. a non-existent band making the album a hoax. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band does not seem to exist in Wikipedia. --Sdornan 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band article was deleted as NN and salted after it was re-created 18 times (!). However, improbably, they might well soon have some notability as the first band to be signed to the new Interscope/MySpace label. At the moment, though, still NN. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:43, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Ryan Fuentes[edit]

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

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

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

Quick summary: Non-notable bio. Long version: I've had an eye on this article from the day I saw in on the newly added articles list. At the time it was fishy, but I decided to give it the inclusionist benefit of the doubt. Over time I haven't been convinced: Merely being rich heir doesn't always make you notable (There are literally many hundreds of billionaires these days). The primary notability hooks within the article are: Having a one credit IMDB sheet (coincidentally a documentary that was specifically about rich kids who have no particular notability); (2) photos of the subject with notable people (again many people have such photos and it doesn't make a person notable); (3) being involved with charities (millions of wealthy doctors and lawyers do the same, where are their articles?). If he was the head of a company, or some kind of famous investor, a notable artist, or something, then there would be a hook. Right now, beyond copies of his Wikipedia, he flunks the Google test. I am not making these points to denigrate whatever noble work the subject is contributing to, but I do not see how these reach the level of notability yet. I initially brought up these concerns on the associated discussion page, but I found the answers to be inadequate: to summarize the given argument, because he's donated money to charity and hosted events, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. I disagree. If this nomination fails, I respect the decision, but this article just doesn't seem to warrant inclusion. Bobak 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the (highly detailed) nom. Just ain't notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; NN playboy. Bigdaddy1981 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm mostly not participating in Wikipedia anymore, but for context, I weakly supported the article, way back when because of the external verification of his philanthropy (I'm not sure if throwing lots of money at a charity and hanging out with celebrities is notable... it's notable in some contexts, I suppose). Still, if this article went away, I'm not convinced Wikipedia would be the lesser for it. -Harmil 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you delete this guy? I heard about this guy one time at Citrus College he and his family have done so many things from helping hospitals to charities, I met him when he spoke in our Macro Econ class about world economics and social status in regards to family wealth, it was very interesting, when he spoke (Fall 2006) we where given packages from a production company he was starting with a friend, he also gave a little speech on world poverty and what we can do to help, he was/is designing a low-cost device to help those injured by land mines. We recieved a small bio (which i'll go over below) from our instructur which outlined his considerable donations, he and his family are the largest single private donor to the MS society, you can find his name engraved on walls at UCLA and John's Hopkins among others. I would think that if a person was courious to know who this person is they see on the wall(s) this site would be the optimal means of preserving who that person is. I know that he is also the primary sponsor for an MS Research Center at USC being developed and is often at White House events because the family is very political (Republican) and somewhat influencial especially in charity fields and aerospace (his grandfather owned and managed an aerospace company and was also a Boeing exec., he is also an accomplished inventor/engineer). I know that he translated that influence into Hollywood and made a point to help out other persons of Spanish origin. Thats not to mention any well known actresses/models he dated or all the other events he attends (Grammy's, Oscars, etc.) but none of that is really important in an overall sense, infact I would consider Austins notibility for more then any actor for the shear fact that actors or people that just inheret great wealth such as the young Onasis that got married a few years back. And I agree that in some sense wealth and social status alone does justify notability however in this case I think it goes far deeper then that. Now I dont know if all that constitutes notability but I just wanted to say that from what I heard from him I was deeply motivated to help others in my community (Pasadena) and I wouldnt want to ever take away from his contributions to others that are in my opionion very notable for many reasons beyond the abnormal cash ammounts to charities. Lets all keep in mind that this is one of the most level-headed, down to earth people you'd ever meet so I think if it was up to him he wouldnt care if this page was here, I mean thats why many of his donations are annonymous so that people wouldnt make a big issue out of what he thinks is just the right thing to do (his words). I just want people to know that truth, and the truth is he's notable and really an inspiring life story in so many ways. Thanks for taking my vote into consideration. -David Robinson
Keep If being wealthy, young, single, philanthropic, and also be a minority and have such a diverse background and life doesn’t justify notability then what does? If it didn’t then we wouldn’t hear about all the other kids like we do; the Trump children, Georgina Bloomberg, Brandon Davis, Cassandra Mann, and even Paris Hilton who if you where recall came onto the spotlight due to that porn movie… Its not so much partying with all the other socialites or going to skiing in the alps that makes someone notable but in this case you combine the social-standing with personal wealth with good deeds done and I think you have a pretty good case for someone to be notable. As to agree with the above comment, I think that people would want to know about the guy written about on the wall or attending various invite-only events. I was looking back and originally the page talked about his ex girlfriends such as Eva Mendes and various models, it discussed the circles he traveled in and so forth but in time even these notable people where deleted off in favor of streamlining the page (I assume) and streamlined it showed the most notable characteristics of 2007; abnormal wealth, and abnormal philanthropy combined in a person that is really just a nice, down-to-earth guy. I also agree with the other argument that if wealth alone was/is not notable then this site wouldn’t have so much devoted to the topic but I also agree that wealth alone should not be the only thing you should be able to say about a person. PeanutMan 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made my argument on the discussions page, I think other people on here have read it as well and integrated it into their arguments. If this page gets deleted I'm not going to jump off a building I just think it would be a shame and send the message that being extraordinary in the world of philanthropy doesnt mean you'll make the cut for the site, when you'll go to a list and see a dozen names of people of high net worth with nothing to say about them. If he's going to be on here anyway isnt it logical to say something about him when people click on his name rather then them just guessing? Bruce12 16:39, 3 July 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 (withdrawn by nominator). Anas ^talk? 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Hagen[edit]

No reliable sources. Unverified claims of notability. Anas ^talk? 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn —Anas ^talk? 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:PROF criteria 1 and 2 as being well-recognized and imporant in his field. The article needs cleanup, as it's a little too close to the reference listed at the bottom (Radiat Environ Biophys (2000) 39:1), a one page tribute to him in a journal. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable individual (the article needs a good bit of work though). 1976 winner of the prestigious Weiss medal in radiologiy (http://www.graylab.ac.uk/usr/arr/weiss.html), he is old so many of his papers are not online, yet Google scholar lists 65 (including co-authored papers – not unusual in this field). Also, a birthday tribute in the peer-reviewed journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics suggests notability (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FPL00007680) Bigdaddy1981 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Obviously notable, given his awards, high number of published papers, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:25, 26 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 a wintry delete per clear consensus and BLP concerns. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-harmers[edit]

This is a list page. Some list are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Astrale01^talk_contribs 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Astrale01^talk_contribs 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. ChrisLamb 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice list if you are desperate for people to laugh at... but clearly not encylopedia content, too indiscriminate and far from provably sourceable. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's appropriate to refer to self-harmers as people to laugh at! Nor should that opinion of self-harmers be a reason to delete the article. Mdwh 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't my reasoning... my reasoning was clearly stated after my pathetic outburst. I just don't like people to like me too much, but i would never comprimise following the rules. -- Jimmi Hugh 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For one thing, not all of those names are sourced at all, and therefore are major WP:BLP violations. For another, I just peeked at several of those links, and after picking six out at random I failed to find a single one that wasn't either broken or weren't non-descript websites mirroring purported articles; before I accepted (say) a Rolling Stone article backing up that suchandsuch (living) singer was a cutter, I want that link to come from the Rolling Stone website. Finally, what defines "self-harm?" Could we (with some justification) include all suicides on the list? RGTraynor 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Self-injury. Explicity claims "without suicidal intent". Not that this is up for discussion. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then remove the unsourced names - that is not a reason to delete an entire article. And broken links certainly isn't. Reference links getting broken is a problem for any Wikipedia article - the more useful response is to report the problem, then we can find an alternative source, or remove the entry - not delete the article! There are also plenty of articles which reference offline sources, not everything has to come from a live website. Did anyone even bother to tag it with "unreferenced" or "fact"? As for definitions, at the least, a person self-identifying as a self-harmer or cutter should count, and I have no problems with restricting the list to such people. Mdwh 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since when did we take someone's unverified, self-referential word for anything? We wouldn't put those names on a List of Boston Bruins players (for example) either, no matter how often they proclaimed themselves to be pro hockey players; we'd get reliable, independent, third-party confirmation of that, and this is a subject where such confirmation is extremely difficult. As far as the sourcing problems, this isn't a deal where there are just a few bad ones. Over half the names listed have no sources at all for the assertion, and of those which do, only five out of twenty-three links are from reliable sources. That's an outrageously poor track record. RGTraynor 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete BLP minefield waiting to explode. Not everything is sourced, and even those that are many are not reliabble sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That some are unsourced isn't sufficient reason to delete the whole article, as long as there are some entries which do have reliable sources. Mdwh 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is just as useful and interesting as many other people lists we have (see Category:Lists of people by activity, Category:Lists of people). "Interesting" is subjective, and I fear editors are injecting personal POV if this is the basis. Mdwh 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isnt a valid reason to keep something non-encylopedic. Bigdaddy1981 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete Sourced or not, this can be a WP:BLP minefield (unless the retentionists are willing to look at this article three or four times a day to delete all unsourced statements on sight), and I'd point out that when it comes to things like this even sourcing might not be enough. Wikipedia is not for edgy, ultra-conventional college guys to find someone to laugh at either. --Charlene 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily due to BLP concerns as well as being an indiscriminate collection in violation of WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Astranom --not a bad topic, a bad list. There's nothing more boring than a list of names with no explanation as to why they're on there. Yeah, it's reliable-- but so is the certainty that paint will dry. Useful? Maybe. Interesting? No. It's not POV, but it's ZZZ. I hate lists like this, where a bunch of blue links are placed, sometimes even in alphabetical order, and we're supposed to click on them and learn more. My theory is that the list was designed to be cut Mandsford 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as with most such lists, they are interesting but 1) incomplete at best 2) terribly biased to the present 3) impossible to maintain 4) not appropriate for an encyclopedia Bigdaddy1981 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene and Bigdaddy1981.--JayJasper 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Arkyan. MartinDK 12:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above, and especially per RGTraynor; regardless of what "self-injury" sets as its ambiguous definition, others will argue anyone who has undergone an abortion, had one's ears pierced, or such trivial things as picking one's nose or a blister or a zit until it oozes or bleeds counts -- and there are those who still think masturbation is self-injury -- so about 90+% of people might find themselves in this category. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should read self-injury. By wikipedia's own definition and by what i consider to be obvious the guidelines of what is considered self harming (e.g. cutting ones self to release emotional pain) will never be mixed up with unrelated acts like getting a piercing. The only problem with the article is verifiability though, as someone claiming to cut does not make it verifable. There must be other sources to verify that, that person cuts. The list is completely indiscriminate. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:10, 28 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. John254 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus[edit]

PROD started by Java7837 on grounds that article is NPOV - but deletion is controversial - discussion required. Fayenatic london (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is pov and does not belong on wikipedia it only lists supposed prophecies without listing reasons why most biblical scholars reject them as predicting jesus for example

I think it for npov reasons there should be a Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus article why should we not make Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus

Why biblical scholars are skeptical about the prophecies is below

Matthew 2:15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

yet it says

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

also look at

Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

"the above prophecy doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament" http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=nazareth&x=0&y=0

This is obviously pov and one runs into the problem of christians disputing what a prophecy supposedly predicting and which one isn't

--Java7837 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If it is just POV put it might be better to put a pov-check template up and help clean it up.ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Delete- Seems a bit like a indiscriminate collection of information to me ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- While I still think that this article is a bit "Listy" it has potential for clean-up, this discussion has gotten ridiculous and should be closed ASAP ChrisLamb 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - POV is not a reason for deletion. Fix the article.--Rocksanddirt 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot be cleaned up from POV problems, no different than Claimed proofs that Jesus was not the Messiah. Carlossuarez46 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claimed and proof contradict. This article never claimed to proove anything but simply listed. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? claims and proof contradict? so this article contradicts that Jesus was Messianic because it's about claims? Now that's a twist and further evidences its incurable POV problem. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sense sarcasm. Twist? Really??? I love English, it's so much more subtle than Russian. In any case, yes, arguably POV but if an entire theological consensus of many Christians, with plenty of sources to back it up, agrees that thus are the messianic verses that align with Jesus, then is it really a non-objective POV? Rather it's a paradigm of Christian theology. I could pull up plenty of theological articles regarding different movements and ideas in Christianity, that could be POVs under such an analysis, given that they present the claims of different paradigms. The only reason this article is in question is because it spills over into a subject that non-Christians care about.... the validity of the Bible. But I think I've said more than enough in all this as I'm getting tired of going back to it. So, hopefully, I'm done. :) --David Andreas 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Okay, controversial no doubt; but this article is very thorough on listing the commonly known messianic prophecies, that even Jews accept as being messianic, regardless of secular retionalistic analysis. I believe the nomination was in bad-faith since it's reason is simply skeptical argumentation. The article could use an expert on the subject to contribute and make it neutral, but not deletion. Should we delete Christianity simply because someone thinks the religion may be false? Also, Java's argument about the nazarite prophecy is again out of place. Matthew could have been referring to a number of Biblical prophets in writings that didn't make it into the Bible. So, if he/she feels inclined, add such an analysis to the article. But geez, this article has plenty of sources. --David Andreas 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Andreas Jews don't accept any of those as prophecies i would know i am one --Java7837 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One... --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh yeah a text of a prophet survived all the way to 100 without being mentioned by anyone else and not only that matthew who was a jew had it come on why would a jew being using a text that other reject --Java7837 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If you are concerned about that please place the POV-check tag on the page and help clean-up ChrisLamb 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment This is not the place for such discussions. Provide a valid reason for deltion without your personal bias involved. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus and i will agree --Java7837 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus if this encyclopedia is really npov this would be fine but if i do i know it will be deleted because wikipedia has a christian pov--Java7837 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disprove anything with a prophecy. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑26t19:53z

Speedy keep; POV can be fixed without requiring deletion. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑26t19:53z

Actually i can debunk jesus with 1 prophecy Jeconiah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know?29 O land, land, land,hear the word of the LORD!30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

--Java7837 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with your proposed article; I'd be very interested to read that. Wikipedia is certainly a place that includes challenges to our own points of view -- there are articles that summarise criticisms of certain Christian beliefs & practices. Meanwhile, I consider that this article contains matters worth keeping in an encyclopedia. At present it's unwieldy, having two sections pasted together from different articles, structured by text and by subject; I would like to have the opportunity to edit it and give more prominence to different established viewpoints. Strong keep. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-This is not the place for this discussion if you want to add that to Wikipedia please do it at the article Criticism of Jesus or Rejection of Jesus ChrisLamb 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jechoniah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet in Jeremiah 22:28-30 god promises to not allow Jechoniah to have a royal descendent --Java7837 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus didn't rule Judah. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑28t18:54z

Speedy Keep Come on. ~ Wikihermit 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46
3keep æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit

Keep. This article sucks, but it should be fixed, not deleted. johnpseudo 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find myself almost irritated at the unprofessional tone that Java7837 is taking in a complete unfamiliarity with the AfD process: debating the Bible, which is already highly subjective enough, displaying plenty of personal bias, attacking one out of many other religious articles regarding Jesus, pitting person against person in the AfD debate, attacking wikipedia for having a Christian pov (it does?), and cluttered editing - making this even more confusing. I almost want to say WP:SNOW keep for common sense, but maybe someone thinks this is a substantial debate? --David Andreas 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

results
3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46
4keep æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit,Johnpseudo
--Java7837 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say give it a day then if we keep the article or not will be decided--Java7837 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Christian_claims_of_fulfilled_Old_Testament_prophecies the result of the discussion was delete list of christian claims of fulfilled prophecy--Java7837 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh I don't think you read or hear what any of us are saying. Learn the AfD process.... Anyway, if I had a vendetta against the claims of evolution, atheism, and a number of other worldviews than Christianity (which I personally dont) I could likely do as you are doing and pour my bias into AfDs against such articles... because they could be arguably POVs. However, there is a big difference between claims and proof. Evolution is a claim (theory) with some scientific evidence, Christianity is a religion with historical, though not necessarily moral, validity. Since this article is listing the claims of Christians regarding messianic prophecies, then it is arguably objective in that it is displaying the Christian paradigm on these prophecies. The title itself says "claimed" not proof. Like Merzul said below, if a an actual Judaist contributed it would find more balance. But deletion, simply because it is the POV of Christians on the prophecies, is unnecessary as long as counterpoints can be contributed. Give the article some time and it will likely improve. But I don't think Java should be the one to contribute these counterpoints. --David Andreas 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say the results of the dispute should be done when there is 50% + two or more voting for keep or delete --Java7837 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above for the end of tomorrow though --Java7837 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)so if there is 1 pushing for[reply]

You seem unfamiliar with the process here at AfD. If discussion is heated, especially as close as this one, the full 5 days is warranted. Given this was only begun on the 26th, that means it will not close until July 1. I am not !voting in this one, but I would suggest you take some time and read through various older AfDs to get a feel for the process. -- Kesh 02:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Java7837, please don't tally responses. AfD is not a vote. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑27t06:32z

So there was no need to use your sockpuppet, but having done so you should not have deleted the response either. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fully agree with JohnPseudo (see also here). Something should be done about this article, but there is enough material here to make at least an encyclopaedic list. I wouldn't mind each prophecy having a Jewish response as well (as long as it is sourced), because it is great to know how people interpret these prophecies differently, but these NPOV concerns should be addressed on the talk page. --Merzul 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix As the creator of this article, I have to remind critics of its purpose, and that is to list and explain the Old Testament verses which are interpreted by a reasonable number of people to be prophecies. But, in order to be included in this article, one must supply a legitimate reference to prove that what he or she is writing is not original research. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a necessary article, a crucial one for anyone studying religion; this is simply a matter of upholding Wikipedia policies. AdamBiswanger1 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It presents only one pov. By reading the article, I felt that I was led to believe the "claim" by the structure of article. It should refer to the counter arguments. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.145.47 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2007

It does refer to them. Everybody agrees that it needs to do so more prominently. The article should and can be fixed, and does not need to be deleted. Fayenatic london (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is about what a particular Christian belief is, in other words, what the Christian POV is. If accurately expressing what specific religious beliefs are is grounds for an article's deletion, then every article about religious beliefs from Abrahamic religion to Zoroastrianism should be deleted. Edward321 03:20, 30 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. --Core desat 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Goodger[edit]

Little known artist in France. Fails WP:BIO in that she does not have wide name recognition, very few secondary sources, no independent biography, and no major contribution to the arts. David Andreas 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Yes, this article reads like a cut and paste from a gallery bio, and yes, the notability is probably shaky. It's still questionable to file an AfD only hours after the creation of such an article; I suggest giving the creator a chance to finish it and come up with sources. RGTraynor 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, per User:RGTraynor. Article is still rather fresh, give it a couple days first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks more like a job resume than a real article. I don't really see the reason it was created/cut pasted there in the first place. Gtadoc 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a delete in this article's future unless some one comes back to it shortly. There is a glimmer of notability in the resumé style. If not a speedy, it should have had some time with a less intimidating tag. --Stormbay 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize, I didn't check to see if it was just created. I will do so in the future. (I only found it because someone placed a wikify tag on it while I was in the process of wikifying articles.) However, even if it were edited, the person wouldn't fit with WP:BIO per my original nomination. --David Andreas 00:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Certainly no apology necessary and, in reading my previous, it sounds judgmental. I tend to tag with things like "importance" and "sources" and watch for a day or two in the hopes that the initiator or others will rescue. {I agree that your assessment is likely correct). --Stormbay 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is it possible that there has been a mistranslation here, based upon the phonics between french and English, and that the subject of the article, and therefore the "notability" criterion, is Stephanie Goodyear ?? -- Simon Cursitor

Reply: No, the name is correct. There aren't many Google hits for the name, but the lead one is Goodger's website, showing the artist's portfolio. Like the nom, my gut impression is that the artist probably fails notability. RGTraynor 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article needs to be completely re written. Modernist 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyday working artist, not-notable, and with a very poor article to boot. Johnbod 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap entry on crap figure. --Attilios 17:15, 30 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 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Supposed sequel to The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. "Sources" in article are user-submitted, and thus, unreliable per WP:RS. Very little info as well.

Also, this was already deleted before here.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again. --Sdornan 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arguably speedy as G4. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: fails WP:CRYSTAL. A sequel that doesn't even have an IMDB page yet is too far from the radar to merit any sort of article. RGTraynor 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but its OK if I create The Fast and the Furious 8, right? - eo 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Recesende 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:21, 27 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 Remains unsourced and many keep arguments are of the ILIKEIT variety. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kaniff[edit]

Subject is apparently a "character" in a few songs. Fails WP:FICT. No sources cited (other than lyrics in songs). Kevin Walter 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but don't delete entirely I was interested in knowing about this character, so if this page was deleted I wouldn't have been able to learn that he was fictional. Merge it if you like, but please don't destroy this source of knowledge, even if the subject doesn't interest you, it interests others.
Delete or Merge IAW Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters: "trivial characters from major works should be deleted as unencyclopedic". If it really matters that much to Eminem fans, then perhaps include a small stub on Eminem page or somwhere more appropriate. --David Andreas 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was going to add merge but seemingly homophobic lyrics and remarks from Eminem have been expunged from wikipedia, O well. As this is the only article that seems to address his homophobia should be kept on that grounds alone. Please note Eminem fans probably have no interest in seeing this article exist as it shows Eminem in a less positive light. Benjiboi 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoretically, some of this could be merged into Eminem's article (in its own section, if the fact that it shows his homophobia is important). However, as it stands, it falls foul of a number of traps. Firstly, it's unsourced: Sources for some of it shouldn't be hard to obtain, but none of it is sourced right at the moment. Secondly, and following on from that, it suffers from BLP issues and will suffer from the more if it's merged: Calling anybody homophobic without proof is problematic, so there'll need to be sources regardless of where this goes. Thirdly, this is a minor character whose sole claim to fame is that a notable rapper mentions him in some songs: That has to be close to the definition of non-notability, if anyone wants to categorically define it. And for the record, before anyone accuses me of being an Eminem fan, I'm not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely the Eminem's fans would let any of this homophobic material exist unless watered down beyond use or recognition. You might as well delete rather than bother merge.Benjiboi 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, that's actually irrelevant. If the material is well-sourced and contributes to the article (or is worthy of an article itself, then the opinions of his fans really shouldn't matter. After all, I'm sure there are Michael Jackson fans who wish that the information about his extra-musical activities would go away, but it doesn't. What matters, though, is whether this can be sourced and then whether there's a good place to put it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This could be probably sourced to WP:RS. I'm a bit stuck on this one though.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ken Kaniff features in a number of Eminem songs and albums. He represents a significant part of Eminem's music. Kaniff has also been part of various court cases: (http://www.peace.ca/eminemlyrics.htm), and this could be integrated into the article. --Reynolds45 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The court case you mentioned referenced one of the skits titled "Ken Kaniff," not the character. --Kevin Walter 21:59, 3 July 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beguni[edit]

This one line article does not serve any purpose other than spamming Wikipedia. The article was created in late 2006. Since then, it seems to be abandoned by the creator (who himself faces ArbCom and may not be available in future to expand its content). No serious activity is visible [4] though a earlier Speedy request tag was removed without discussion. I propose deletion or merge with other Bengali cuisine related articles.Anwar 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep we have plenty of other cuisine stubs. I removed the spam link and added a few sources. Otherwise, could be merged and redirected into Eggplant. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- IMHO a valid entry, albeit short. -- Simon Cursitor 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid cuisine entry/stub. Bearian 18:08, 28 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 subject of the article. Attack revisions go this way. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Sing-nan[edit]

Pretty much just a series of unsubstantiated attacks on a Chinese politician, who I assume is real Katharineamy 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - In addition, is a taiwanese mp notable enough for the english wikipedia? --Rocksanddirt 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia is not restricted to covering only topics in Anglophone countries. See Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. cab 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the attack text and flagged the article as a stub. Perhaps the version with the attack text should be removed. As a member of a national legisture, he is automatically notable. --Eastmain 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The parcel bomb attack seems properly attributable[5][6]. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provincial politic elected members no matter where he his, automatically passes WP:BIO.--JForget 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable politician. I re-added the content about the mail bomb and cited it to one of the websites provided by User:Dhartung. cab 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete made by User:Nihiltres, non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal testing is wrong[edit]

The article duplicates Animal testing only with POV and incoherence. Acroterion_(talk) 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV Original Research. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For same reason. --Sdornan 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once again, for same reason. Unconscious (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and non-POV distortion of existing article.PCock 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an active prod on this article; I suggest closing down this AfD unless the prod's contested. Let's let the process run its course first. Ravenswing 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better to let the AFD run its course instead, so I removed to the prod. PCock 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, AfD trumps PROD, since prod can be forced to undelete later on if anyone contests it ever. AfD is at least somewhat binding unless there's good reason to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless POV, right down to the title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV/Original Research fork without even the merest of effort to look like a real article. Probably doesn't meet CSD, but would WP:SNOW count? 68.186.51.190 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a speedy delete because it is patent nonsense. dtony 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV fork per title--Sefringle^Talk 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete even though its been happing for so long. - eo 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, unsourced and OR.--JForget 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Point of view, no information. Hu 01:18, 27 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pompo Nuts[edit]

No evidence has been provided that this article refers to a notable work under Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of films. I have suspicion that this may be something made up in school one day, although any evidence to the contrary would of course be appreciated. JavaTenor 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, completely fails WP:V, WP:NN. Any film IMDB's never heard of doesn't merit mention here. RGTraynor 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unsourced, even if it is not a hoax. Bearian 18:14, 28 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory Sampling License[edit]

Subject is largely original research and speculative in nature. Some discussion of this topic in music blogs; however, not enough to support the claims of the article. In addition, the text reads like an essay or a proposal, not like an enycyclopedia article. While a CSL strikes me as a good idea, until reliable sources exist to describe such a thing (especially since it doesn't exist in law currently), Wikipedia ain't the place to discuss it. EngineerScotty 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The concept doesn't exist in U.S. law, but I think other countries have such licenses (not that the article refers to them). I am not an IP lawyer or connected with the music industry, so I can't really speak with any authority. But I think all the expressed criticisms seem fair. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, contains mostly WP:OR and is clearly what Wikipedia is NOT. --Evb-wiki 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL and hence WP:OR. This is a speculative article and not suitable for WP EyeSerene^TALK 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony.bradbury. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Grossi[edit]

WP:CSD#A2 Vzmi 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose this applies now. A few hours earlier there was no article in the Italian Wikipedia. --Pekaje 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it was when you said it was not Vzmi 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I originally tagged it for translation, there was no article. If the Italian Wikipedia shows the history times in local time, then that article showed up the same minute you marked the article for speedy deletion. I'm going to assume that you posted it there, given the timing coincidence. This could all have been avoided if you had noted this in your edit summary. --Pekaje 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - me added link to italy page to article when marking speedy, why not you see it? Vzmi 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes there can be a slight delay updating the database, the article did not seem to be there. A notice in the edit summary explaining that you just then posted it over there would have resolved this a whole lot faster. I think we have debated this issue far longer than necessary (both here and on your talk page), so I'll leave it at that. --Pekaje 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        [7] - look bottom Vzmi 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I'm not disputing that. Read what I wrote. --Pekaje 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, . . . I'm not clear as to what is being proposed here and for what reason. --Evb-wiki 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a misunderstanding about whether there actually is a corresponding entry in the Italian wikiepdia. As it is now, this article in Italian is eligible for speedy deletion, so I've re-tagged it accordingly. However, the Italian article is nominated for deletion because it does not appear that the player has a full season in the Swiss national campionate, so we shouln'd waste any further time here. --Tikiwont 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article, which exists on Italian Wiki, is about a non-notable footballer, and I have speedy-deleted it.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:57, 27 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 withdrawn by nominator. Seems to be OK by current understanding of inclusion guidelines, and further discussion on the topic really should be somewhere other than here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicks, Arkansas[edit]

These Arkansas towns appear to be fictional, or at the very least created with fictional information. They each reference statistics from a "2006 census" which does not exist. The demographic information listed under Johnsville is a copy-paste from the legitimate demographics for Banks, Arkansas. As for each of them individually - Vicks, Arkansas turns up 0 Google hits, does not appear on maps, and I can find no proof of its existence. Moro Bay, Arkansas turns up a number of hits as a lake and a state park with the same name, but no cities or towns by that name. Johnsville, Arkansas does turn up a couple hits and shows up on a couple maps so it may be a legitimate town, in which case it requires a rewrite and not deletion, but the other two have no supporting evidence as to their existence. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it's real fiction somewhere. --Rocksanddirt 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vicks ~~and Moro Bay, no opinion on Johnsville~~. Vicks' lack of existance on maps is rather tellling. The Johnsville article may be a copy-paste of another town's legit info, but if there's really a Johnsville (which there seems to be), then maybe it should be rewritten. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moro Bay and Johnsville, now that they've been replaced with legit info by User:Carlossuarez46. Vicks seems to be a typo for Vick, AR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vicks nosuchplace. Keep Moro Bay - which is real and I've replaced the junk with what the USGS website has to say about the place. Keep Johnsville will do the same as for Moro Bay. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there is a Vick, Arkansas in the the same county as Moro Bay and Johnsville (Bradley County), and that may be what's meant. The contents of Vicks, Arkansas are unsourced and may not be factual. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the USGS information concerning populated places is severely outdated - in the case of Moro Bay, 27 years old. The FIPS-55 list has a bunch of "populated places" that really aren't, and can't be used as a reliable source to say what is and isn't a real place any longer. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, although formerly inhabited places meet notability guidelines and verifiability rather than absolute truth is our guiding principal. If Moro Bay, Vick, and Johnsville became ghost towns in the intervening 27 years, a source for that can surely be found and that information added to the articles. As of now, the USGS says that they are populated places and given USGS's constant updating of its database the fact that it has not overridden that assessment, so in some sense the data are current. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The United States Postal Service zip code lookup site can be useful in cases like this because it distinguishes between unknown place names and those that are recognized but should not be used for mailing. Vicks, Vick, Moro Bay and Johnsville all fall within the category of "Not Acceptable", meaning that they are recognized but should not be used for mailing. I entered "P.O. Box 1, Vicks, AR" and got a "Hermitage AR 71647" response rather than an error message, meaning that the USPS would route mail addressed to Vicks through the Hermitage post office. "Vick AR" and "Johnsville AR" also get a "Hermitage AR 71647" response. "Moro Bay AR" gives a "Jersey AR 71651" response. I have replaced the Vicks, Arkansas article with a redirect to Vick, Arkansas. --Eastmain 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we've worked this out now it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! resolution!--Rocksanddirt 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm. I'm still not satisfied that the issue of whether or not a 30 year old entry on a USGS map and the fact that the USPS will forward mail addressed to one town name constitute proof of existence of a real populated place, but I suspect that is a question more deserving of a broader input than one single AfD. Perhaps WP:LOCAL needs to be revisited. Anyway since this issue seems satisfied per current understanding of guideline I'll close the nomination - but to me it doesn't quite feel like proper resolution on the broader topic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:24, 26 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me a Tory[edit]

Prod removed by an IP address with no explanation, seems to be non notable so bringing here. The Sunshine Man 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE. Shalom ^Hello 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless there is a general article for it to be added to, then delete.--Rocksanddirt 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot see how this is notable --- wikipedia is not an archive of the tv guide. Bigdaddy1981 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it's a hole in the ground. --Evb-wiki 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a TV guide, non-notable programme. Davewild 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep only as it is IMDB referenced & it does include David Cameron as one of the interview-ees. Other than that, pretty non-notable. SkierRMH 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (See also 4 items below.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:01, 29 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Piece Theory[edit]

Made up theory. A total of one ghit. Lurker 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reason. --Sdornan 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious original research. BassoProfundo 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "We have enough food to last 30,000 years, but we've only got one after eight mint left, and everyone's too polite to take it." - Holly (Me²). Someguy1221 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Bigdaddy1981 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nonsense, original research, no real information, just links. Hu 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete could be a real phenomenon, but without citations, comes across as total OR. Debivort 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the example is hilarious. -- Magioladitis 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR or Urban legend. Bearian 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion that band is notable. NawlinWiki 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamer's exile[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Evil1987 17:19, 26 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 Nomination Withdrawn Corpx 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie (porn star)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cherie (porn star) (2nd nomination)

~~Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO.~~ Nomination withdrawn. Epbr123 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even though, WP:PORNBIO removed the 100 title cutoff, I still think doing 129 titles asserts some notability. Also, some of her titles have been nominated for "Best DVD" at AVN Awards. LINK Warning:Link Contains pornographic material Corpx 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid number of films isn't a good measure of notability. The AVN Awards were awarded to the film, not her. Epbr123 17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, she was also nominated for a X Rated Critics Organization Award. Again, this goes back to my earlier statement; if somebody did over a 100 films, they're bound to be nominated for some award. Its just harder to find in this case because of the one word name Corpx 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - copy vio & spam'. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TagsMe[edit]

Contested speedy G11, spam. Shalom ^Hello 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and is bordering advertising Corpx 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy, advertising tone, seems to be cut-and-pasted from their website or advertsing materials (™ after each mention of the product's name, one paragraph in Spanish for no apparent reason, weird formatting, etc). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an advertisement. --Sdornan 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "One of the main advantages is that" it is WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete^TM Copyvio copy-paste of tagsme.com site. --Breno ^talk 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising for a non-notable product as well as copyright violation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteball[edit]

Per WP:NOT - not for something made up in school one day. - Philippe | Talk 16:08, 26 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.--cj | talk 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew pratley[edit]

Tagged as db-nn, but I thought it needed a full AfD as the article does make claims to notability - "recognized as a valuable asset to the Australian Film and New Media Production Industry". Seems to violate WP:COI as article creator has same name as subject. 17 GHits for "matthew pratley", only one of whom seems to be our man (came 5th in a BMX competition). FiggyBee 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page was created by the person in the article. He has no notability. --Sdornan 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable, no indep. sources, autobiography. NawlinWiki 16:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons listed above. Just not notable. — PyTom 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurdly non-notable. Creator's username is "Mattpratley", just in case there were any doubts about WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sdornan.--JForget 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: puff piece for a non-notable new graduate. Hu 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Matt_Pratley article by the same CoI author, Special:Contributions/Mattpratley. Hu 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News and Google News Archive doesn't have any documents referring to him so he has not received recognition as yet. If he does, it would then be appropriate to have an article on him. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If his work has actually won signficant awards, then they should be referenced, and then he might warrant keeping as notable. Otherwise delete. Assize 11:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as noted above, esp. per Starblind/Andrew Lenahan. Bearian 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a single source saying how "valuable" he is to the industry in Australia. COI as well. Lankiveil 10:37, 29 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. Wizardman 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Dominic's International School[edit]

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Vanispamcruftisement. Hús ö nd 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I deleted some POV lines. Doesnt just being a high school make it notable? It seems that almost every HS in US has an article Corpx 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools status as the only International Baccalaureate Organization school offering the IBO diploma programmes at all three levels makes it notable. Alansohn 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serviceable stub on a notable high school. The IBO diploma thing also proves notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately notable Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. While notability is arguably asserted, participation in a nonnotable program does not equal notability. The only source is the website of the aforementioned nonnotable program, which is an affiliate of the school and therefore not sufficiently reliable to use as the sole basis of notability. Incidentally, that program's website is the only source for the article on the program as well, so they both fail WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, one google books result, but the page is not accessible. Bom Sucesso has a few useful hits; does this look like the same school? John Vandenberg 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep just over the bar. The basic status as given even by the directory-type sources seems sufficient for notability.DGG 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_schools_offering_the_International_Baccalaureate_Diploma_Programme#Portugal. The IB program in and of itself is insufficient grounds for establishing notability for its own article. Eusebeus 11:53, 28 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. Wizardman 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinard building[edit]

total non-notability of one-year use building Chris 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a single building at a junior high school. Most definitely delete this one. Sdornan 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The energy efficiency and up-to-date technology might have made the case for notability if they were explained and if they were truly notable (for example, if it was the first school to use cold fusion to heat the building in the winter), but as it stands, the article doesn't give any indication that the building or the institution is notable. So, delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable building Corpx 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Golly, with notability like "successfully operated for one complete school year", I might just have to rethink those Disneyworld vacation plans and come here instead: "The marvel of the age! SEE! The amazing building which has stood without falling for one full year! WATCH! As it continues to stand... before your very eyes! GUARANTEED! Your money back if it happens to topple over while you're visiting!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are plenty of energy-efficient buildings in the world, no indication that this one is special or well-known. NawlinWiki 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Merge to district (Poudre School District); I'm probably the only one here who thinks it's interesting, but then I design schools for a living, many of them still standing after a year, and even energy efficient. Seriously, this building's won some awards, and is kind of notable, but I'd put it into the school district page. If it becomes a landmark in time (assuming it's still standing), then somebody can write about it. Acroterion_(talk) 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's interesting that the school's official website and history section doesn't appear to even mention this building at all, much less anything special about it. I don't even think they consider it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're the architect, it's just depressing. It's amazing how things get taken for granted. That said, a pretty good criterion to delete. Acroterion _(talk) 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - While I like school articles, a building at a school is a bit thin. Perhaps it should be added to a more general school/school district page per a suggestion above. --Rocksanddirt 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. No sources. Don't bother redirecting -- you can't even ascertain the building's proper name from the article. (It lists three, not counting the one with the typo.) --Butseriouslyfolks 05:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Acroterion, can you specify the awards?--its the sort of thing which might make for notability, probably though of the school, for being in a award winning building. The article could then be renamed to Kinnard Junior High School. We've accepted truly notable building as a criterion for the notability of schools. DGG 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's won the Building of America Honor as one of the 50 best construction projects in Colorado (yawn), the Fort Collins Urban Design Award for Green Design – 2006 (therefore notable within the city limits of Fort Collins), and CEFPI (Council of Educational Facility Professionals International) Rocky Mountain Chapter Peak Design Award – 2006 (umm). My personal criteria for notability via awards for recent buildings would be something along the lines of at the very least an award from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, or for green buildings a US Green Building Council LEED silver, gold or platinum certification. It doesn't have one of those. I'm trying hard here, but I think my original proposal stands. It should be mentioned in the Poudre School District article, and does not warrant its own article. Acroterion _(talk) 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that the awards do not seem notable. DGG 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I believe I'll take a stab at writing some notability standards for architecture, since no particular guidelines appear to exist. Acroterion _(talk) 01:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced by the assertion of notability. Buildings erected to a green standard are hardly that uncommon. Eusebeus 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At this moment, completed green buildings are surprisingly uncommon. However, in the near future that will change, which is why I omitted mere LEED Certification and propose to set the bar higher, at least at the silver level. In any case, this building doesn't even have an official certification, so for the purposes of this debate, my proposal still stands. Acroterion _(talk) 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinard Core Knowledge Junior High School

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 Red hair. Sr 13 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerism[edit]

Neologism, though I was not sufficiently sure that this counted as a "Newly-coined neologism" which would have been grounds for speedy delete as per WP:DELETE, number 10. Yamla 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN neologism, seems to have been used in a BBC online magazine once and that's it. Lurker 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been substatially used in British media not just by the BBC. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gingerismJayneyalice 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is in wide use in the UK, and the subject it describes is one that should be discussed: there is a British prejudice against people with red hair, for some reason. See reliable sources: [8] [9] [10] JulesH 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Red hair#Negative attitudes towards redheads? FiggyBee 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per FiggyBee. NawlinWiki 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It might be a BBC Neologism, but it a Neologism none the less. The BBC termed it purely for shock value in that article and to place it anywhere on here would affirm it's status and be an entirely negative choice. Perhaps if without wikipedia's help it reaches some larger status (i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) it can be included at some later date, but for now it has no place on Wikipedia. It does not have wide spread use in the UK as stated above. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For above reasons. --Sdornan 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs) [Clearly quoting from Jimmi Hugh's foregoing comment.]

Note: Jayneyalice tacked User:Jimmi Hugh's signature on the above comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC). further note - Jayneyalice did not tak his signature to the above comment but did reference or attempt to reference that the above quote is a quotation from the wiki user Jimmi Hugh - the following comment was initially signed by me and i am unsure as to why it has been marked as otherwise and is clearly my response to this quotation from the above comments by jimmi hugh.Jayneyalice 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be heavily influence by POV rather than actual word usage. http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=8669 (another use of the term not BBC based) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs)

Had you checked the date of that article, you would see that it was posted the day following the BBC article "Is gingerism as bad as racism?". Clearly some people are going to copy use of the term for articles, but it still does not see wide spread usage, mostly because no one out side of the research done into it considers it as such. The only related term seeing great usage here is "Gingervitus", but there are definetly no signs of the majority of the population taking up use of the term "Gingerism". My opinion on this articles deleteion is definetly not based upon POV, i could not care less either way, i only wish to improve Wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then why bother adding in the "I hope we don't get that pathetic" line into your comment. There is a great deal of unpleasantness leveled at redheads based on their colouring - whether you wish to consider the term a neologlism or not - the inference with your statement is that this shouldn't be taken seriously. Jayneyalice 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you attempt to bring me down to your level. I obviously do not think that the act of bullying Gingers should not be taken seriously, i just hope the world doesn't get any more pathetic in assigning yet another unneeded word to it and creating even more rifts in a futile "attempt" to sort the problem. You clearly have no idea about either people nor the mind and i would rather you did not try to infer meaning from my statements which are clearly not present. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps then you should have actually thought about how your comment came across before makign it - it reads snidley and inappropriatly. I have not attacked you, i have merely pointed out that the use of your parenthesis here has an invalidating effect on any statement you have made - it looks as though you have made an attacking comment based on your own opinion that it's not valid to recognise one form of discrimination. Often to deal with a problem you have to accept its there - you can't just say "only this form of bullying and unpleasantness exists - we chose to name only this and deal with only this" which seems to be very much the problem regarding this an a lot of other issues. You are not descending to my level by name callign and using personal insults - i have directed none at you. Perhaps in future you may find it easier to avoid unnecessary confict over matters like this by not inserting unqualified personal opinion into your comments. The meaning is inferable there - otherwise I would not have inferred it - i am a stranger to you and whilst I would like to argue the case for the inclusion or acknowledgement of "gingerism" in wikipedia (whether it be merged into another article or have its own space as a seperate article) I have no personal gripesd with other people disaggreeing with me unless they chose to take the percieved attitude that "it's pathetic" to acknowledge that a form of bullying and discrimination occurs purely because they have never been at the recieving end of it. Jayneyalice 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems to have some usage but not enough for it to be more than a neologism yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism Bigdaddy1981 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee Pnkrockr 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete The less people know about gingerism, the easier it is to discriminate against those filthy redheads!--Perceive 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly hope you are making a stupid joke. I use the term "joke" loosely. --Evb-wiki 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of UCI ProTour records[edit]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia is not long and sprawling lists of statistics. Article is also original research. Severo^TC 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Formula One records is a similar article, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. And it's not original research - continuing with the Formula One comparison, would it be original research to say Fernando Alonso has twice been Formula One world champion, or that Sebastien Vettel holds the record of the youngest driver to finish in the points? -- Danilot 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The precedent for lists of common sporting records is overwhelmingly positive. Furthermore, nom falls into a standard misconception of the tenets of WP:OR. "Original research" is not defined as compiling a list of readily-available and easily proven facts. It is when an editor derives a synthesis from those facts. This article does not do so. RGTraynor 19:42, 26 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. --Core desat 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forza Motorsport cars[edit]

Too trivial for an encyclopedia. Sdornan 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another little gem of listcruft. Pedro | Chat 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Topic is trivial. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:50, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Taschner[edit]

Non notable federal government employee, virtually nothing about him on the web and fails to meet minimum criteria in WP:BIO. Suggest speedy delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just read the article and scanned the talk page, and this guy is notable within his scientific specialty. Wikipedia is not paper. Here's one example where the search engine test doesn't tell the whole story. Shalom ^Hello 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shalom. Notability not so clear to a lay reader like me and it could use some references but this article (just five-months olds)and the Talk page seem headed in the right direction. Canuckle 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article not written to display the notability adequately--highest position is not specified exactly--the lede just said "a member of the technical staff" .DGG 00:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Denver Broncos. Note that merge is a form of keep, and the article history remains behind the redirect.

Browncos[edit]

No need for a separate article. Also, falls under WP:NOT#INFO. Pats1 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is interesting and notable, but should probably go on the Broncos main page or one or more of the recent Broncos season pages. Adam 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable neologism, about as encyclopedic as the list of arrested bengals.. Montco 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Broncos article - not notable enough for a separate article per WP:NOT#INFO EyeSerene^TALK 10:49, 29 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, The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to 2005 Denver Broncos season. This was notable in 2005, when they signed the first five players listed (mostly because they were castoffs from one of the league's worst defenses). After 2005, the novelty wore off and it was quickly forgotten. On its own, there isn't enough here to merit a standalone article Caknuck 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - a small section within a larger article. A punning nickname for those footballers signed by team A from team B is not really sufficient grounds for an article of its own. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate information. A mention of the 2005 Broncos having 5 former Browns linemen is perfectly reasonable, but a whole article just isn't necessary. 103 unique Google hits for "Browncos" isn't enough to sway me that this term is in enough widespread use to justify needing explanation. It's as useless as any other examples of players from Team A now on Team B article you might imagine. — Scientizzle 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scientizzle, info is too trivial and the google hits aren't convicing enough to be merged somewhere. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Morgan[edit]

Very little context, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. east.718 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1/A7 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - no true assertion of notability. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context, no sources Recesende 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why she cannot be included - she is one of Britains biggest Pornstars. In addition if Dani O'Neill (a simular model of far less significance can be included on wikipedia why can Talyor (with more acheivements) be excluded?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 June 2007 I have spoken with Taylor today. I have found out the following: Slept with Danny Grewcock (England Rugby player) Recently appeared in upcoming mainstream film Clubbing to death starring Dave Courtney which is due for release at the end of 2007. Singing Feature in Chicago rappers Ralph Dog song Hornay Worldwide advertising campaign for Globe footwear with Dirty Sanchez Is this sufficient enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.146.253 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 June 2007

Delete, not notable. This is her website. I cant find the Dani O'Neill article. John Vandenberg 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake its actually Dani O'Neal!

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not a bad faith nom, but the commenters have refuted the nominator's rationale for deleting the article. Shalom ^Hello 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Greenwood[edit]

While having an expansive writing career, article fails to establish any longevity or major impact his work have had, no awards or external new coverages, biographies, etc. Ozgod 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, very strongly. This is the fellow who created the Forgotten Realms D&D game world, and has had more than 20 novels published by TSR concerning its characters and events. His setting is used, not only in RPGs, but also in major computer games, including Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, and Pool of Radiance; these things have been appearing for nigh unto twenty years now, and in computer gaming that's substantial breadth. Easily meets WP:BIO. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep My pet Amazon.com test shows plenty of his books available, and with reviews, therefore implying recognition of his work and notability. Pedro | Chat 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fairly prolific author and shows evidence of notability. However this article really, really needs some better sourcing to prevent good-faith misconceptions about notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the stuff listed above isn't "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [role-playing game writing]" I don't know what is. JulesH 15:58, 26 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 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of All My Children (1970-1979)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not decade by decade summaries of the plots of soap operas. Otto4711 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, failure of WP:NOT. Brief plot summaries on individual episode articles are acceptable - a plot synopsis over a long period of time is not. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? the information into the main All My Children article. Useight 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I'm not sure how something like this is not encyclopedic as it can definitely be referenced and concerns a show that has been around for a long time. --164.107.222.23 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Wikipedia is not the place for plot overviews. Corpx 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. These are just plot summaries. Jay32183 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and most others. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Terrible fancruft.Bigdaddy1981 23:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- because as Us8 points out, this can be merged into the All My Children article, which has its own 1970-present history. These articles appear to be an extended version of the history of the show and its fictional world. That's what webpages are for. Mandsford 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this show is a part of popular culture and like many other soap operas, has served as a launching pad for various actors and actresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom2700 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That has nothing to do with any of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Jay32183 03:29, 29 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 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Major[edit]

Neologism. It's another word for webmaster, except it's one who runs a pipe band's website. No evidence this term is ever used by anyone who isn't in a pipe band. Suggest deletion or perhaps a redirect to webmaster. Lurker 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above - neologism Corpx 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Neologism. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Webmaster.~~ to Epping Forest Pipe Band who orginated the rank. It's a rank not a neologism and could potentially be notable even if only used by pipe bands, provided there are sources. But it's too new and not even Pipe Major has sources. Canuckle 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be only used by single pipe band; not notable unless others followed suit. As they (apparantly) haven't, it isnt.Bigdaddy1981 23:26, 26 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 given the fact that the concerns have not been addressed. --Core desat 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Alexander[edit]

Long biographical article, but doesn't seem to ever meet WP:BIO. Closest claim to fame is being a backup singer for Nina Hagen, which I don't think gets him there. No independent sources. NawlinWiki 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a COI from User:Laugehoyer, whose only edits are to this article. Shalom ^Hello 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete Facts exist on fame, they just havent been reported yet. I know personally the fame-rate of this character, and it wont be the biggest problem to gather enough material to make it stick [[User:# Nils "Gecko" Munch|# Nils "Gecko" Munch]] 17:49, 26 June 2007 (GMT+1)
- Comment If the facts about a subject "just haven't been reported yet", then the article won't be able to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. NawlinWiki 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it needs NPOV sources, per NawlinWiki; if not, delete, if yes, keep. Bearian 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I'll leave a redirect to Tennessee United States Senate election, 2006. — Scientizzle 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Choate[edit]

Article does not assert notability of its subject. Having been a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat does not constitute notability, and in this case subject has no prior political experience (none that is addressed within the article). Ozgod 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, losing minor-party candidate, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biased keep; I wrote the article. The only criterion given for deletion is "non-notability". The article is verifiable in reliable sources. It is neutral (I detest basically all of this person's political views, yet I do not believe that my dislike for his views influenced my work on this article, and if need be, the political views subsection could be excised entirely). In the 2006 TN Senate election, Santa, errr, Choate received the third most votes, behind only Bob Corker and Harold Ford and ahead of four other candidates. Choate was written about in at least three of Tennessee's major newspapers, some of which are referenced in the article (though it's possible that the links have expired by now). Finally, recognizing that I am unlikely to persuade most in this discussion, consider that the article Tennessee Senate election, 2006 is going to exist forever (hopefully). In the future, having articles on each of the candidates, minor or not, could be a useful tool for, perhaps, someone studying elections in the early 21st century. I recognize the place of notability on Wikipedia and its validity as a factor when considering the deletion of articles. However, let's not overuse notability as a criterion for deletion; especially when it is the only reason provided in support of deletion. · jersyko talk 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of the WP:USEFUL argument, the guy just doesn't pass inclusion criteria. Sorry. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a candidate for the US Senate, and the author is right in saying that the Tennessee Senate election, 2006 article will forever exist, so might as well provide information on the candidates that the article links to. --Sdornan 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor party losing candidate is not notable; also WP:BLP#BLP1E, we cover the event (here, the election) not the people only "known" in connection with it. I must also say, there is no indication that this candidate had much if any impact other than as just another also ran. I particularly disagree with the argument put forward by Sdornan: the article California recall election, 2003 and even California recall election results, 2003 will always be notable and articles, so all 163 candidates get biographies so that we can provide some color to the main story? Carlossuarez46 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Granted, this article could use improvement, but just because this man was not a democrat or republican does not mean that he fails WP:N. — 128.12.69.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:46, June 26, 2007 (UTC).
Comment Ed Binns, Ed Chapman, Ed Choate... okay, Ozgod, what's the pattern here? (Say, I hear a horse yelling, "Wilbur!!! Help!!!) Mandsford 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my view, major party losing candidates for Senate are notable, but for minor party losing candidates, it depends on the results. The article says "10,831 votes -- the most of any 3rd party candidate," but avoids giving the percentage, which is 0.59 percent. That's not notable by any reasonable standard.DGG 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)DGG 04:45, 29 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. Wizardman 03:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Chapman[edit]

Subject would appear not to meet the WP:Notability criteria. Article also violated WP:BLP by containing trivial information and lacks any sources or references to cite any facts in the article. Ozgod 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all the crazy statements in the article, the lack of references is a deal-breaker. Shalom ^Hello 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, non-notable. Freshacconci 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be found for the claims in the first paragraph.DGG
Delete, per above Modernist 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable. Acalamari 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. As Mantanmoreland so felicitously wrote, he fulfills "nobility criteria for actors." :) Shalom ^Hello 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Binns[edit]

While having an illustrious career, I can find no notable biography written of him nor any major awards won during his lengthy. Subject would appear not to meet the requirements for WP:Notability. Ozgod 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable actor with 150+ roles over a decades-long career, per IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appeared in many significant films & TV shows. NawlinWiki 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, if only for appearing in 12 Angry Men. Garion96 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator seems unacquainted with nobility criteria for actors. Lack of a "notable biography" is meaningless. Notability criteria for actors includes those "with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Nominator admits Binns had an "illustrious career."--Mantanmoreland 14:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reference, the notability criteria being cited above is at WP:BIO. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly a notable actor--we have an article on all of the main actors in 12 Angry Men as we certainly should. I think we can WP:SNOWBALL this one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Peacent 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron May[edit]

Local tech reporter just does not rise to the required notability levels, in my eyes. I A7 Speedied this once already, but it returned. I'm giving it a chance at AFD this time instead, but I still do not really consider him notable.TexasAndroid 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a tech event in chicago, be it BARcamp, or TechCocktail, or any notable figure being in town, this odd little man is always there with his tape recorder. Everybody involved in the tech community knows who he is, and is probably signed up to his newsletter, whether they like it or not. Toothrot 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — Toothrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nearly every person in the technology field in Chicago, a major news market, has a strong opinion about this guy. The article on Ron Magers was kept, and nobody has a strong opinion about him. The only way I could see the May article being deleted is if the collective editors think TV is a more important medium than print. Seriously, May was probably talked about at BarCamp this year more than Jimmy Wales was last year, and Wales actually gave a presentation. Tsaylor 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Ron May enters an event he steals the focus. Everybody knows when Ron May entered the event. As a comparison, I believe the Ruby on Rails creator was at this years BARcamp and only a small percentage of the attendees knew it, however everybody knew Ron May was there and talked about him. specialKevin 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — specialKevin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I was personally told by a chicago startup employee that many people won't talk bad about him publicly because of the influence he holds with Chicago startup investors. Emperorcezar 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Techology blog post about May. "Ron May is a local legend around Chicago." Emperorcezar 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. A _New York Times_ article about May and his newsletter Emperorcezar 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to above comments. --Sdornan 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claim to fame on local tech investment scene can be sourced aside from his own newsletter and a business podcaster with an interest in promoting him. Canuckle 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. NY Times source has now been added and is of sufficient depth. Now that it's there, I actually recall reading it seven years ago when it was originally published. Canuckle 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Users Toothrot, Tsaylor, specialKevin and Emperorcezar have edited about a dozen articles between the four of them. Just noting. Canuckle 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but note the dates on Tsaylor and Emperorcezar's edits. They go back to May and November of last year, respectively. Also Jbalint, who removed the speedy delete tag, goes back to Dec. 2005. Tsaylor 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the NYT article. "Ron May, this city's newest celebrity journalist" is sufficient. DGG

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. --Core desat 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The items on this list, drawn across every medium, genre and style, have nothing in common beyond happening to mention Wilde, or mention something that resembles Wilde, or happening to mention something that following original research an editor decides sounds like something that Wilde said. Otto4711 12:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. A case of WP:INTERESTING more than anything else.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could easily be argued that at least some of what Wikipedia represents is an indiscriminate collection of information (it can also be argued that that is one of Wikipedia's strengths). For instance there are thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of articles about fictional characters that are written as though they are real personages and all of these would have a tough time standing up to the charge that there is not some original research in them. As to this specific article first, hardly an article in Wikipedia has items in it in common except the titled subject matter. Second, when you delete these they often show back up on the page of the original article and this was moved from the Wilde article because of its size in the first place. Third, and most important Wikipedia is a place of learning. The more information and interpretations you have to learn from the better able one is to get an overall view of the subject at hand. I have been learning about Wilde for over thirty years and have found that there are always new things to be discovered. There are several items on this page that I went out and obtained or experienced and each of them had value in increasing my overall understanding of Wilde and the influence that he has had through the years. Now I am not saying that this page couldn't do with some trimming and not every little mention of Wilde's name should rate a place on this page (ie the ref to him in BlackAdder) but it should be there to be worked on by current and future editors.MarnetteD | Talk 13:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that Wikipedia should be a starting place for peoples learning about a given subject not the final destination where they say okay I read that and that is all I need to know. Also, Wikipedia is a collective process. Editors (except for the ever present vandals) bring their individual learning and try to create a place where the information presented is enhanced, not dumbed down. Narrowing ones focus is not what any online encyclopedia, and Wikipedia in particular, should be about. If a smaller view is the preferred way of overseeing articles here then we should simply write one or two lines about each subject and move on. As long as one of Wikipedia's tenants is that it is going to be open to all then this kind of page needs to be tolerated. If you want to move Wikipedia into the realm of an Encyclopedia Britannica format of only a few editors being in control then all of this changes, but, if even one user comes out of finding something in one of these pop culture pages that enhances their understanding of a given subject then there value has been proven.MarnetteD | Talk 13:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of your comments here address the policy violations of the article. First, if another article contains original research, it does not excuse any original research in this article. The proper response to original research is to delete it, not to use it to justify more original research. Second, better here than there is not a valid reason for keeping an article. The proper response to crap information in an article is to delete it, not to fork it off into its own crap article for other people to deal with. Third, the fact that some comic book artist drew a picture of Wilde in a comic book does not tell us anything about Wilde, the comic book or the influence of Wilde in the real world. This sort of page absolutely does not need to be tolerated and any number of similar pages have been deleted in the past for failing to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finally, Wikipedia is not about everything. Otto4711 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that some of these have been deleted and that some have been kept which is why when there was an attempt to delete these en masse it was voted down and it was resolved to look at them on a case by case basis. These items may not tell you anything about Wilde but you are not the only reader of these articles. The fact that he is inspires other artists obviously is an influence on the real world, whether it means anything to you or not, or these things wouldn't exist. Never forget that another of Wikipedia's policies is Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and policies and guidelines here are an ever changing thing. I am happy to go with the consensus of this vote I just don't feel the need to resort to uncivil language. MarnetteD | Talk 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have moved your comment to follow mine. In future your responses should be below the comment to which you are responding to preserve the conversational flow. Second, not one word of my post was uncivil. If you chose to interpret it as such, that is your responsibility, not mine. Finally, IAL is not a blanket endorsement. Otto4711 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of foul language is as uncivil as it gets and it was you who typed it in there is little to interpret after that. As to policy violations when one is putting an article up for deletion one of the steps is to notify the creator of the article and it should be pointed out that this was not done in this case. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking. You're all up in arms over the word "crap"? With all due respect, grow a thicker skin. "Crap" does not begin to approach incivility. Hell, oops I mean heck, it's even used in a shortcut or two, for instance WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no policy requiring any notification of the article creator beyond the AFD. It's considered a courtesy but not a necessity, and seeing as how few if any of the articles that I've created or worked on have been reported to me when going through AFD, clearly not one that's followed with anything approaching uniformity, and failure to notify is not grounds for retention. Otto4711 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help what other editors have done in the same situation and it may be considered an option by you but it is in the instructions for putting an article up for AFD, not notifying them shows a lack of good faith and that combined with your constant need to tell other editors what to do continues your inability to show civility.MarnetteD | Talk 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge back to the article in chief, or move to a subpage of the talk page, anything but delete. AfD is not cleanup. If the section describing Oscar Wilde's impact on later culture becomes cluttered or unwieldy, the right thing to do is to move sections to talk and continue to edit them; not to place information beyond the sight of readers or ordinary editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I suggest that the problem is "clutter" or suggest that the article is in need of "cleanup" and it is a blatant mischaracterization of the nomination to say so. Your comments do not address the policy violations set forth in the nomination. Otto4711 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just speculating that this particular article got forked out of Oscar Wilde the usual way. Even if that weren't the actual history here, it remains the case that deletion is not the only way to deal with any of the policy violations you mention, and that the substance of good faith edits ought to be preserved even if they aren't ready to appear in an article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we delete this, the information would show up in Oscar Wilde. Maybe merge.

Comment - as already noted, creating articles to keep garbage out of other articles is not a valid excuse for keeping this article. Otto4711 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; does not villate any policies. --164.107.222.23 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly violates the WP:V policy. Corvus cornix 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not remerge, utterly unsourced, OR. Violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my initial inclination was to keep as Oscar Wilde is somewhat of an iconic figure much reflected in the popular culture. That's as may be; but I cannot find much in the way of RSes reporting that (unlike with Sherlock Holmes on which I differed with the nom), so without RSes to show that this phenomenon is not illusory, it's got to go. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; after reading MarnetteD's lengthy comments (one of the longest I've read in a trivia-related AFD) I was expecting this article to be some great work of encyclopedic value that would set an example to all "In popular culture" articles. As it turns out it's just another indiscriminate list of insignificant references. Masaruemoto 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though I adore Oscar Wilde, the article makes no attempt to provide reliable sources and some entries likely constitute WP:OR. Plus, many of the inclusions are pretty far off in left-field (any allusion to Dorian Gray gets included, for instance). -- Kesh 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. It does not appear that any of these entries are notable because of Oscar Wilde, and any entry asserting its notability (like "In the film Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker's love interest Mary Jane Watson plays Cecily in a production of The Importance of Being Earnest. Both the film and the play deal with the theme of double-lives") seems to be original research without attribution. If Oscar Wilde's presence in popular culture is to be covered, significant coverage (per notability standards) should be cited on the topic, and not an accretion of trivial mentions using editors' firsthand perspectives to synthesize the prominence of such a topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of loosely related terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:12, 30 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. --Core desat 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hina timeline[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and it looks to be chock full of original research. Otto4711 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because timelines are a useful way for putting events in context and television shows to have large audiences of Wikipedians, so this could be of interest to our readers. --164.107.222.23 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness isn't a very compelling reason to keep plot summary, esepcially if it's the whole content of an article as it is here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is useful" is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a television guide. --Slowking Man 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original research and plot summary do not belong on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, unencyclopedic. No cited sources, and appears to be little more than an in-universe listing of events. Such content would be more appropriate for a fan site. --Slowking Man 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article Love Hina somehow. 132.205.44.5 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dilawar (t) 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/redirect to main Love Hina article. - Ranma9617 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is original research based on interpretation from plot and only plot. Fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly useless for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, although it would be suitable for specialized anime wikis. - Sikon 06:04, 30 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. --Core desat 05:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hina plot summaries[edit]

Delete - Clear violation of WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 12:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge or something. I'm sure there's a way to compromise and preserve the other editors' work. --164.107.222.23 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of effort put into an article is irrelevant to whether or not it complies with policy. --Slowking Man 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles should not soley be plot summary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merging the information into Love Hina in much-condensed form seems like the best option. A general overview of the plot is fine, but the article as it stands is rather excruciatingly detailed and in-universe. --Slowking Man 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. As is, this page is rather unencyclopedic and useless. However, large portions of its content could probably be converted into acceptable articles by the addition of more information and cleanup. For instance, the volume summaries could be converted into a List of Love Hina manga chapters which contained both summaries and out-of-universe information. As the quality of writing is decent enough to be salvageable, deleting it entirely could simply force duplication of effort later on. Towards this end, if a Love Hina editor wishes to userfy the pages with the goal of reworking it into articles, I would support this. --tjstrf talk 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have plot summaries for every major TV show whether the episode had notability or not. If it needs social commentary then add it. Always fix or flag, before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If other similar articles exist, that does not necessarily mean that such articles are desirable. In the case of a show or episode with significant depth and cultural impact—say, Time Enough at Last—I can see the merit of devoting a significant portion of the article, or a separate article, to plot summary and analysis. However, this article seems to me to consist mostly of "X does Y; then Z happens," then repeat the formula. I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be no discussion of Love Hina's plot at all, but it seems to me that an adequately encyclopedic treatment of such could easily be part of the main article. --Slowking Man 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a more condensed form into Love Hina. Note that List of Love Hina episodes also exists. 132.205.44.5 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Norton. Dilawar (t) 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just plot summaries, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 00:34, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University of Rasht[edit]

delete then translate - cannot check whether wrong/harmful/offensive due to notenglish Vzmi 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone is willing to translate within a reasonable length of time. Impossible to decide notability or anything else until we know what it says. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Typically, we do things the other way around. This had only been listed at PNT for a day before the tag was removed. Usually we don't send those articles to AfD for two weeks. Since I have no idea what the text says, I'd suggest keeping it for now. If it doesn't get translated within two weeks, it should be nominated again. I have also readded the appropriate tag. --S ^up? 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with S. --- A. L. M. 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per User:S. Procedure should be followed. -Yupik 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per User:S. Also editors should be aware that speedy criterion WP:CSD#G1 specifically excludes non-English pages. I speak limited Farsi; the page doesn't contain anything damaging, just date of founding, a brief description, and a list of some university officials. Relist if I or someone else doesn't get around to this in two weeks after the listing date at WP:PNT. cab 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restubbed the article as it is a copyvio of [11] (this is from the university's official homepage). cab 00:44, 27 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 02:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appaji[edit]

PROD on this article was removed without any rationale, the concern being "Biased, and very much in need of references to establish whether the claims to notability are true." It was later re-prodded with "undocumented claims for spiritual power" but I thought it best to take it here. I stand by both concerns. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no references. Notability is not established by any means. Fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability. - KNM ^Talk 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tone of the article is very un-Wikipedia. There are many unsupported claims and the article is certainly not WP:NPOV. WWGB 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RS, WP:V all fail here, and has major WP:NPOV issues and reads like a vanity article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "is one of the greatest spiritual leaders the world has ever seen, a Satguru who strives untiringly for the welfare of the universe" - one of the worst POV instances I've seen. Bigdaddy1981 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That second prod was mine, but I think this should run the full time to see if there are refs. Whoever unprodded the article would have been wiser to have looked for them while it was on hold there. That's the purpose of prod. DGG 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already looked for refs and found none other than a few passing references when I prodded it the first time. Because the prod had been removed without any improvement, I thought sending it here was a more fail-proof solution. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per above. No assertion of NPOV notability, with sources. What's the term for spam, cruft, vanity, etc.? Bearian 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruftisement? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced Vanispamcruftisement. Edward321 03:34, 30 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 between keep and redirect, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Try[edit]

This album has been cancelled and therefore, there is no point to this article. The page Born to Try should link directly to the song, Born to Try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter2012 (talk • contribs) 2007/06/26 06:11:02

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. All Music Guide lists the album but doesn't list the tracks therein. If the track listing can be verified, I would change to keep -- even if the album's been cancelled, it would be notable if referenced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it was cancelled makes it more notable than if it was released... especially the reason. There was a lot of coverage about the album while it was in production. Ga rr ie 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:MUSIC. Albums are not notable unless there are reliable secondary sources. The only source provided says the album's launch has been delayed, so there is not even a reliabile source available that proves the album even exists or was released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Assize 11:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete — you don't need an AfD to redirect. Cedars 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources on this one. Rebecca 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebecca, I've looked for references to fix up the article. Can you point me in the right direction? Assize 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born to Try (song). Orderinchaos 07:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Goodrem, it was planned to be released in the U.S., and so far it does not look like it is, but just in case it does i think it should be redirected. Lillygirl 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born to Try (song) for the time being. Recreate the article if and when the album is released.--JayJasper 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted at CSD G1. Naconkantari 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Lying_Game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Lying Game

Inside joke run amok, hoax, etc., non-notable Ram rottenly 05:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep: procedural(!) withdrawal of nomination. The Rambling Man 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A... My Name Is Alice[edit]

Prod removed, it was added for no assertion of notability whatsoever, procedural listing. The Rambling Man 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep As stated in the opening lines it is an award winning musical revue. I think that may be enough to meet WP:Notability. but we will see how this AfD goes. Ozgod 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well-known Off-Broadway show. NawlinWiki 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "award winning" and "reasonably well-known" are fine, but all I'm looking for is reliable source to verify the award claim. Sounds like it should be easy to find one... The Rambling Man 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've found and added a reference to the award in question. As I said, procedural listing. The Rambling Man 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like reliable sources have now been added. JulesH 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, reliable sources have been added to verify claims in article. Plus, it's won a notable award... need I say more? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as notable award. The Rambling Man, is this procedurally withdrawn too? :-) John Vandenberg 18:07, 26 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 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thwaites[edit]

This person's claim to notability is a crime he committed. He is covered in news reports only in the context of this crime, for all I could find out. Hence a biography is clearly not warranted by WP:BLP1E. I'm sending this to AfD since the talk page suggests it's controversial. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The forgeries were not a single crime but rather a series of them, so WP:BLP1E may not apply. The article is a stub, and should be expanded. Note the discussion on the article's talk page about the person's correct name. --Eastmain 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material is supported by the reference, and a conviction satisfies BLP concerns about inclusion. Conviction for forgery of art works is rather rare, and more appropriate here than more ordinary financial crimes. DGG 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the two comments above: The coverage about R.T. is related to the two (directly related) forgeries, and the court trial that followed. Actually, coverage is shortly before or after the court trial. For me, this constitutes one event, and WP:BLP1E applies. We should not have a biographical article on R.T. If the crime as such is notable, as DGG suggests, one might think of writing an article about the crime. However "rare" does not imply "notable". As to the comments on the talk page, I strongly oppose including R.T. on the base that he is a "talented artist" with "exceptional painting skills", etc. This is pure speculation and POV. If R.T., being released from prison, becomes a well-known artist who passes WP:BIO, then we should include him, but not on the base of the current facts. --B. Wolterding 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for an encyclopedia, Modernist 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a large Category:Art forgers to which I have added him. He is not the most notable, but over the bar in my view. Johnbod 17:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Semi-illiterate language. Otherwise delete it at all.--Attilios 17:16, 30 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.--cj | talk 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD! GOLD! GOLD! For Australia! - A Bonus Disc[edit]

GOLD! GOLD! GOLD! For Australia! - A Bonus Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This disc was released with TISM's album Machiavelli and the Four Seasons... all the information on this page has been available on the albums page for a long time. No other pages (not even the album page) link to this one and I think... yes... this page could be deleted. -Gohst 11:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect - as indicated above, though I cannot imagine anyone typing in the entire name of this page and therefore benefitting from the redirect. Euryalus 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectGa rr ie 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as redirects are cheap. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We may be surprised what music enthusiasts may search for. Mattinbgn/^talk 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fails WP:MUSIC badly. You couldn't even consider this an album, and at any rate, albums need secondary sources to be notable and to have a separate page. Assize 11:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ahove, it's unlikely to be used, but why not? Disc is clearly not notable on its own. Lankiveil 10:40, 29 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. Anas ^talk? 09:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stewart (poker player)[edit]

No reliable sources to verify any notability claims. I'm not sure placing 7^th in a preliminary event in the World Series of Poker can make one notable. Anas ^talk? 11:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any sources that present him as notable. ck lostsword • T • C 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article describes him as "semi-pro" player, no real assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- I agree with the two above. Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that his notability is not asserted, given his semi-pro status, placings and winnings. Further google searches indicate a lack of reliable sources for even these.--Slp1 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some no-name who's won a whopping (sarcastic) five grand playing poker- and probably spent far more than that entering tournaments. Hell, he hasn't even cashed in the WSOP, just in a few minor circuit events. -- Kicking222 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaTelevision[edit]

Online video on demand broadcaster. Article created by an spa with a likely COI. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 09:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for PharmaTelevision and I created the first entry on Wikipedia. Although I might be classified as having a conflict of interest, I trust you will see from the way the article is written it was meant to offer insight and simply to act as a starting point for others to contribute to.

PharmaTelevision is notable within our industry as it is the first to do this type of video on demand style news as opposed to traditional print media such as Nature Magazine. I realise that this may be considered small consequence to an outsider and therefore not notable as marked up by RHaworth but it is big news for our sector and is a classic example of serving the long tail.

I would therefore request that the page is not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibro100 (talk • contribs)

Comment If it really is big news for your sector, I'm sure you can provide us with details of magazines, newsletters or other publications that have discussed it, at which point it will be kept. JulesH 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but flesh in more and encourage additional more neutral editors to contribute. --164.107.222.23 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Response to JulesH: I see this isn't an easy process! Many of the rival publications haven't covered us because of conflict reasons however I can give you the following links where companies comment or highlight interviews we have filmed (we are referred to either as "PharmaTelevision" or under our launch name "PharmaVentures Business Review":

I am new to this so apologies if the entry isn't worded in the appropriate manner. I appreciate the tip from the anon person above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibro100 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No they are not notable. The WP:COI concerns are trumped by the failure to establish notability per WP:CORP. If the author wishes to address the concerns raised by that notbaility standard, I am happy to reconsider my position. Eusebeus 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 00:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam, regular Delete as failing WP:CORP. Leuko 19:43, 3 July 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 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runglo[edit]

A google test showed very few search results and no results that would suggest it is a real language. The creator is known on Wikipedia for creating false content. Mkdw ^talk 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably a hoax. Most of the Google results refer to an area of Papua New Guinea. Hut 8.5 11:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. If it's a hoax, it's a pretty widespread one: [12], [13], etc. I'm not sure if this is referring to the T'rung people, also written as Taron, Tarong, Trung. I'd say it would be better to ask on some of the related project pages for assessment before deleting. -Yupik 12:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dharchula article also talks about the Rung people. -Yupik 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is probably a hoax. Runglo is not mentioned in the Ethnologue ([14]), though it MAY refer to Northern and Southern Lorung, both languages in the "Himalayan region" [15], [16]. It is unlikely Rung refers to the T'rung (or Taron) people because there are almost no Taron people left in the world [17]. Even if this isn't a hoax, the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten. I vote this is either deleted or split into seperate articles about Northern and Southern Lorung and the unsourced material removed (e.g. They are very closely bonded and organise regular get togethers whenever possible). Danelo 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Bearian 18:12, 28 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 both, lacks assertion of notablilty after being retracted by the article's creator. Sr 13 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Vomit[edit]

Asserts that it was the "first ever Paki underground metal band to launch a video for their song, One," but cites no 3rd party sources backing notability. slakr 08:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision it appears that that assertion might have been rescinded by the article's creator. --slakr 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is asserted before AFD closes. I also propose that Ali Kazmi be included in this AFD, since his article does not assert any notability outside the band. (except another band, Cornhole that does not have its own article. "Ali Kazmi Cornhole" gives 9 ghits). Dr bab 09:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:13, 26 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 nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt High School (Fresno)[edit]

Non-notable school, without references to support any notability other than school website. I propose deletion, or, at least, redirection to a relevent article (such as the town/city where the school is located). Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award-winning school with award-winning magnet arts program. Notablity has been established. Alansohn 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable, and there's no other reason to delete this article that I can see. Noroton 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Adequate. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even as nominator. Has now established notability with references. Call to close as keep. Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 20:16, 26 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 A BIG CONFUSED WHATEVER. The nom doesn't want this deleted any more. The delete arguments are mostly amenable to a merge. The keeps mostly conflate coverage of Pokemon with coverage of this Pokemon or kind of suck. Teggles has merged this to a list of Pokemon, something WP:PCP has been slowly working on for a while, and discussing that on talk or at WT:PCP seems like it'll be a lot more productive than letting this messy, meandering AFD go on any longer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stunky[edit]

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

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

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

Oh boy.

I am nominating Stunky for deletion. Stunky is one of 493 fictional species in Pokémon, a multi-billion-dollar Japanese children's media franchise. The key part of that description there is "multi-billion-dollar". Because of the franchise's proven notability, it is assumed that everything appearing in it is notable for an article.

In relation to the Pokémon itself, not the franchise, the current article is composed of only:

Original research (two paragraphs)
Plot summary (two sections)

The first one violates policies WP:NOR and WP:V, which I don't think is disagreed with. The second is a violation of another policy, WP:NOT - it clearly reads "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot".

An argument is that this is only a condition, and currently can (not in the future can) be changed. The problem is that, through my research, it can't. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have found no secondary reliable sources that discuss any real-world context such as creation or reception for "Stunky". This is the key question: do they exist? Without proving existence of secondary sources describing real-world context, there is no reason for keeping (assuming the above mentioned arguments hold their weight).

One thing that I really do not want to see is people voting keep because 1. It has a fair amount of Google hits, 2. The Pokemon franchise is notable, therefore this is, 3. Other Pokemon articles are existent, therefore this one should exist/they should not exist. There are quite easily countered with a link to WP:ATA, but here's explanations for all: 1. WP:N states notability is distinct from popularity, 2. Britney Spears is notable, but that doesn't mean her vagina is notable - and I guarantee there are websites devoted to it... the concepts are analogous, 3. Each article holds different levels of notability, see previous answer, in addition, Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Whew. Now that I'm finished, have fun discussing.

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I want to stress that you do not base the result on the amount of votes, or the amount of agreements. This is normally followed, but often it isn't done well. --Teggles 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

Delete: I keep reading my nomination and feel it is missing something, but nevertheless, it should hold up. --Teggles 07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Redirect: The article has been merged to List of Pokémon (421-440). --Teggles 06:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing is likely to change the consensus that all Pokemon characters are notable. --Eastmain 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not permanent, especially when that consensus is ill-founded or does not exist at all. Your reason for deletion is unfair, I have explained exactly why this article is not notable and you ignored it, saying "keep" because a select group disagree for unstated or nonexistent reasons. The notion that there is "consensus" that all Pokemon species are notable seems like a good case of illogic, I found it highly unlikely a group assessed every single Pokemon article to check for notability - it's actually impossible, considering there are no supplied sources for this article to prove notability - I think they may have misunderstood the concept of notability. Notability is about significant coverage in secondary sources, not importance or popularity, nor notability of its parent. --Teggles 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Pokémon. That is what the guideline WP:FICTION recommends; and is does so for good reasons. Notability of this individual character is not established, and probably impossible to establish.--B. Wolterding 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information to be merged is an appearance in Pokemon Diamond (without plot) and very small (almost plot-less) appearance in the anime. I do believe it appeared in the trading card game, but every Pokemon has, so that doesn't need a mention. So judging from that, it actually appears it has already been merged sufficiently. (edit: Looks like I'm wrong, there does need to be some more merging, but the information is so little that the article can be deleted with no problems) --Teggles 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the article could easily be condensed into 1-2 paragraphs and then merged as a section into List of Pokémon or a similar article; just like the famous List of minor Star Wars characters. Notability is not needed for that, primary sources would suffice.--B. Wolterding 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, List of Pokémon does not include any information beyond Nat'l Pokédex number, regional Dex nos., Japanese name, English name, and what it evolves from. A merge into List of Pokémon is the equivalent of a "Delete" argument. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me; I did not propose merging into a row of the table, I proposed merging the article into a section, in expansion of the list article. Actually, I noticed that someone has been starting to orgainze things like this, as in List of Pokémon (1-20). Why not create the 421-440 article and merge to there? --B. Wolterding 08:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:POKE isn't there yet. Try asking for a ~~Baron von Arseface~~Stunky Evolutionary line article at WP:POKE/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a "Stunky evolutionary line" article would not be a good alternative. Stunky's evolution is just as non-notable. --Teggles 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for every Poke excepting Pikachu, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff, Pichu, Raichu, and Lugia. Mudkip and Bidoof are debatable owing to meme disputes. Thus, we have a conundrum - Nuke just Stunky for noncompliance and ignore the rest (Pleases WP:POKE and vandals), or nuke everything that is noncompliant (pleases everyone except for the vandals and WP:POKE). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each Pokemon has a different level of notability, and each one will need to be decided on its own. There is no obligation to throw away similar articles. --Teggles 09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, most of them fall into "noncompliant". Take Whismur, recently gutted by User:Amarkov, as an example. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of grouping three or four Pokemon articles into one isn't exactly the best plan. I supported it myself because it "cuts down" the amount of Pokemon articles - we are in a state where there is so much ignoring of policies that alternatives need to be made. Alternatives that don't make any sense. Think about it, how does combining a mere three or four non-notable articles create notability? They still have no real-world context. --Teggles 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nor does most every other Pokémon. You can't remove one for noncompliance and turn a blind eye to the rest, Teggles. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I have already said that the others will be tested for notability. I'm not going to ignore anything.--Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of testing them? I can guarantee you that 75+% of the Poke articles will fail. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and the blind "keep" voters (most haven't read my nomination text) guarantee that all Pokemon are notable. Both of these are assumptions, and simply aren't fair. --Teggles 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that not all Pokes are notable. Hell, barely any are notable. That's not an assumption, it's a fact of life. That's why I say "remove ones that are noncompliant all at once instead of being selective". I'm amazed, however, that Stunky made it here before Whismur. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well at least whismur's appeared in anime and is part of a running gag, a pathetic reason, but hopefully it consoles you, i know how much you hate whismur.... :D -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate Whismur; rather, I'm amazed Stunky made it here first after Amarkov gutted Whismur. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:N due to lack of secondary coverage. I am changing my vote, since the above discussion shows that there is currently no article it could reasonably be merged into. However, a redirect to List of Pokémon would be appropriate. If someone wants to merge at a later time, the article could be userfied. --B. Wolterding 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is consensus that many/most pokemon are notable, but I'd like to see someone proving this one? I get 11 unique Ghits for "stunky+pokemon". most are linked to ebay auctions. Ohconfucius 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't put search terms in quotation marks like that. Nobody's likely to write a sentence containing "stunky" and "Pokémon" right after the other. For the record, my Google search brought back 20,300 hits, but I don't endorse Google hit tests. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. All Pokemon are notable, whether the franchise personally "offends" you or not. Every other 400-something Pokemon has its own page, why wouldn't this one? --Sdornan 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you cite a guideline or policy on which your "speedy keep" is based? --B. Wolterding 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim all Pokemon are notable, but have given no reason for this. I established what notability is; it's the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources. For each Pokemon to have an individual article, each one must have significant coverage in reliable sources. You have not shown anything that fulfills notability, and therefore not "all" Pokemon are notable. I would like to add that I never said the franchise "offends" me, even though you quoted the word. Your claim this should have a page if other Pokemon do, but I have already talked about that argument in my nomination, I am disappointed that you did not read it. --Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. There is no reason to have an article for every single Pokemon. However it's a reasonable search term and redirecting it to the list could be valuable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral You realise that if this article is deleted, we'll have blown a piece of wikipedia folklore, the Wikipedia:Pokemon test, completely out of the water, right? JulesH 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time that it becomes just that - folklore :) Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, until someone comes up with a "D&D Monster Test". -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable as if it were an article about someone's pet of the same name. Per nomination and because there are no independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of this individual Pokemon character. Could also be a redirect to merge to List of Pokemon characters. I agree that the Pokemon franchise is notable, but that does not justify separate articles about each molecule of the franchise. Edison 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Britney argument has me convinced. --- RockMFR 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into List of Pokémon. If this can't be merged per the likely delete consensus then that will not only screw up the discussed merger big time (as we will be missing 1 Pokemon as per a delete consensus), but the other Pokemon will be fair game as well. FunPika 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creation of articles is supposed to be based on sources for the topic, not sources for a related topic. This article does nothing to establish notability, and without reliable sources, which "Serebii" and the like are not, "delete" is the only thing we can do. Jay32183 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merge in process. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a merge is in progress and you agree with it, wouldn't a better vote be "Merge"? --Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll get merged with or without an AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And can be merged by an administrator even if deleted. --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we'll delete it, merge it, and then turn the article into a redirect? Or will we just delete it, merge the history, and then people will be met with a nonexistent article instead of being redirected to the merge target? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think some of you guys are missing the point of Wikipedia. If people are going to search for it, there should be an article on it (within reason of course). If you go to any other major video game there will be articles on each of the main characters. It just so happens that there are 497 (or something) main characters in the game. Pokémon is collective. What if some kid wants to find out information about a Pokemon? They'll probably go to Wikipedia, considering that's where everyone goes to find out information like that. Seriously, if you hit the random article button theres a high chance you'll find something less notable than this. This is what irritates me about some of the people who 'contribute' to Wikipedia. They're too busy looking at the rules, constantly linking to 'WP:whatever', than to look at the bigger picture. It's notable. Its from the biggest selling handheld game of the decade. I'm sure out the 20000+ hits on google there will be sources. Look for them. --88.111.242.169 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, where may I find "the point of Wikipedia"? If people search for it, they can still be redirected to a merged article. Also, just because there are articles on X does not mean there are articles on Y. Check up on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Your statement "Pokemon is a collective" is a good one - this is why they do not all belong in individual articles, because they only achieve notability as a collective list; i.e. in one article. ...lastly, you claim it's notable. It's not notable, I explained clearly what notability is: it's significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You have provided 0. "20000+ hits" on Google is popularity, which the notability page clearly says is distinct from notability. You need to prove notability, not say "you're sure". "Its from the biggest selling handheld game of the decade"... indeed it is, I countered this point in my nomination, I would like you to read it - the pavement of Viridian City doesn't have an article, but according to you it's notable because Pokemon is notable. --Teggles 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are missing one point about Wikipedia: It is not "Pokepedia", not a description of fictional worlds; it is an encyclopedia about the real world. Fictional topics can be covered, but only if they have sufficient real-world context (or, more precisely, if they pass the notability criteria). See also WP:FICTION. --B. Wolterding 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a merge. Article is neither original research nor a plot summary. No less "notable" than Final Fantasy characters, which the nominator seems to be fine with. —Xezbeth 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, people have misused the term notability. Final Fantasy characters have significant coverage in reliable sources - they are notable. Those that don't are being merged. Stunky, however, has no reliable sources and is therefore not notable. --Teggles 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion. Considering the primary sources for both sets of articles are video games then I can't see how they can be different. Of course FF characters have nothing to do with this AfD, I'm just trying to understand your motive for nominating this. —Xezbeth 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are reliable secondary sources for the character articles. Squall Leonhart for example, and when articles were not notable, see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. There are no reliable secondary sources for this article, and no one has proven otherwise. --Teggles 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To back up Teggles, Secondary sources are used to determine notability. Primary sources, although useful for confirming basic data, cannot establish notability. Jay32183 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Google is not notability, it might be of interest to note that stunky+pokemon gets only 315 unique English language hits [18]. You would've expected far more than that for a notable character from this franchise. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof of notability to show it deserves a separate article. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and It's about time! Sadly, the WP:POKEMON philosophy was a Wikipedia experiment that went horribly wrong, with articles about cute little Pokemon merchandise wiping out things like mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, politics, history, etc. Sorry, Stunky. Go back to your website, and take Porywhirl and Ekans with ya. Mandsford 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, I thought that we weren't a paper encyclopedia? Pokémon articles don't "[wipe] out" articles on any of those topics any more than the Benny Hill article pushes out the Saxophone article. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Pokemon, easily sourced by the (extensive) coverage of the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl games, which means plenty of reliable sources exist. This is part of an active, regularly edited series of articles overseen by an active Wikiproject with 160+ participants. Many Pokemon species articles have achieved Good Article status (many of those that did less notable than this one IMHO). Deleting one out of the blue would create a pointless and unnecessary hole in an otherwise strong series of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the notion that Stunky is a notable Pokémon. It may be notable IN Pokémon, but a particularly notable Pokémon period? No. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim notability and that it is easy to source due to primary sources: notability is based on SIGNIFICANT coverage in SECONDARY sources. I reiterate: it is not notable until you show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - all I need is one. In addition, this is not a "strong" series of articles as they are heavily plot based. The main idea of fictional articles is to provide real-world coverage (e.g. development, reception) - none of the articles have this! --Teggles 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are secondary sources, loads of them. I've put a small list of them below. Where have you been looking? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination so far should definitely not end in "no consensus" or "keep" because no one has proven any notability: however, when a Google search is performed for stunky pokemon, and the terms "Pokedex" "Boards", "Forum" and "eBay" are removed, there is an actual total (not predicted total) of 166 results. [19] I have not found any significant coverage in a reliable source from that search, so it's reasonably proven that Stunky is not notable. --Teggles 04:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent your attempts at trying to game this AfD. Please knock it off and let the thing run its course. —Xezbeth 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that everyone saying "keep" is doing so against policy and guideline. In fact, it should be done so that this type of faulty reasoning does not continue in the future. Jay32183 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trying to influence the closing admin by falsely using google is not discussing. —Xezbeth 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment would someone kindly explain why this is a "false use of google". It would appear to be a personal attack, and thus I think warrants an explanation. Ohconfucius 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because he's deliberately changing the parameters until it matches his supposition that its not notable. But seeing as you're accusing me of personal attacks, I'm done here. Don't bother replying as I wont read it. —Xezbeth 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The amount of Google results is not what defines notability. I changed the parameters to make it easier to find reliable sources; I removed forums, eBay results, and Pokedex clones from the game. No one ever changes their vote, it's not tht I reply to change the voter's mind. I reply to show the truth (or what I think is the truth, as it may be). --Teggles 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AS STRONG AS A MACHAMP! Cool Pokemon. Skunk. Nothing we had before. --Riley the Kirlia 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I'm not sure whether your comment above was just meant to be joky; if not, I would like to direct you to the article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources For those clamouring for sources, I really have to wonder what method of research you've been using, because sources are easy to find, with a number of published books covering every aspect of the franchise. Here's just a few I found within a few minutes on Stunky, I'm sure more are out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ultimate National Pokedex (ISBN 1598120190)
- Official Nintendo Pokemon Diamond Version & Pearl Version Player's Guide (ISBN 1598120182)
- Pokemon Diamond & Pearl: Prima Official Game Guide (ISBN 0761556346)
- Pokemon Diamond & Pearl Pokedex (PRima) (ISBN 0761556354)
- Beckett Unofficial Guide to Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl (ISBN 1930692676)
- Pokemon Diamond and Pearl: Future Press Scenario Guide (ISBN 3937336958)
- Pokemon Sinnoh Handbook (upcoming) (ISBN 0545000726)
In addition, many of the magazines and other press that covered the Diamond & Pearl releases also covered the new species as well, for example Nintendo Powers May 2007 issue. There are, of course, many more, including foreign-language sources (many Pokemon publications are Japanese-language only). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for sources on Pokemon, we're looking for sources on Stunky. We are also looking for sources independant of the subject. Nintendo makes Stunky, so sources published by Nintendo do not establish notability. Jay32183 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, we're looking for out-of-universe content related to Stunky, which will probably not be included in player's guides etc. (But if you found some and could briefly quote an example, that would be good.) --B. Wolterding 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the Pokémon project in the throes of creating evolutionary line articles to somewhat satiate notability issues. hbdragon88 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Comment WP:FICT#Fiction_in_Wikipedia states that "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created.". There is no proof of said pokemon being a major character. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you entirely and would like to support your point. For me, the problem seems to be that there's currently no list where to merge it to. (Or maybe there's just to many of them and I can't figure out the right one?) --B. Wolterding 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the merger proposals that the Pokemon project threw around was to create lists of 20, such as List of Pokémon (1-20) (which itself has gone through AFD twice), for a total of 25 pages. But it shifted to creationg evolutionary lines for those who evolve (such as Porygon evolutionary line), with other mergers for lonesome Pokémon (such as Kanto legendary Pokémon for Mew/Mewtwo and Zapdos/Articuno/Moltres). hbdragon88 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the evolutionary lines would be better than the list going 1-20 since the lines would be split up in places. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe. But as A Man In Black put it, that would be about 200 (well I suppose 150 or so, his was because he assumed lone Pokemon would remain separatea rticles) articles with sourcing problems instead if ~20 (since D/P hadn't come out at the time). hbdragon88 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the merger, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. A deletion discussion is not the place to debate these mergers. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However many books the owner of the franchise prints, they are not "independent" sufficiently to prove notability. (The books being "all about Pokemon" suggests more of a directory listing than substantial coverage, but I do not have access to the books to determine the extent and depth of coverage). People have been talking for months if not years about appropriate merger of the minor characters. If there is not a list then be bold and create one. Edison 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 2 of the book sources I cited were published by Nintendo (indeed some make very clear ther "unofficial" status), and only one is a general Pokemon guide. The others are specific to the Diamond / Pearl expansion, and have significant coverage of the new species from the new games. I definitely suggest at least flipping through the books in question before dismissing them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them have 'Pokemon' or 'Pokedex' in their name, which suggests the book is a Pokemon guide, rather than, say, an anime guide or mascot guide that finds Stunky notable outside of it's context in Pokemon. That's the meaning of independant, not independant of nintendo's ownership, but independant of its relation to other Pokemon. A Coro-Coro insert including Stunky would be worth more than them, since Coro-Coro isn't owned by Nintendo, and covers things other than Pokemon.Spriteless 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the plan to merge by evolutionary line, but then later merge the lines that aren't notable into lists. Mass page killing makes editors angry, better to ease them into the idea of a reduction so fewer people get disenfranchised and leaves Wikipedia. Don't bite the oldbees? They are just as valueable as newbies, after all. :P Spriteless 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It's still a notable character, regardless of how small. I mean honestly. Toastypk 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:N. Notability is determined by being the subject of multiple, reliable, secondary sources idependant of subject. Jay32183 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The loophole for pokemon species[edit]

There happens to be a very good reason why each species has received seperate treatment. In reponse to everyone throwing around the WP:N guideline (which until recently was only an essay) like its policy, i'd like to point to WP:SS. A guideline that's been part of wikipedia for much longer. The premise is that when discussing a topic, in order to give fair, comprehensive coverage to that topic, we end up with a lot of info on one aspect. This information in and of itself is verifiable, encyclopedic, and relevant to understanding the subject as a whole. We can write a lot because Wikipedia is not paper. Unfortunately, sometimes that one aspect becomes cumbersome and can dominate the rest of the article. So we split it off into it's own article. This is why WP:N and WP:SS are only guidelines, one will never be policy because it would contradict the other. This is a case for WP:SS, not WP:N. It's unrealistic to get rid of Stunky, and all other pokemon that can't pass WP:N, because the alternative of having a huge descriptive list of 400+ pokemon, which not only gives bsic info but also any encyclopedic info associated with them, would be hugely inaccessible and a cumbersome monster in it's own right. The old way of dealing was giving each pokemon its own page. the suggestion to merge this to Stunky evolutionary line is following WP:SS. i'm not saying we ignore all rules, but judiciously apply the most appropriate ones. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style is not about forking off new pages that don't meet the inclusion criteria. WP:N and WP:SS should both be followed. Both are easily followed when you observe WP:WAF. Most of the Pokemon do not have encyclopedic information right now. It's all plot summaries and game guides, which violates WP:NOT. Merging isn't about sticking all the bad information in one place, it's about preserving good inforamtion that can't stand on its own. Here, the problem isn't the amount of information, it's the type of information. Merging may not be appropiate if the target of the merge does not observe policy and guideline. Jay32183 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'compromise that guideline back there said not entirely plot summary. No fictional subject can be understood without some degree of plot summary or the equivalent, and the most staidly academic books include them. Articles without any run the risk of being deleted for lack of context! The virtue of an article with sections is that some of the sections do the plot, and the rest of the article discusses it--generally there will enough sources to support one article's worth of discussion, though not perhaps a discussion for each section as a separate article. I couldn't care less about this particular subject one way or another. But I do care about the general waste of time and effort from these repetitive discussions. The best way to consensus is compromise. Or is the point to get consensus--but only to exactly what one wanted? The very best end to an AfD is a compromise that results in overall better articles. Articles should come out of here not kept or deleted, but improved. If there is anything that can be generally accepted, we can close this chapter, and use it as a model for many similar, and thus improve these articles and the encyclopedia more generally. DGG 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the issue is that there are no reliable, secondary sources, improvement is not possible. Jay32183 04:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

I have merged all information on Stunky to List of Pokémon (421-440)#Stunky that does not violate the WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:OR, but I did not redirect due to this discussion. The actual content of the article is a stub. The following information was removed in the merge:

"Copy-paste" paragraph that introduces the Pokemon series -- no longer necessary
Name's meaning -- removed due to WP:OR
"Technique" information -- violates WP:GAMEGUIDE

The following information I kept:

Biological characteristics -- only one sentence was there
Mention of presence in Pokemon Diamond only
Appearance in anime -- only one sentence was there

Really, there is no more available information to tell. It has no plot in the video games, and a tiny bit of plot in the anime. This makes it clear the creature is a minor character. We have generally confirmed there is currently no real-world information available. Looking at this, I just fail to see any reason to keep the article.

I will be changing my vote to redirect, and I hope this is incentive for others to. Merging into a two-creature "evolution line" is not a good idea, Skuntank is just as bad. --Teggles 06:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above, this is a sensible compromise and I dare say a very significant number of these pages could be dealth with the same way. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:41, 28 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. John254 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deacons (lawyers)[edit]

Australasian law firm. Article created by an spa with a likely COI. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Deacons (law firm). With over 900 lawyers in seven countries, this is apparently one of the largest Australian law firms. A Google search reveals numerous hits for them both on a web search and a news search, so it should be possible to get this article in decent shape to satisfy WP:CORP. --Metropolitan90 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The achievements listed include recognition by various reliable sources. --Eastmain 08:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename international law firm. Ohconfucius 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Metropolitan. This article scrapes by WP:CORP by the thinnist of thin margins. Needs some significant work, which I have made a basic start on. If anyone else wants to help clean this up, then please chip in. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The article needs to be better sourced but meets WP:CORP. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page only created a couple of days ago. Not notable yet without secondary sources, but too early to delete. If this is a SPA, then I'm sure a law firm could research some reasonable secondary sources quickly. Assize 11:00, 27 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. Sr 13 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billpoint[edit]

A defunct online money payment service with no claims of notability. Had prod'd the article which received a prod-2 by another editor. These tags have been removed by an anon so sending it to AfD. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and/or the prod people. I'd say "merge" but if it's worth merging into eBay, someone would have done it by now. Shalom ^Hello 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to eBay -- the one-line mention there could use a little expanding to give a better view of the history of eBay's relationship with payment services. Pinball22 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PayPal, its replacement and an article that describes the life and death of Billpoint in similar death to the nominated article. MrZaius^talk 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mr Zaius. --Tikiwont 11:41, 27 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 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 77[edit]

This article is an unsourced WP:HOAX—there is no information anywhere that it even exists. There was a prod set to expire today, but an anon removed it without explantion. east.718 06:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable, possible hoax or crystal ball. Shalom ^Hello 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now it's notable, not a hoax, but WP:CRYSTAL. Chances are though, it'll happen. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:NOT#CBALL. hateless 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until information can be verified. Wildthing61476 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball Thesaddestday 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Information has been verified, so the AfD should be voided. --64.15.157.49 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is me. I forgot to log in. --Raderick 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not verified in the least. The blog entry souced in the article (which doesn't even qualify by WP:RS standards) states that it is a possibility for Cincinnati for 8/20, but the location isn't even set yet. hateless 00:47, 30 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, making unsubstantiated claims or those not backed up by reliable sources is practically original research. --Core desat 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalane Larango[edit]

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No 3rd-party references, no other accomplishments. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, et al) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but tag removed by article creator with the talk page comment she was the first contestant to win state titles for both Miss America's Outstanding Teen and Miss Teen USA, not to mention the fact that she placed second runner-up in the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant. To which the obvious rejoinder is: so what? A very small distinction within a very small area does not notability make, being much closer to being trivia than anything considered noteworthy, not to mention the whole Original Research involved in generating this claim. Calton | Talk 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calton is again showing his ignorance of the ins and outs of American pageantry. The Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant is the sister pageant of Miss America and is slowly becoming established as one of the two most important Teen pageants in the country, the most important of them being Miss Teen USA. Larango has become the first girl to win state titles for both pageants, which makes her extremely notable within pageantry. Not to mention, she placed second runner-up in the first Miss America's Oustanding Teen pageant. I have changed my opinion and am supporting deletion of the other articles, but this is a highly important distinction and I beleive this article should be kept. I know it doesn't have sources but I can get those. I cannot see where Calton's claim to this being OR lies. PageantUpdater 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced of the notability of Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant contestants. For one thing, MAOT is only in its third year this year and doesn't even seem to have a television contract for the pageant scheduled to take place in August of this year. --Metropolitan90 07:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007. The individual lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO. The national pageant has better evidence of notability. Edison 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks any reliable, third-party sources and any similarly verifiable notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:57, 27 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. Wizardman 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coppice Primary School[edit]

Primary school - article does not establish notability --Eastmain 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. article does not establish notability. --Eastmain 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Eastmain 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. No notability asserted, and the article is but a block of trivia and a laundry list of school staff. Ohconfucius 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as no asserted facts are cited to WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:28, 27 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. John254 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Res publica[edit]

Wikipedia:No_original_research; to wit: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. This article has absolutely no references, no sources, no bibliography. Where does this info come from: Book, Journal? who knows? WHEELER 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect bad faith. Deletion is not what we do when we have unsourced but NPOV and appropriate articles, we improve it, alert editors to the problem, or stick a tag on it like ((unreferenced)). Morgan Wick 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clean up, don't delete. I too suspect a bad faith faith, given WHEELER's recent history on Republic-related articles. --Haemo 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has NO sources whatsoever. This is not in bad faith. I remember all the articles I have written that had references, had bibliography, and all the time Deletion notices were always placed on my articles. The slander here against me is obvious. The ariticle has NO sources No references whatsoever. If sources are added that's fine. Keep it. But there are no sources. Look at the hypocrisy of the previous two votes. "bad faith". No, the application of the rules are different. One set of rules for Wheeler and another set "For favorite" Wikipedians. Favorite Wikipedians can do whatever they want to. User:Wheeler, gets slandered, called names, people gaming the system on Wheeler but that is alright. Why don't Wikipedians start upholding the Policy here. No Original research. If sources and references are added. Fine.WHEELER 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My reason for posting this is that there is an OLD definition of republic. Yet this whole article is a slant and bias for British republicanism POV. A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (1911, 2001), writes that Sparta and Britain had the same form of government: "History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity" (pg 76); "Besides acknowledged difficulty of the creation of such a system,...so amply illustrated by the history of Sparta, Rome, and England" (ibid). Now A.H.J. Greenidge IS a British Scholar. He wrote a book on Greek constitutional history and knows his P's and Q's. Listen to what he says, "...the Dorians of Greece, Rome, and England ALL had the same form of government. So what did Rome have? a res publica. Prof. Greenidge says that Doric Greeks and Englishmen had the same form of government. What really is respublica?...because that article surely doesn't match what A.H.J. Greenidge, Paul A. Rahe, Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger, Sir Thomas Smyth, the Founding Fathers of America had in mind. So this leads me to question the veracity of this article and its sources. WHEELER 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further INFO. Please see the talk page of Res publica; Talk:Res publica#The Roman Constitution and see if something don't jive. Read the REAL Roman constitution and tell me that what is written on wikipedia about these matters is not slanted toward a certain POV. There is some major suffering of the lack of reading comprehension.WHEELER 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - POV problems are not a reason to delete, but to improve. Morgan Wick 07:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it very interesting, that when Banausos came up for deletion and a deletion notice was posted on it; noone made any comment on it like the comments posted here. Here is the page of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos. The article Banausos had references, and a bibliography. It was still put up for deletion. Just like Classical definition of republic. It had sources, bibliography so on and so forth. Yet no one ever commented on the page like the comments read here. There were NO Charges of "bad faith" against the poster of the deletion notice. There was none of this "this nomination does not show good judgment.". When I am on the recieving end, no support. When I give an article a just position on deletion, I am attacked, slandered. It all depends who the Editor is; is the favored one or is he the pariah of WP? This is nothing but hypocrisy of the highest order.WHEELER 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're... you're citing a two-year-old VfD debate, that (if it weren't for its age) would bolster my bad-faith suspicions, to show why we're stepping outside the lines? First of all, you do know that consensus can change, right? Second of all, if you want to know what distinguishes certain cases, the deletion policy is more important than even the most vital policies; also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD. And third, the difference is that this article has a very large section of the scholarly consensus backing it (and does cite sources, sort of, but mostly by quoting them and saying "here is what this text says" without citing where the text, or the translation of it, came from). It looks like, looking at the VfD you cite, the article you defended in that discussion didn't really meet those standards. Oh, and learn the difference between just-any-sources and reliable sources. Morgan Wick 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been around since 2004 with multiple editors, yet WHEELER tried to PROD it! Back when this was created most articles had few if any references. So add them. Setting the question of good faith aside, this nomination does not show good judgment. --KSmrq^T 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference Appears to be a disruption to make a point. Tag as unreferenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As luck would have it I specifically looked for the term today. Per above, looks like bad faith. Pedro | Chat 09:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and improve. - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No opinion as to the motives of the nominator, but this one is pretty obviously a keeper. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against someone writing an encyclopedic article on the topic in the future, since it is a dictionary definition and a repository of lengthy extracts from public domain sites. One alternative solution might be to stub it down, or to replace it with something from the 1911 Britannica. The nomination may arise from someone seeking to make a point , but in fact it is a remarkably unencyclopedic piece of crappy writing, full of lines like "Already in Ancient Rome Res publica was a mixed-bag concept." It is a dictionary definition, better suited to Wiktionary than to an encyclopedia. It is bloated with lengthy extracts totalling 1310 words consisting of public domain classical writings and English translations, rather than having encyclopedic referencing of said works. Wikipedia is not a repository for lengthy extracts from public domain files, per WP:NOT. Note to closing administrator: The "Keep" !votes are all either attacks on the nominator, or give no reason for keeping it, or say "I find it useful," or note that several people have edited it, or that it has been around a long time. None of those are valid "keep" arguments for AFDs. Edison 16:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that it is notable as a Latin phrase, and Wikipedia is likely to be searched for it's meaning and background is, however, a valued reason for keeping it. The fact that the article is awful, the fact that there are 1310 words in it (and how that justifies a deletion is beyond me), the fact that there are lengthy PD extracts et.al. still doesn't overcome the fact that this is an encyclopedia and the phrase's usage and history goes beyond what would be encompassed in a dicti/wikitionary article. Pedro | Chat 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article cites its sources in the authors Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, and Augustine of Hippo, and in the translations provided. The article could use some cleanup or additional sourcing, but the subject is encyclopedic and part of classical writing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An encyclopedia article on this topic shoud cite reliable secondary sources to show what scholars say about this concept. The present article pretty much cuts and pastes lengthy extracts from the ancient texts, which is something entirely different. If the topic is notable, then cite scholars about it. Edison 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is good that now, I can see a source from which this info comes from. I, originally felt that this article is about supporting a POV peculiar to British Republicanism. No, scholar is quoted. It is being free-handed. No text from the book in the Bibliography is quoted. User:Francis Schonken wrote the majority of the piece. Did he compose any of it from that source in the Bibliography? This is my whole point. User:SimonP included the reference book. Now, can anything in that article be connected to anything said in the article? User:SimonP should then work on the article to reference what is said there. I would like to learn what scholar said what.WHEELER

Comment Agree with Edison that relying on direct quotes of Cicero etc. (or translations thereof) is plain old original research, though the fact that references postdate the main text is not sufficient reason to consider the text unreferenced, else we wouldn't have such templates as ((citation needed)). Closer incorporation wouldn't do harm, but as SimonP's got a book there, we needn't rush into deletion because that incorporation isn't there *yet*. --Nema Fakei 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable concept, needs explaining. Article could be improved, both in style, content, and in removing OR rubbish, and I've started on that, including getting rid of the huge quote section.--Nema Fakei 02:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good faith nomination, according to the nominator's PoV; unfortunately, his PoV is dimly lit by a book by a Carolina eccentric, who wants to join John C. Calhoun is viewing the American Constitution as a mistake, and spin myths about the classical city-state. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support that is was a "good faith submission".WHEELER 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more references. This is not without references, since Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary is mentioned, but certainly more could be said. I seem to recall user:WHEELER suggesting that the ancient Romans did not actually use this term, but even if that's true, the term is widely used now to refer to the ancient Roman state before the time of Julius Caesar. Michael Hardy 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a valid article, but it's horribly unsourced. Note that Cicero and other ancient Roman sources are primary sources, and articles that rely solely on primary sources are most likely original research. But since there's lots of modern scholarship available on this topic, the article can be improved to the point where it's not OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 29 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 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William and Mary High School Model United Nations[edit]

Prod'ed deletion and restored at DRV. Despite this, the article has a marginal claim to notability (supposedly one of the largest Model UNs) but there are no sources to back this up, nor there are any other signs that this organization meets the notability guidelines WP:ORG. Additionally, this article has a very promotional tone and reads like an FAQ for the organization (in violation of WP:NOT#FAQ). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many schools, notable or otherwise, have model united nations. This only goes to show the notability of the concept of Model UN, but "The College of William and Mary"+"Model United Nations", even if it's the largest one, may not warrant an article. I get exactly 9 unique Ghits, and zero in Google news. Ohconfucius 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google Search employed is mutually exclusive as removing the acronym "WMHSMUN" limits results to those which use the full, formal title, thus removing several hundred, unique websites from consideration. Westby1400

Comment This non-mutually exclusive search, which eliminates only Ghits other than wmhsmun.org rather than any hits which use the acronym, gives 14 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 14:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a speedy. Non-notable, no reliable sources, unencylopedic tone ("What is WMHSMUN All About?"). Terrible article all around. I can't even find anything in it worth merging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, spammish in tone, as well. Corvus cornix 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Potentially notable if can back up comparative size and show that it's demonstrated press coverage, but no strong, sourced case made for note. Unreferenced and spammy. MrZaius^talk 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right, we'll get some sources added to this as soon as possible. This is a difficult task because there is relatively little official literature on the subject of Model UN in general - and a MUN conference isn't like a corporation or some other organizations in that books are written about them - but we'll do what we can. Sources exist and we'll try to find their electronic versions. I also cleaned out a couple of things that I found that I thought read like advertisements, could you all be more specific as to what content you still find objectionable? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.51 (talk • contribs)
- I know you're trying to get us to keep this, but your argument states pretty clearly why these Model-UN articles are always deleted when they come to AfD: they have insufficient coverage by reliable sources. Honestly, if magazines and such consider these things too trivial to report, what makes you think an encyclopedia should cover them? The lack of logic just boggles the mind. Since there's no reliable sources to lean on, the articles get filled up with hopelessly trivial things: "The Secretary-General for WMHSMUN XIX was Erin Kuykendall." and "WMHSMUN XX included the special last-minute addition of ghost tours throughout Colonial Williamsburg on the first night of the conference." Who on earth writes something like that and thinks "Now THAT'S something that belongs in an encyclopedia!" Absolutely baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, spammy tone. — Ocatecir ^T 19:42, 27 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. Wizardman 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of high schools in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is nothing but a list of lists. No context, no text, nothing. Replace it with categories. Corvus cornix 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be deleted because wikipedia is not a collection of lists and because a category can serve the same purpose.--†Sir James Paul† 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we do not need a list of lists, especially of this nature. It's redundant. --Haemo 05:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of school districts in the United States also fits the bill. Per above Corpx 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Lists_of_schools_in_the_United_States category is also the same thing. --Sdornan 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Haha, it looks like Alabama doesn't have any high schools. Useight 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be way too long, endless, and unencyclopediac--Sefringle^Talk 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What some call a "list of lists" is what others might call an "index". Sometimes you can find them in the back of "books", where one can find a shortcut to looking at the pages in the book. The only valid criticism I've seen is from Sdornan, who indicates that there's something similar to this already. God forbid that we would have a list of secondary schools. As for Alabama, I imagine that some listophobe probably disintegrated that list. Watch out Alaska!!! You're next!!! Mandsford 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though melodramatic, your argument does not hold up. See WP:NOT#DIR. Books have indices because they can't be searched by keyword the way Wikipedia can. -- Kesh 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia also has categories. Corvus cornix 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A valid point, and a category would suffice to replace this list. In fact, if an index is what's desired, simply see Wikipedia:Categorical index. Which leads to Category:High schools in the United States. Thus, the list article is redundant. -- Kesh 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/replace with category If it's a category it's self-indexing, provided the editor puts the cat at the bottom of the page. And there are only, what 3.1415 x 10²⁵ high schools out there. Acroterion _(talk) 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom and ors. This information is better served by a category which would provide more than enough context for navigation purposes. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a collection of indescriminate information. -- Kesh 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant list that makes more sense as a category. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and replace with category, per prior comments.--JayJasper 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States. I'm kidding of course, just trying to show how stupid that sounded. Delete Wizardman 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are so many high schools in the United States this list is a horrible horrible idea. Cedars 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Lists of schools in the United States serves the same purpose. Latr, Katr 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this is a list of lists not a list of high schools. Latr, Katr 03:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it list all the states, with links, but does essentially nothing else.DGG 03:39, 28 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 Poudre School District. --Core desat 05:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinard Core Knowledge Junior High School[edit]

though catchy to the eye, does not establish notability for a four year old middle school Chris 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poudre School District; notability not established by WP:ORG due to lack of significant independent sources. Maybe there's even one or two paragraphs that might be merged to there. By the way, you might want to nominate Kinard building too. --B. Wolterding 10:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable buildings are sufficient for notability, tho it needs to be documented better--I understand from the AfD discussion on the building that there were awards. One article, but not two, is justified, & I think it should be this one. DGG 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the building is notable, we should have an article about the building. (I actually don't think it is, and the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinard building rather tends towards "delete", I'd say.) I don't see a point in the school article that would make it pass WP:ORG. Notability is not inherited; the school doesn't make the building notable and vice versa. --B. Wolterding 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poudre School District as above. As noted on the related AfD, the building does not meet the notability threshold either. Eusebeus 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, pretty much a verbatim press release, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 17:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemax Pictures and Production Company[edit]

The article looks like an advertisement. See near the end, "For more information please contact...". Also, the author hinted on a talk page that he has a COI within this company. Shalom ^Hello 04:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete should be "speediable" per db-spam. scores 45 unique Ghits, some may indicate notability, but the general condition of the article would warrant starting from scratch. Ohconfucius 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete And I'm not expert on trademark law or anything, but it seems to me that calling a new production company Cinemax is a bad idea, since the people who own the real Cinemax are likely to be unamused. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4. --Slowking Man 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! The abridged series[edit]

This series of You-Tube videos has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." per the web notability guidelines. This has been deleted in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series). This article was proposed for deletion, but it was removed by an anonymous user. Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Starblind. JuJube 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Starblind. Maxa megalon 2000 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, they are very adorable. No, they're still not notable. --Haemo 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation of deleted page. This is the fifth time this video series has been on AfD:

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, obviously unanimous that this should be cleaned up and not deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article Allegations of Islamic apartheid is now up for deletion here. It is very POV pushing to delete that article, but not delete this article as well, so I am putting this article up for deletion Sefringle^Talk 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I disagree with your assertion that the two articles are analogous; I think they're quite different. Islamic apartheid is roughly one-fifth the size of this article, it doesn't present the range of views that this article does, and it hasn't already survived five deletion nominations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different because of article size and amount of Afd's? Not much real difference here in terms of topics. The only real difference I can see bewteen the two is one is accuses a country the other accuses a religion. Somehow it is OK to accuse a country of apartheid but not a religion?--Sefringle^Talk 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether it's "OK" to accuse a country or a religion of apartheid. I think the question is whether there's enough "meat" to warrant its continued existence as a separate article. Looking at Islamic apartheid, Criticism of Islam#Discrimination against women, and Criticism of Islam#Discrimination against non-Muslims, I don't see enough information to justify two articles. Another difference, as I wrote, is that this article is balanced — roughly half of it rebuts the apartheid allegations — while Islamic apartheid is entirely one-sided (despite the fig-leaf inclusion of "allegations" in its name). And yes, I think the fact that this article has already survived five nominations is relevant: how many bites at the apple are appropriate? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Appears to be WP:POINT pushing. Morgan Wick 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in the other discussion, "Israeli apartheid" gets over 210,000 ghits; it is a widely used term in discussions of Israeli treatment of Arab populations. Whether you agree with the comparison with South Africa or not, there are definitely people using the term. Brianyoumans 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable term, and this appears to be a pointy nomination. --Haemo 05:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Pretty much a dictionary violation of WP:POINT. If you don't like the way things are going at the Islam deletion, bring it up over there (that includes Deletion Review if you ever cross that bridge). I'd say you could nominate this article per precedent after the other one gets deleted, if it does. Shalom ^Hello 05:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad nomination. The Behnam 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which of the criteria for deletion is being alleged to apply here? Sefringle appears to have some form, as I see last month he proposed deletion of "Zionism and RAcism allegations" Zoomatters 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per Malik Shabazz ChrisLamb 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Were I bolder, I would question the bone fides of this nomination. As it is, the article has merit, and my understadning is that one is not supposed to argue along the basis of whether or not other articles ought to be deleted. -- Simon Cursitor 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - We've been through this five times already. Requesting another AfD is WP:POINT. --John Nagle 16:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fuck you bastards --Java7837 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was uncalled for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:51, 26 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 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films receiving the three main Golden Globe Awards per category[edit]

Basically listcruft. Do we really need articles that consist of lists of three items? There are more movies listed in this article under the subheading that they don't meet the list criteria than do. eaolson 03:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Basically listcruft" - Amen. Shalom ^Hello 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary selection --Tellerman
Delete Arbitrary indeed, and indiscriminate. Too many possible permutations for articles on that theme possible that I won't even try. Ohconfucius 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dear me, listcruft at its finest. Pedro | Chat 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. --Sdornan 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be nice, however, if these were noted in the article on the Golden Globe awards as some of the biggests winners in the history of the award. -MrFizyx 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective; what about List of films receiving one or two main Golden Globe Awards per category and receiving the missing one or two at the Academy Awards or Horses that have won a triple crown race and have placed or showed at another etc.... Carlossuarez46 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or move to one of the two lists mentioned in the comment above mine. - eo 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So THAT's what listcruft means. "List of films that won the Golden Globe Awards for Best Picture, Actor and Actress in the either of the two main categories: Drama or Musical/Comedy" Since that bit of tomorrow's water cooler chat was limited to three films, they had to beef it up with five more that "almost" made it. Mandsford 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; and NWill, the creator of this classic is on a roll creating many more pointless lists. Take a look at Special:Contributions/NWill, for example List of films receiving six or more BAFTA Film Awards; List of films receiving ten or more BAFTA Film Award nominations; List of film actors receiving two or more Screen Actors Guild Awards; List of film actors receiving four or more Screen Actors Guild Award nominations; List of films receiving three or more acting Golden Globe Award nominations, List of films receiving two or more acting Golden Globe Awards, etc, etc, and more... I'd AFD them but I don't have the energy right now. Masaruemoto 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each of those should be judged independently, although the titles alone... "ten or more", "two or more", etc. pretty well tell us what to expect. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said, "I don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it's rotten." Mandsford 12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not statistics. Mentioning what film got the most nominations and/or awards at an award show is notable and should be mentioned at the award show's (yearly) article. However, editors should not resort to personally conceived categories -- the possibilities are endless if that becomes the case, as others have cited above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 27 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. Sr 13 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kempton, Dublin[edit]

Appears to be a local neighborhood that, though notable to the residents, does not meet the minimum notability standard for Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The neighborhood might be notable, but the article quality is just barely above the speedy deletion threshold. No prejudice against recreation if sources etc. are provided. Shalom ^Hello 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its not even a district or an area, but a clump of 300 houses. "kempton+dublin" scores one unique Ghit outside wikipedia, and that one's a directory. Ohconfucius 08:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually, neighborhoods passes WP:NOTABILITY, although this article reads more like a travel guide which fails WP:NOT. It might as well be part of a larger neighborhood, but not sure of that thoughJForget 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a locality or area, should be just a line in the appropriate larger area. The fact that there are 2-3 other dubious WP entries around Dublin does not let this one off. A casual entry anyway. 195.96.72.22 10:50, 28 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 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea breeze (cocktail)[edit]

The only content is an infobox describing the drink. This should be transwiki'd to WikiBooks into the category http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Cocktails_with_vodka User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Wait until the creator of the page expands the article. If he or she can not, delete. -Hirohisat 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, the article has been in this state for more than three and a half months. If it hasn't been expanded yet, I don't think there's much prospect for it to be. I say delete per nom. Deor 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article does not really have a chance to be turned into a article. Maybe if it was a month old I would vote to keep it to give it a chance to be made into an article, but if it has been here over 3 months it does not really have much of a chance to be made into a article. For those reasons, this should be deleted.--†Sir James Paul† 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a bartender's guide. eaolson 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a cookbook and I don't see much notability and no prose at all. There's no hope for this to be a proper article since nothing has changed for three months. Terence 03:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia's not a cookbook. OysterGuitarst 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Haemo 05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As creator, Redirect. This page was created as part of WikiProject Mixed Drinks, which is now largely dormant. It was anticipated that this IBA Official Cocktail would be quickly expanded with data on history, culture, etc. This does not appear to be the case, and I am unable to do so. However, the (sparse) data on the page will be useful if/when the page is finally expanded. It is also a notable IBA cocktail, so searching for this is not implausible. So I advocate a redirect to 'Cocktail' or 'List of Cocktails'. Happy-melon 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:28, 26 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. Phaedriel - 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (Jodorowsky film)[edit]

Theres nothing in this article that hasnt already been covered by the original Dune (film) article, the only notable difference between the two articles is a section called "Jodorowsky on the Script", which was copy pasted from a website. Kessingler 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- advertising ChrisLamb 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it reads like an advertisement and the info in this is already covered in another article. I see no real reason to keep this.--†Sir James Paul† 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and link to the website at the main Dune (film) article. JJL 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mean redirect it to the main article?:)--†Sir James Paul† 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I meant add this external link [20] at Dune (film). JJL 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dune (film) per nom. NeoFreak 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. OysterGuitarst 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more than the contracted director's comments are necessary to demonstrate the notability of an unproduced film. (Given it doesn't exist, I'm not sure how valid it is to label it "advertising".) Maybe this could be transwikied to Wikiquote and linked to that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and excise most of the info from Dune (film) article. I think this was an incomplete attempt to split out a somewhat divergent part of the already-large Dune article, and I rather prefer it as a separate entity. TAnthony 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the "film" itself is notable because of not only the notability of the novel, but those involved in the "production" and its notability in Hollywood at the time. Plus, A film doesn't necessarily have to me made to be notable. That said, I guess I'm not sold on the fact that this needs its own article. TAnthony 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources would make it extremely difficult for the article to be written to begin with, the only real source for it is Jodorowsky himself, and thats extremely POV to begin with. According to him, Star Wars and Alien owe much to the unfinished project (no one else but him states so), never the less the pre-production of Star Wars began as early as 1973 (Jodorowsky started his project in 1975) and all the designs in Alien were specially made for the movie, no prior design from Dune was used. The only one who states that the production was notable in Hollywood was Jodorowsky himself (or more accurately the article in question). The project looks huge, i mean Pink Floyd, Orson Welles, Giger, Salvador Dali, big script, big budget, etc. But it never passed from pre-production status, most of the people involved didnt even worked in the project because it was shut down before they did, only in theory they were in the project, Pink Floyd didnt even made a jingle for the Dune movie. What is written right now is already covered in the Dune article, because theres nothing more to it. This article is nothing but triying to advertise, to give greater importance to an unfinished project (and unifinished is in caps in this project) so that it can be part of the geeky Dune mythos.Kessingler 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (film) - an argument could be made for merging, but whats there and the link should cover it sufficiently. Artw 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly some of this material should also go to Alejandro Jodorowsky as well, particularly regarding material he later incorporated into his comics. Artw 06:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is already covered in more succinct detail at Dune (film). Does not need to go in depth about what could've been. Also, why wasn't this prodded first? The lack of page history indicates that it probably would've been removed without going through the AfD process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i believe this argument is enough to delete the page. Why wasnt it prodded first?, because i had no idea of it of course.Kessingler 09:29, 28 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 merged content into 11th millennium and beyond. Will ^(talk) 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

60056[edit]

Article consists of mostly trivia related information which would be better suited for inclusion in other articles, not as its own article. Tiggerjay 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was created so that the date link at NTFS (which is recommended by the MoS) doesn't have a redlink. This is a reasonable concern; it may be better to replace by a useful redirect, although NTFS itself may be the only reasonable target. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 26 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 wasKeep and moved to MPack (software) as per suggestion with Mpack to become a dab page. Gnan garra 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mpack[edit]

nonenglish original research [21] Vzmi 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wrong language. --Ye Olde Luke 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then translate - Delete it, then have the creator of the page ask someone to translate it if they really want it. --Hirohisat 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't bother translating. It's not only in French, it's encyclopedic, too. 24.160.241.190 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't you mean unencyclopedic? Were it encyclopedic, it might be worth translating. --Charlene 02:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then translate per Hirohisat. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a consensus at wikipedia that says that no article is better than a poorly translated article. Since a poorly translated article is better than a non translated article, and a poorly translated is worse than no article, then a non translated article is worse than no article. For that reason this should be deleted.--†Sir James Paul† 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For non-English articles, your first stop should be Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, not AfD. User:Leebo has listed this article there. Anyway I barely read French but it looks like a notable piece of software; see BBC article: [22]. If kept it should probably be at Mpack (software) as there's some electronic device and a village Mpack, Senegal by the same name. cab 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. cab 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Here's an English source. Looks like a piece of software used for distributing malware. Interesting, but I'm not sure this is particularly notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrong language. OysterGuitarst 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because even by translating that article it will still not be an encyclopedia article. -Yupik 11:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- please note that I have rewritten this article from the source provided by cab. Like others I felt the article wasn't appropriately written, but as Wikipedia should have an article on this subject, I rewrote it. JulesH 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after reading the translated and sourced version. I'm a little disappointed that the immediate response to an untranslated article is to delete it, especially when it's in the proper process for translation. The BBC source is a good start, but not enough on its own. I'll do some research too. Leebo ^T/C 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reads like a perfect stub article on a somewhat notabale subject, in its present form. To the nominator and the people who asked for deletion because it was not English: If the article existed on Wikipedia in another language, speedy deletion criteria A2 applies. Otherwise, the proper procedure is to tag it as non-english, list it for possible translation, and only bring it to AFD after two weeks have passed with no progress. --Pekaje 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair to the nominator, he was clearly able to understand the original French text enough to see that it was unsourced, apparent original research, that would not have been worth translating. JulesH 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it's an English article and not original research Bigwyrm
Keep, Very Notable Article, I'm a SYS admin for VideoSift and we got hacked with this early this week. There is a dearth of resources about this online at the moment but it is the next big virus exploit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.165.225 (talk) 21:46, July 3, 2007
Keep, Notable, and important. I'll see about further sources and expansion. EAi 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some more detail and a link to the PandaLabs Report that initially uncovered MPack. I think this is a fairly good article now that goes into as much depth as I can find on the topic (without getting overly technical) EAi 01:42, 4 July 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 a stacked delete. Sr 13 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Two[edit]

Cannot find any references that match "Blue Two" to "Card Game". Pretty definite this is a neologism. Jimmi Hugh 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NFT. Author shows WP:COI by preparing article for self-promotion of invented game. Craw-daddy 00:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Eddie 00:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable ChrisLamb 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- but would make a great Uncyclopedia article. --Ye Olde Luke 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable card game. Acalamari 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This card game is not notable enough to have a article at wikipedia.--†Sir James Paul† 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable card game. OysterGuitarst 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable home game, a clear example of WP:NFT ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, no sources, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Russo[edit]

Though the brand is clearly notable i am not sure he is notable beyond the conception for doing anything else. Jimmi Hugh 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —Eddie 00:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- just copy and pasted the "Mario" section from his web site so it would be considered blatent advertising and deserve a Speedy Delete ChrisLamb 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per ChrisLamb. ---Hirohisat 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the guy is not notable at all. Acalamari 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((db-bio)), tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above comments.--†Sir James Paul† 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above coments. OysterGuitarst 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G11 Hut 8.5 08:33, 26 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 wasNo Consensus clearly there are some still unresolved issues with this article while I see a leaning towards deletion within the commentary its not a clear consensus. The issue of notability vs newsworthy, is unresolved in the short term. This result should be taken as an opportunity to clean the article up and establish that it is notable and not just newsworthy. Gnan garra 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable murder / murder victim. Press coverage and references to the same do not notability make. At best, an example of Missing white woman syndrome. I understand there may have been AfDs for prior related articles; there does not appear to have been one for this yet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

Neutral - ...pretty complicated. There is no such thing as "non-notable murder/murder victim". Do you think one person killed is different from another person killed? ---Hirohisat 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JFK versus an unfortunate but otherwise non-notable victim of domestic violence? There are many thousands of murder victims each year. To what extent are any notable? What in this case is the claim to notability? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Strong delete This belongs at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- newsworthy but not notable. Also someone should consider changing the name to something more NPOV, remember innocent until proven guilty. ChrisLamb 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The murder is not in question as much as the identity of the killer. We can say that someone was murdered, but we shouldn't say who the murderer is *as such* until a party is convicted. (Moved.) --Charlene 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A big part of the problem with the "murder" part of the title is that we have no idea what the defense theory of the case will be because of this hysterical rush to create an article here. It very well may be that their theory will revolve around an accidental death or some sort of death that would be considered less than murder. I'd have to say the title is objectionable now that the issue has been raised. Disappearance and death would be far preferable. Erechtheus 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "murder" part of the title is appropriate because, per the State of Ohio, this is a murder case. Whether or not someone gets convicted of murder per se is another question. (JosephASpadaro 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Even assuming your statement about what the state of Ohio thinks is accurate, that does not mean this in fact was a murder. Until there is a convicted murderer, the use of the term murder is not accurate. Erechtheus 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to your logic, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were never murdered -- correct? The Black Dahlia was never murdered -- correct? JonBenet Ramsey was never murdered -- correct? Pro wrestler Chris Benoit's wife and son were not murdered this week -- correct? Just because there is no murder conviction in no way means that there was no murder. P.S. Have you ever heard the term "unsolved murder"? Well, it happens just about every day of the week. Clearly, there is no conviction (hence, the "unsolved") and, nonetheless, there is a murder. Your idea that the term murder requires an actual murder conviction is ignorant at best, preposterous at worst. (JosephASpadaro 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The issue here is WP:BLP, so Chris Benoit doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. You can reason it's extremely likely the Black Dahlia doesn't, either. You can't say that it's a murder for sure until you have a murderer for sure. It's less important once the person you think is the murderer is dead for our purpoes, but the point still holds. You may want to consider looking up the definition of murder some time if you believe this to be ignorant. It's a term of art with a specific meaning. Erechtheus 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find your comments very interesting indeed. Please do me a favor and address the questions that I have posed below. Please provide replies to these specific questions. (In other words, don't answer questions that are not being asked. And don't change the wording of my questions to make some other point.) Here are my specific questions: Are you claiming that Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were not murdered? Are you claiming that the Black Dahlia was not murdered? Are you claiming that JonBenet Ramsey was not murdered? Are you claiming that Benoit's wife and son were not murdered? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as an unsolved murder? I am sincerely baffled by your belief that a murder cannot exist without a convicted murderer. And here's a hypothetical: John Smith walks into a McDonald's and murders ten people. He immediatetly commits suicide thereafter (or is killed by police or by someone else in the McDonald's) and is therefore never tried (much less convicted) of murder. Is it your contention that a murder (rather, ten murders) did not occur? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You're not cross examining me, and you don't make the rules of this debate. I answered your queries to the extent they merited an answer within the context of this debate. Murder is a legal term of art, and it requires there be a convicted murderer. I would submit that a more appropriate term for what you're getting at would be homicide, but I would suggest that in this case, even that term would be inappropriate at present. Erechtheus 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are unwilling to answer reasonably posed questions. My questions above (JonBenet, Nicole Simpson, unsolved murders, etc.) are reasonable questions. Your refusal to answer them speaks for itself. I am well aware that murder is a legal term of art. It requires premeditation, intent, and the death of a human. It does not require a murder conviction. How can any prosecutor present a murder case if one of the elements of the crime (for which he is seeking a conviction) is that it requires the conviction itself? That is simply laughable, not to mention logically impossible. Please cite any state or federal statute that defines (and requires, as you claim) one of the elements of the crime of murder to be "conviction of a murderer." So, if I am sitting in my home and someone breaks into my house and assaults me ... I have not been "assaulted" until the person is apprehended and convicted? So, if the perpetrator is never apprehended, I was not in fact assaulted - right? If a bank robber is never apprehended (or convicted), then that bank was never robbed - correct? Laughable. I am sure that you will provide no meaningful reply, but will redirect the issue to some red herring. But, if there is a state statute that supports your claim, I would love to see the citation -- and if such existed, I am sure that you would be happy to provide the citation. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This isn't about what the law is -- it's about recognizing that murder exists as a legal concept and therefore requires adjudication. If you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not a court. Look at the sources for the article. Do they say this is a murder? No. They may say it's a suspected murder or even a likely murder. They may say somebody was charged with murder. They will say it's a killing and possibly even a homicide. Ask yourself why that is and why it should be any different here at Wikipedia.Erechtheus 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I suspected, you did not answer my questions and you did not provide any citations. In one breath, you claim: "murder is a legal term of art" (notice the word "legal") and in the next breath, you claim: "this isn't about what the law is." A crime does not NOT exist simply because there is no adjudication. And no crime requires its conviction as an element of that crime. Crimes can and do exist, independent of whether or not they are adjudicated. Example: a woman is raped, she fears having to testify in court and she fears reprisal from her rapist, the prosecutor has no case without the victim's testimony, thus the case is not adjudicated. Just becuase the case was not adjudicated, does not in any way mean that a crime did not in fact occur. Crimes are not adjudicated for many, many reasons (lack of evidence, lack of a suspect, the suspect is dead and cannot be prosecuted, the suspect is out of the jurisdiction and cannot be prosecuted, etc.). Your claim that adjudication is required to satisfy the elements of a crime is absurd and makes no sense. According to your logic, no crime can exist unless (a) it is solved; (b) the perpetrator is identified; (c) the perpetrator is tried; and (d) the perpetrator is in fact convicted. If ALL of these things do not occur, it is your contention that no crime occurred. That is absurd. In your faux-legal world, then, it is impossible to have an unsolved crime. Because, you claim, the very definition of crime requires that it be solved and someone convicted. So, once again, can you please provide any citation that supports your claim that conviction is required for a murder to exist? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You have managed to completely miss the question. The question is when Wikipedia can say that a crime has happened. They can say that safely only when there has been adjudication. Note that this is all that is relevant to this debate in this forum. Erechtheus 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not missed the question at all. Early on in this thread, you made the claim that "[u]ntil there is a convicted murderer, the use of the term murder is not accurate." I then disputed your claim and asked some reasonable questions and hypotheticals to support my dispute. You never addressed them to my satisfaction, using various techniques to deflect this issue. In any event, this thread has become circular. You now assert that Wikipedia can only claim that a crime occurred after an adjudication of that crime. (This is the semantic equivalent of all that had previously been discussed -- and disputed by me -- in this thread.) So, as I stated earlier (in another semantic version): you would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that Nicole Simpson was murdered. You would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered. You would assert that there is no such thing in Wikipedia as an "unsolved murder." You would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that a bank was robbed until and unless the robber was caught and convicted. Etc. Etc. Etc. And I find that absurd. Now, as an example: Let us go to the JonBenet Ramsey article and seek consensus on the following issue - Should the term "murder" be excised from the JonBenet Ramsey article due to the fact that no murderer was ever convicted and, thus, Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that a murder in fact occurred (i.e., Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that JonBenet was murdered). I would be very interested to see what consensus is reached on that proposal. This is all quite rhetorical, because I am sure that you and I both know exactly what the consensus would conclude. And, my point is that applies also to Jessie Davis as much as JonBenet Ramsey (Nicole Simpson, etc.). As a further point, how is it that Wikipedia manages to "get away with" calling the Ramsey case a murder case? Calling the Nicole Simpson case a murder case? As of just this week, calling the Benoit incident a "murder/suicide"? How can Wikipedia get away with all that? Where is the furor and the uproar? Why is there no uproar/consensus to change that terminology? In fact, why has it not even been raised as an issue at all? Because it is very clear to anyone that JonBenet was murdered, Nicole Simpson was murdered, the Black Dahlia was murdered, Benoit's wife and son were murdered, etc. -- independent of the fact of whether or not a murderer was in fact convicted in each case. In other words, Wikipedia's use of the term "murder" does NOT require an actual murderer to be convicted. And this disputes your contention that Wikipedia does, in fact, require a conviction in order to refer to a murder. So, in all of those cases, Wikipedia (and the rest of the world, by the way) has legitimately used the term "murder" without objection and without raising an eyebrow. You made the assertion that a murder requires a convicted murderer, and I disputed that assertion. And you never adequately addressed my disputes. Or really even addressed them at all. And I suppose that, at this point, you will not. Which, of course, speaks for itself. PS -- I am still waiting for that statutory citation. Can you provide it ... or at least address why you choose not to provide it? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Another thought -- your argument, in essence, boils down to this: "Well, geez, we can't use the word "murder" because, golly gee, the suspected murderer himself claims that there was no murder." Do you not see the irony in that? Again, I suspect that I will not get a direct answer from you on this question ... and/or that you will deflect the issue. (JosephASpadaro 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Another thought – To illustrate the lunacy of your position … Wikipedia can NOT make the statement that JFK was assassinated … am I correct? Last time I checked, assassination of a sitting US President is a crime … Last time I checked, there were no convictions in the JFK case … So, according to your argument, Wikipedia can NOT make the statement that JFK was assassinated. Just wanted to see if I understand clearly what you are saying. (Do I?) And just want to point out the sheer lunacy of your argument for other readers. Or perhaps – if there is consensus – we can propose that all references on Wikipedia delete the term “assassination” when referring to the JFK case. Are you going to make that proposal? I’d be interested to see the results and the consensus of that debate / discussion. Please let me know what you think we should do about Wikipedia’s inappropriate (according to you) use of the term “assassination” when referring to the JFK case. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For simplicity sake, let's see if we can actually reach consensus here. Can Wikipedia report somebody was murdered without a reliable source saying so? The answer seems clear to me. What's the reliable source here? Can you actually give us a cite where the state of Ohio says without any doubt this was a murder? Erechtheus 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, you make me laugh. With a straight face, you are proposing that "we reach consensus here." However, throughout the course of our conversation thread: (a) I have asked you a million questions and you have not answered any of them, despite the fact that all of the questions were reasonable and relevant; (b) In fact, you have virtually ignored nearly all of my questions; (c) You have employed various techniques to divert, deflect, avoid, and convolute the issue at hand; (d) You deftly (or so you think) attempt to constantly re-frame the issue at hand, in such a way that the issue (in your mind) is constantly fluid and dynamic; (e) Despite your behavior, you expect me ( ... I presume ... ) to answer your questions; (f) All of your replies are non-responsive; (g) Your underlying arguments are legally, logistically, and logically impossible and non-sensical; (h) You clearly do not know how to appropriately engage in discussion / debate; (i) You are either unwilling or unable to participate in any meaningful or intelligent discourse; (j) etc. etc. etc. And -- despite these 10 factors -- you propose that we reach consensus. You are a piece of work, apparently not residing on the planet Earth, and it has become apparent to me that -- despite my giving you the benefit of the doubt -- no meaningful or intelligent dialogue, discussion, or debate can or will result. You are unable and/or unwilling to constructively participate in such. Furthermore, to answer your questions: (1) I will repeat for the one billionth time, Wikipedia does NOT need an actual murder conviction in order to state that a murder in fact occurred; (2) The State of Ohio law enforcement officials -- who, by the way, are the experts in Ohio law enforcement issues -- have clearly stated (to a Court, to a judge, to all of the people of the State of Ohio) that this is a murder case. (3) I find it quite humorous that all of the sudden, out of the blue, you have now re-framed the issue to assert that "a murder must have occurred without any doubt" ... a standard that is not only impossible, but higher than that required in criminal cases. But, you figured that you would just throw that in, knowing that all of your other arguments were rather weak and implausible. And -- once again -- your unwillingness to meaningfully respond to reasonable and relevant questions (i.e., to dodge them, avoid them, convolute them, constantly reframe them, etc.) speaks volumes. As experience has shown here, I certainly do not expect to get any meaningful, intelligent, or responsive reply from you. Yet ... you propose that you and I reach a consensus. Not only unrealistic, but truly unbelievable. (JosephASpadaro 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep, because considerable headline national news coverage by all major media outlets and it's still ongoing, i.e. should be given a chance to grow. Right now, people will want to look information on this individual. Maybe years from now the "masses" might not care, but there is definite interest now. --164.107.222.23 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This would be more appropriate for Wikinews, or even Wikitabloid, than Wikipedia. We honestly don't need an article on every nine days' wonder that grips the United States. I wonder if we even have an article on the storms that killed 230 people, each of whom was as real as Jessie Davis, in Karachi this week. --Charlene 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is notable news but wikipedia is not a place to cover the news. We are an encyclopedia.--†Sir James Paul† 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a much better rewrite of the original article on Jessie Davis, whose AfD was extremely contentious. This topic has received *tons* of coverage from reliable second-hand sources; although I understand the arguments for why some do not want such material in Wikipedia, until consensus is achieved to change the fundamental definition of notability, she is clearly notable. Evouga 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a news service, it is an encyclopedia. I agree that it is well written, but that reason is not a good enough reason to keep it. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is. Evouga 03:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also states Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.. --Ozgod 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it will be a short burst of coverage? It's a current event and thus, the media attention is still going strong. I guarantee you the coverage of this case is going to be just like Laci Peterson. The circumstances are almost identical. Pregnant woman murdured, baby dies, man in her life is charged with murder. The coverage on this is going to be hot and heavy all the way through the trial, some books are going to be written, and there will be a TV movie. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Crystal Ball. --Ozgod 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to my opinions. Maybe to an article, but surely not to my own opinion. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already had two weeks of ongoing coverage. It's gotten dozens of hours of cable news devoted to it, dozens of newspaper stories on every development. It's had about as much ongoing coverage as possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound callous, again, but as sumnjim stated: ...the coverage of this case is going to be just like Laci Peterson. The circumstances are almost identical... If it is as identical to the circumstances to Laci Peterson do we need to have a similar article? Do we need an article for every man that kills his white pregnant wife? What is it in particular that makes this case different than the rest? How many of these cases have come and gone in the past, got huge coverage, and then disappeared from the public eye? --Ozgod 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that Laci Peterson is better than Jessie Davis? There are many many many murders every year. There are many many husband kills wife murders ever year. There are not many many nationally reported, shove the news down your throat, 24/7 updates, police officer kills mistress and baby murders every year. This is not just a run of the mill murder. It's big news. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laci Peterson is not better than Jesse Davis, that's a silly argument. Laci Peterson is notable to historians because her case lead to a new law concerning unborn victims of violence. Zerbey 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her article claims her murder "was the subject of one of the most discussed missing-person cases in United States history". That is a claim to notability. No such claim is made in the current article. Please don't try to put (stupid) words into my mouth. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, btw. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well the text you quote above, doesn't have any sources to back that up, so I guess I could put that up on Jessie Davis' page as well, then you'd be happy. I feel it's wrong to say Murder A is notable and Murder B is not notable when the circumstances surrounding both of these murders are nearly identical. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this has been all over the news, but wikipedia is not a news service. It is better for us to have a section about this on both the Bobby Cuts Jr. and Jessie Davis article.--†Sir James Paul† 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my same argument on the original AfDs: Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Just one random murder out of thousands that has happened to be used to fill time on newscasts. It belongs on Wikinews. Resolute 03:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. This is still a developing event. Maybe if this is still in the news in six months, this will be notable enough. Until then, it's just one tragic death among thousands. eaolson 03:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noteworthiness of the event to anyone else than the few people involved is not apparent in any way.
Keep There are headlines about this on most of the news outlet, this article is definitely notable, as it is a victim,and all victims are notable, at least I would think so.4.154.251.123 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Headlines = Wikinews. Yet another murder victim isn't notable unless, perhaps, it serves to change something in our society. This one isn't likely to do so, and we aren't a crystal ball. Rklawton 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesn't appear to be anything special about these murders to make them notable. --Haemo 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I left a comment on the original, but now I feel deletion is the better option. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we can not memorialize every Missing White Woman who makes the morning news. There is nothing in her disappearance or death that makes her exceptionally notable. Look to Kitty Genovese or Chandra Levy or Elizabeth Smart who had unique disappearances/deaths. Not to sound crude, although there is no other way for it to sound, but this appears to be a routine kidnapping/murder. Nothing has occured in this case to make it exceptionally notable. Ozgod 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She made national news, not just the local "morning news." The current test for notability is coverage in secondary sources, not a vague conception of "uniqueness," and there is no need to deviate from policy in this case. Neither WP:MEMORIAL, nor a distaste for article on "Missing White Wom[e]n", are valid criteria for deletion on their own, once the definition of notability has been satisfied. Evouga 08:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She made national news is not a criteria that I recognise. Every US soldier dead in Iraq has made national news. What is notable about this victim? No case - beyond the mawkish interest of the media in DWW - has been made. How many of the thousands of USians that get killed as a result of your interesting gun laws do you want to add to Wikipedia? She is not notable. The murder was not notable. --Tagishsimon (talk)

She made national news is the very criteria given in WP:notability. Evouga 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, except in the most simple-minded consideration of the guidelines. We long ago established, in respect of the 911 victims, that worldwide saturation press coverage was not sufficient to make these people notable enough to have their own articles. Meanwhile five of six people were murdered in the UK last weekend. Should they each get an article because they made it to the national press? The US had 18,209 murders last year. We have a resource for articles on these. It is called Wikinews. Abstracting every story from the AP wires is so not the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Strong Keep this is up for nomination again!? the decision was to rename it, which it was. this is a perfect article the way it is, no need to delete, most certainly notable. if this page gets deleted, than so does Laci Peterson's, and all the other notable victims of murder. BigCoop 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no decision; it was withdrawn as the nomination was considered incorrect once the title had been changed. Obviously though the article is still not notable enough for wikipedia, and with the only other Keep's being from IP's this is being a snowball deletion. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newsworthy, but not encyclopedia material. If there were social or cultural issues that were brought forth by national media attention, a murder such as this might be encyclopedic; but I see little that distinguishes this case from the multitudes of other tragic murder cases. Deli nk 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are numerous statements being made here that the topic is not notable, but no one can say why it doesn't meet our guideline on the subject. This is a high-profile murder case, and high profile criminal cases all have unique facts of the case, which this article outlines. All of the arguments being made against it here are a matter of subjective distaste. I think the case has been disproportionately covered in the media relative to its importance, but it's not appropriate to exclude it entirely. We're being entirely appropriate by presenting a neutral description of the pertinent facts of the case. What we have here is anti-recentism, where the notability of present events is being dismissed in ignorance of guidelines and policy, in favor of some idea that coverage of current events is automatically inappropriate news. We're not news, and the article is not a news report, it's an encyclopedic summary of the facts of a case with wide media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely disagree with the nominator. This this is getting daily newspaper attention. Definitely notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Press coverage does make notability -- the definition of notability at WP:N says so. JulesH 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sad that a missing woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant. But she was eminently non-notable before being murdered, and Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to write a nice article about people who got murdered, or a true crime story archive, or a newspaper. There is nothing encyclopedic about some non-notable person disappearing and being found dead. It happens millions of times a year. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is not "MissingWhiteWomanPedia" this may be deleted even though she was a missing white woman who gained some coverage on the news channels, and even though the story appeared in several newspapers. There is also the WP:BLP consideration for her surviving 2 year old who may have witnessed the crime. Edison 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is this topic being debated again? Didn't we already have this very same discussion when the article was simply entitled "Jessie Davis"? In any event, I agree with what Night Gyr says above. The question presented is whether or not this event is notable. So ... is the Jessie Davis murder case "notable"? Per WP:notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... So, (1) significant coverage? yes; (2) sources? yes; (3) reliable? yes; and (4) independent of the subject? yes. Since the Jessie Davis murder case satisfies all four of the notability guidelines, what exactly is in dispute here? WP:notability further defines these four criteria as: (1) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. (2) "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (3) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. (4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Furthermore, WP:notability states: "Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article." So, once again ... what is in dispute here? Which of these four criteria is not being satisfied? (JosephASpadaro 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing (?) Comment it is being discussed because about half of the people who have responded here think it is a non notable event - perhaps despite WP:N. As the other half find for the article, I concede that this AfD has run its course with a likely keep outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I understand why it is being discussed, generally. My question is why is it being discussed again? (JosephASpadaro 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I noted the "AfDs for prior related articles", but was not (and am not) aware that this is a rename of a pre-existing article. If it is, then its talk page should have listed the AfD associated with it. In the absence of that talk-page history, the article appears not to have been to AfD before this nom. Having looked at the related noms, I see they were withdrawn, not determined. So now we have a chance to determine. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Because the rug was pulled out from under the first deletion debates? Renaming an article does not count as an automatic "keep". While the attempt at a rewrite was fair, imo, the original AfD was closed out of process, as it is rather ridiculous to close an AFD with many delete votes as "nomination withdrawn" simply because it was renamed. The only reason I didn't complain was that I was certain that the article would again be up on AfD almost immediately. Resolute 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns were addressed. The nominator withdrew. More happened than just a renaming. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they were not, as here we are again. The withdrawl of the nominator became irrelevant as the delete votes piled up. addressing one delete vote does not constitute addressing them all. It's no biggie though. The article will get it's full consideration on this AfD. Resolute 04:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I saw it on the news. it is very sad for sure. UnknownMan 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Delete as not notable. News coverage should at best be used to verify that a person is notable; it does not, in itself, create notability. If being murdered makes one notable, all verifiable murder cases are notable, not just the ones which have, by random chance, become the news item of the week. I don't believe that people whose sole "claim to fame" is having been killed are notable. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. TomTheHand 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Missing White Woman Syndrome, it's a sad story and happens every day, just because Nancy Grace is spending every second she can talking about something it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Zerbey 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treaty As mentioned previously, this AfD seems almost evenly divided. From an objective viewpoint I can see how this article was created too soon and despite that nominated for AfD too soon as well. For the interim let's leave the article and revisit it in 2 - 3 months to a clearer, more objective view of the topic. The incident is too recent for any retrospective views on how important and notable this incident is. --Ozgod 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair. Evouga 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When notability cannot be established, the appropriate action is deletion with leave for recreation when notability is assured. Erechtheus 02:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to which part of WP:Consensus?! Evouga 03:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The role of consensus is what is being played out with this AfD process. My comments in this debate are advocacy for the position that I think is most properly within the policies and guidelines of the project. There is no reason for even attempting to measure notability if failing to demonstrate it does not result in deletion. Erechtheus 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the nominator has not made the case for deletion; it is certainly meets WP:N; it is way beyond the typical murder which receives little press other than locally. I am usually a big proponent of deleting wikipoliceblotter junk. However, the amount of press coverage and media whoopla over this is reminiscent of Laci Peterson case. I particularly do not agree with the recency of the events as a reason to delete doesn't "wiki" mean "quick" as in we quickly react to current events so that our encyclopedia is as up-to-date as possible - we even have a template and a section for current events on our main page! As a tool against recency, WP may decide to have a waiting period for things to be written about - don't think it's ever been seriously discussed - but this is not the place or time to enforce such nonexistent guideline. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. No policies are being violated (excluding the "News reports" segment of WP:NOT that doesn't have any consensus). However, I think the issue of long-term importance (as opposed to short-term cable news/tabloid "importance") is a problem. --- RockMFR 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can make it accurate. The media coverage makes it notable. No need to add a second layer of bias here ("what Wikipedia editors think should have been covered"). --W.marsh 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and specificially the "Notability is not temporary" section thereof. This article was created prior to notability being assured and is therefore not ripe for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Leaving the article and hoping for notability is speculative crystal ball gazing. If the coverage continues through the trial phase, the quality of the coverage increases, and something develops that leads to being able to say a single new thing about the topics of murder, domestic violence, missing white woman syndrome, or any other notable topic, we will have notability and a reason for there to be an article on this topic here. Erechtheus 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hoping here; the event is *already* notable per the overwhelming amount of coverage from reliable secondary sources. Asserting that she will no longer be notable in the future (which is not clear to me; the next time a similar murder occurs the press might constantly bring up this case, just as with Laci recently) is, in my opinion, ball-gazing. Evouga 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like this is Kelsey Smith revisited. Just because she was a missing white woman, doesn't make her any less notable. Her case has dominated the news for the past week. Talmage 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I'm not reading the WP:N closely enough, but I just can't imagine a situation where this woman isn't notable. It seems as though some folks who oppose this article's existence may be a little too concerned about an editorial decision concerning Missing White Woman Syndrome. Using the argument that this article raises questions about whether it should be in WikiNews brings up other questions about whether some are motivated to strike this article from Wikipedia because they think it gives an unfair syndrome credence. That's wrong. This is clearly notable, for whatever reason the media has decided to blow up their coverage about it. It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide whether an article here lends credibility to a very poorly understood and little researched "syndrome."K-lit 07:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me at least, this isn't about the syndrome -- it's about how declaring this notable opens the door to make virtually every potential murder notable. As I wrote in the prior AfDs somewhere, I know most murders in my local area make the local paper at least 6 times by the time there is a finding of guilt and a sentence. Add in TV coverage, other newspapers who write about the events, and any online-only media that cover it, and you have just as much citation as you have for this article at present. When you consider it that way, I submit you have to come to the conclusion that not every murder is notable and that we have to wait to see how the case proceeds to figure out the notable ones from the non-notable ones. Erechtheus 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. Here's this week's crop of nationwide reported murders in the UK, from the BBC news website [23] (dead young person category only):

19 June - Murder of Sian Simpson, 18, stabbed in Croydon

22 June - Murder of Carlos Eduardo Segove, 23, shot in Acton

23 June - Murder of Mikey Brown, 23, stabbed in Kingston

23 June - Murder of Annaka Keniesha Pinto, 17, shot in Tottenham

23 June - Murder of Ben Hitchcock, 16, stabbed in Beckenham

26 June - Murder of Martin Dinnegan, 14, stabbed in Islington

27 June - Murder of unidentified 18-year-old, stabbed in Ilford

All headline news, headlines going on for several days, meta-level analysis &c &c - all of the things that are cited in support of the Jessie Davis article. They are not encyclopaic. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Comment - If your claim is that these cases are analygous / similar to the Jessie Davis case, how is it that neither I nor anyone else reading this page has ever even heard of these names? (JosephASpadaro 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure how you can make the claim for everyone else on the page. But guess what? I had not heard of Jessie Davis until I came across the wikipedia article. How - to turn your question back on you - can you claim notability for her / her murder if that is the case. You presumably do not live in the UK. I presumably do not live in the US. Meanwhile, thanks for making my case so eloquently. These ongoing front page murders are frequent, make for great filler in newspapers and TV, and are not encyclopedia material. (And, given that google is your friend, your comment is really really stupid, btw. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.) --Tagishsimon (talk)

I called people "stupid" when I was in the third grade. As such, your comment neither merits nor warrants a reply. (JosephASpadaro 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I called your comment stupid, not you. It is stupid because the premise of the keep argument is that nationwide saturation coverage of the Jessie Davis murder is evidence of notability; my assertion is that the above have received nationwide coverage (albeit in a different nation), and google and all sorts of other search engines can in an instant link you to the coverage. I even gave a ref to the BBC, for heavens sake. The best you could come up with is "how come I've never heard of them". To borrow your dismissive comment, I learned at about age three that sticking my fingers in my ears, closing my eyes and saying "nah nah nah I can't see you, you're not here" did not, in fact, mean that you were not here. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Listen, we can agree to disagree. That is the whole point of engaging in these Wikipedia debates and discussions in the first place. I am ready, willing, and able to engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion and debate. Calling people "stupid" (the logical extension of calling their comments "stupid") is hardly meaningful or intelligent. So, if you want to engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion and debate, I am ready, willing, and able to do so. If you want to engage in name-calling, a hallmark of what I called "third grade", I am not ready, willing, or able to do so. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you, now that you have had time to review the links, agree or disagree that these are headline murders in the UK, and cannot be dismissed by an "I've never heard of them" line of argument? --Tagishsimon (talk)

My position is that the Jessie Davis murder is notable (i.e., that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability). If you feel that the cases listed above are also notable, I certainly have no objection to you (or anyone else) writing an article about them. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

keep This woman has met all the notability guidelines. And stop mentioning that she's white. The MWWS article is the most biased article in the site with no references at all.
- Well, no references at all if you ignore the six inline citations, and nine external links that speak directly to the topic. Resolute 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, this article is at least supposedly not about "this woman" but about the event of her disappearance and death. Erechtheus 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think we could manage 7 articles a week from the UKDGG 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from lacy peterson?68.187.117.71 05:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. A plethora of sources (news media in this particular case) is an indication of notability, not proof of it. That this has had long-standing news coverage simply means that it is newsworthy and puts it on a par with every other sensationalist murder that has ever happened. This is not encyclopedia material and is better suited to Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a news archive. Zun aid ©® 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep I agree that it is helpful to have all information on this case collected into a single, well-referenced article, rather than scattered across several, but I still think that it would be more appropriate to host information on this case on Wikinews. I just think that the standard of notability needs to be something more lasting than only widespread media coverage, because many topics which make the news at local, national, or international levels don't get articles. Looking at List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, only two of the people killed have their own articles, both of whom have had books written about them. The Reena Virk and JonBenet Ramsay murders have each been the subject of a book and are still being discussed 10 years later. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I don't think that we can make any determinations about the notability of a case that's currently less than a month old. I think we should wait and see how this case develops, and, if after a couple of months, it does not/no longer meets the basic requirements of notability, we can renominate it for AfD. -Severa (!!!) 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, please watch what you say. There are some people (on this very page) who think that JonBenet Ramsey was not murdered. Or, let me rephrase that, that Wikipedia can NOT state that she was murdered. Why? Because an actual murderer was never convicted in that case. I personally don't agree with that. Just wanted to make you aware that, according to some people here, Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that the Ramsey case was indeed a murder case. Preposterous, huh? (JosephASpadaro 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep, Intense media/press coverage does equal notability. --musicpvm 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the ultimate answer to what Wikipedia is about is may the best shill win? Erechtheus 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, welcome the coming hegemony of the The 3AM Girls. The lack of articles about celebrities getting pissed is clearly where we've been going wrong for so long. --Tagishsimon (talk)

If their getting pissed is covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, then sure, I have no problem with an article being included in this encyclopedia. I see no need to inject yet more bias into Wikipedia by saying some "newsworthy" articles should be deleted while others who meed the same objective guidelines are showcased on the Wikipedia front page, even if I find the subject distasteful. Evouga 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. This is one of those cases that will linger in the public consciousness for years, if only because of the TV shows it's gonna spawn, on A&E, Court TV, as well as the main networks as with MSNBC reports, etc; people will peek into WP after watching the show, and if there is no article, a few will likely recreate one. I wouldn't be suprised if a TV movie or two comes along. This is so notable, I'm pretty sure one or more books will get published. I suspect the article will be restructured into at least two articles, back to the original Jessie Davis straight bio, as well as a Bobby Cutts, Jr., now a redirect. As to the argument that murder victims are not notable ... ahem, reconsider your position: every murder is notable, but only a few are memorable, as is this one, and consequently, the perp is also notable. With so much reliable 2ndary information up at the moment, it behooves us to gather data into articles while the gathering is possible. The article is currently in development: let it develop naturally. Once a conviction is obtained, someone can go back, pare it down and put it into permanent form. --Ace Telephone 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Notability not established per WP:NOTE. WP is for a global audience. This page is full of comments making the assumption that American public = entire world. This might be newsworthy in NA, but elsewhere? Should we all start including local news in WP? EyeSerene^TALK 10:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under your theory, should Caroline Mary Luard be deleted? How about John Alan West? Or perhaps more on point, Kriss Donald? I've never heard of these murder victims and don't find the cases in any way memorable, though Brits may.--Ace Telephone 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response:

John Alan West - case resulted in the last two executions in Britain.
Kriss Donald - case actually given less attention because he was white. [Kriss_Donald#Controversies_surrounding_the_case]
Caroline Mary Luard - Famous cold case (in the UK). (a comparative case here in the U.S. would be Tillie Smith which doesn't have an article yet, as far as I am aware of).

Notability being restricted to a country is not a valid argument for deletion. Evouga 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several other murder victims who have articles were mentioned. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for adding yet another TrueCrimeStory as an encyclopedia article. It is actually the murderers who are more likely to pass the test of time, such as Jack The Ripper and Dr. Harvey Hawley Crippen. I would expect some of those mentioned to get deleted if they came up in AFD. Something being the subject of nonstop blabbing by Nancy Grace is almost the definition of tabloid journalism and what is non-encyclopedic despite being tabloid news. Nancy Benoit may have been notable before being murdered. Edison 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ace Telephone's post, I'd like to add: Don't forget Nancy Benoit...she was a murder victim, and just because her husband was a famous wrestler she gets her own page. I disagree 100% with the original "strong delete" and I vote Strong keep as the murder is now a part of history and is information that someone might require one day...I'm sure someone will :-)

(additional...added since posting originally...I'm a brit and I haven't heard of any of them, Ace)

SmUX 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nancy Benoit article has existed since 2005. Her notability is tied to her wrestling career, not her husband's. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that pro wrestlers are notable, but that's what is currently supported by the guideline. Erechtheus 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

In response to various above comments: the article uses 41 citations: 39 are for news organisations, one relates to a different case, and the last is to a TV programme that rehashes news coverage. How does this properly establish notability? Newsworthiness, absolutely, but according to WP:NOTE, notability is established by "reliable sources". This does not necessarily include news reporting. Newspapers (for example) are a reliable source if used for quoting things they have printed... but not for the subject itself because, almost by definition, they will editorialise and POV as they report. They are not subject to scholarly scrutiny in the way that a published journal or serious book would be, and because of the nature of the business, facts are often unchecked in the rush to jump on a media bandwagon and get reports out before competitors. If a serious book is published on this subject, then I'll happily change my vote, but until then this simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. As for some of the articles mentioned above, citing their existence is irrelevant. If they are sourced in muliple, independent, reliable publications, then great. If not, I'd vote to delete them as non-notable too. EyeSerene^TALK 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This has been noteworthy on another basis. It is one of the first cases mentioned in the media that one of the highest causes of death for pregnant women is Murder, particularly by a spouse or boyfriend. The relevancy to other cases should be noted is how the Equusearch also helpful in putting pressure on him to confess.Hourick 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Hourick. This case has certainly brought to the forefront of our national consciousness that murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women. I suspect that said statistic was not widely known by the general population prior to discussion of this case. (JosephASpadaro 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Murder victims are always notable, but WPwise, the perp is the memorable one. Just consider Dr. Crippen--Ace Telephone 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, clearly notable. Everyking 07:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This event is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in Disappearance_and_murder_of_Jessie_Davis#References. John254 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- This is not a news site, but rather an encyclopedia. There is nothing remotely newsworthy about this story outside of its local borders. Just another case of Missing/Murdered White Woman Syndrome that has infected the news media in the US. There are also missing and/or murdered women of all ethnicities, but they neither get the media coverage nor a Wikipedia article. It's a local news story made national purely made to provoke and, in a sick way, entertain. Nemalki 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such speculation is personal bias and has nothing to do with the criteria for notability. Evouga 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split This article should be deleted, but each of the people involved should have a seperate article/ 69.140.254.70 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I woulda said that a few days ago, but as I've added to the article, the whole gestalt has led me to the category I've put at the end of this article. Yes, Bobby Cutts, Jr. will have his own article (perps are always more interesting in these cases). I wrote the article Murdered pregnant women, and have started filling the category of the same name. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it's popular, tolerating non-notable person articles such as Paris Hilton. Media-inspired, media circus-inspired articles are inherent to WP.¶ The article will indeed be split, but I want to keep it together for a while, just to maintain the tension between the good Christian unmarried girl who twice got herself pregnant by a philandering cop with three kids by two other women, only one of which he was ever married to. Calling Theodore Dreiser.--Ace Telephone 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I agree 69.140.254.70 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this midpoint of 2007, this is certainly the most sensational and widely covered criminal case of the past six months and, judging by the recent history of similar lurid tragedies will, with virtually no shadow of doubt, linger on the front pages, radio and television discussion shows, law school evidentiary forums and, of course, all over the internet. It definitely appears to be a killing and, most likely, murder. Also, given this case's pre-existing racial angle, waving the red flag of the insensitive-sounding expression "missing white women" serves only to inflame anger and recriminations. If the police officer had been white and the pregnant victim black, the coverage may well have been as intense, with additional references made to victimization of black women over the decades and centuries, as well as echoes of the Duke University case. The case's impact is both newsworthy and notable and, short of some world-shattering terrorist attack or other cataclysm, it appears headed for the position of one of the year's most extensively covered American stories. —Roman Spinner (talk) 05:05, 3 July 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 wasDelete while there is only a small group who have commented, those of the keep opinion are say the sourcing is not independent, notability is established through multiple independent sources. Gnan garra 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stories from East High (book series)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stories from East High. Notability is not inherited. Will ^(talk) 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep novelization of a successful film with too much detail to merge. JJL 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, no independent sources. Amazon doesn't count, as anyone can get a book sold there (My ex-girlfriend's sister, for example, has a book for sale on Amazon. Doesn't mean that she should get an article). Even if High School Musical was seen by every man, woman and child on the planet, notability would still not be inherited. Will ^(talk) 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if you looked at the sources, you'd see that Amazon is the seller, not someone else. Since Amazon can only sell existing items (stupid to think otherwise), I'd say it's valid.Snoborder93 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All Amazon needs is an ISBN to be able to sell a book. Having an ISBN does not grant instant notability (this is slightly devil's advocate, but the point still stands).

Will ^(talk) 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well this was a page that was deleted on account of not meeting the standards and being unencyclopedic. It has now been recreated, and, as much as you'd like to argue against it, there are trustful sources and the book series has earned fame in its own right despite being a spin-off of the film. There are articles and ads in magazines. But just in case this leaves doubts, I have added new sources for upcoming books in addition (not in replacement of) to Amazon.Snoborder93 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independent sources, please. Realistically, at the most, this can be a subsection in High School Musical, any more is a fluffy plot summary. Will ^(talk) 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The High School Musical article is too long as it is and is constantly being cut down. That's how this article became an independent one. Once this is merged with High School Musical, more and more details will added by editors and eventually, it will wind back up in another article. And I'd just like to point out, I never said "independent sources".Snoborder93 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It is very useful and allows readers to have more information than just the bare minimum. Snoborder93 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is useful" is not a valid deletion criteria. Will ^(talk) 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you mean "criterion" :) Nowayout203 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links to places that sell it, and the company that made it do not count towards notability. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Q ^{T C} 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The links do not go to the company that makes it, they go to the official site for the books, which, no duh, is under the company's control. Why wouldn't it count as notability?Snoborder93 21:18, 4 July 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 The article will be Kept by default. A merge can always nbe done, if appropriate, without an AfD. Please consider adding any of the references cited here to the article. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General (Freeware game)[edit]

No independent references per WP:V; only claim to notability is that 'it is popular in Russia'. Prod was removed last August, reasoning on Talk:General (Freeware game) appears to boil down to 'because I like it.' Marasmusine 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, it states 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', the russian website given as the external link hasnt been updated since March 2003, and is clearly a promotional site for the game. Willow177 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge somewhere My Russian is crap but I was able to find a few newspaper articles about one of the creators Dmitri Gusarov (who is now running his own software company, I guess) in which the game is discussed [24][25] The parent company Newgame Software themselves seem to be notable as well, as well; "General" is mentioned as being their first product. [26] If I have time to start an article about them, merging and redirecting to there might be a better solution too ... cab 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. cab 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through Babel Fish [[27]] and I think you're right in that there's enough material there for an article on Gusarov; and such an article would be a good location for information on General until more specific references turn up. Thanks, Marasmusine 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that I've heard of the game and even played it once or twice probably affects my perspective on its obscurity, but I think it has enough notability to squeak through. Of course, I thought Dice Wars was notable too. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:24, 24 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, The Sunshine Man 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Andre (talk) 07:03, 1 July 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.--cj | talk 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle[edit]

Non notable list which is unsourced. Fails WP:V. Delete. JRG 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JRG 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete How on earth am I supposed to know whether a location is "haunted" or not? Because a daily newspaper said so in a throwaway column? Come on... Shalom ^Hello 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I see one more instance of "reputed", I'm going to beat someone with a WP:WEASEL. Fails WP:RS, probably WP:OR, too. Caknuck 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of locations which one paper though "fun" to publish. There needs to be multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, this list would appear to infringe WP:COPY Ohconfucius 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate, probably unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a local newspaper. Hut 8.5 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Maybe we need WP:NOTLETTERMAN to cover this stuff. Acroterion_(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki WikiTravel would love this type of stuff, spook tours are great.Ga rr ie 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digitty digitty digitty Deleted Even IF you can tell if this spot is haunted and that spot isn't, how the heck are any of these more "haunted" than another? -WarthogDemon 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for a Travel Guide and also this list is useless. It should only be mentionned in the city's article.--JForget 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Urban legend, Hoax, and per Caknuck. Bearian 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an alternative perspective - "Top 10" is inherently POV too. There are so many things wrong with this article that it's almost spooky. Lankiveil 10:27, 29 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 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Aroma[edit]

This company does not meet WP:CORP. The article has no references, and there does not appear to be any significant secondary sources that point to the company's notability. Deli nk 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search was inconclusive. From the article itself, it looks like a nonnotable entity. Shalom ^Hello 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Apparently it is the "largest supplier of scent diffusion technology in the world"[28]. That was the only news item that showed up in Google. Not sure if that's enough for notability. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article hasn't improved since it was created as an internal directory. I removed a lot of junk but the original contributor hasn't been back.Ga rr ie 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, if another reference in addition to the one above can be found indicating notability, change to Weak Keep though. Lankiveil 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Cassie[edit]

This article about a future album is half-filled with rumours and misinformation - the album doesn't have a title or track listing yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What little concrete information that exists about this album is included in the main Cassie article, and is not yet enough to justify the existence of a separate article. Extraordinary Machine 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My vote is on the basis of "future notability". I feel that the article should be written after the importance is established. --Stormbay 03:35, 28 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.