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 G1/G12. Naconkantari 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Hammer Has A Mighty Huge Handle[edit]

My Hammer Has A Mighty Huge Handle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, not noteworthy

Max Elstein 17:54, 3 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. --Wafulz 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Mallett[edit]

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

Vanity, non notable, lack of independent sources

Nominating on multiple grounds:

1. Vanity page: There is a single authour who has not contributed to any other Wikipedia articles, and there is a strong suggestion from the username that the author is the subject of the article
2. Notability: With the exception of veteran, nationally known or controversial hosts, commercial radio presenters tend not to be notable enough. It is in effect, "Just another Job", and it would be ridiculous to sggest that we should have an article for every doctor in new Zealand.
3. Verfifiability - Notability is usually conferred by numerous references. I only located a couple of sources: His Employers' website and local newspaper items which had the style of being press releases printed verbatim.

dramatic 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Note: A prod template was removed without any improvement to the article.[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 4 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, consensus reads that subject is notable but article may need cleanup. To what extent needs to be decided by editors, as significant extra information and refs have been added since nomination. Orderinchaos 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring Surf[edit]

Procedural nomination after removal of db-spam from article as part of my continued drive to clean up Category:Companies of Australia. A non-notable chain of surf stores in a single state. Article does not meet WP:CORP, lacks any references, and does not demonstrate notability, and would be unlikely to do. Another example of corpcruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. While I know that this option has been considered and refused, this article reads like a press release and in over 2 1/2 years it has not found a single independent reliable source. The chain consists of only 6 stores in one state. Note that an earlier VfD discussion is available on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment definitely not a speedy. Article now has 6 independant reliable sources. Neil ╦ 09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment the 2nd Oh, and it has been through AFD before and passed - nominator is aware of this and still did not bother to mention it. See the article's talk page. If it's been through AFD, it cannot be speedied. Nor should it even be deleted. Neil ╦ 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I noted the VfD in my initial comment. I have seen the changes and still consider the subject to be non-notable. At least half of the references refer to sponsorship arrangements, in particular suicide prevention. Each of those references are mainly about the charity and not the subject and such do not assert notability. Another reference is about a concert at a Skate park and only mentions the subject in passing as a sponsor. That leaves one reference, about Victor Tilly, that is close to suitable. That is not enough for me. Also, coverage purchased as part of a sponsorship deal isn't quite independent. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. While the article lacks third party sources, Google News Archive does show that there are some sources, they are not sufficient in my view to warrant a keep. [1] I would support keeping with stronger sources. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given Neil's improvements. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not *quite* a G11, but definitely fails WP:CORP beyond a doubt. Orderinchaos 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Supporter of community work, as evidenced by the Tasmanian government [2] [3], backers of community skate tour programs [4]. Interview with store founder about his company by The Mercury ([5]), and about their work to prevent youth suicide, same paper ([6]). Clearly meets WP:CORP. Neil ╦ 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Still a delete - putting references on this discussion page does not improve the article nor does it allow editors to consider the references (which probably would work better as inline citations) with regards the content of the article. Put these in as citations and you might have a better chance. At this stage as per OIC it still fails WP:CORP --VS ^talk 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - that's what I've been doing for the last 20 minutes - article is now referenced sufficiently to pass WP:CORP. Please consider readdressing your arguments? Neil ╦ 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I am only just on the keep side - as I had a similar tendency to Mattinbgn to note that all but one of the references are more about charity work - however the changes to the article and the fact that there is one suitable reference gets me to weak keep. This article will be touch and go - one or more direct references that work towards meeting WP:CORP more closely will help your case indubitably.--VS ^talk 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator, reaffirming my nomination for the article's deletion. The article still clearly fails WP:CORP, and regardless of the number of links you could find for the article, a company with six stores operating in a single state does not notability make. Worse still, the work done on the article just reaffirms how it fails to meet WP:CORP, as it now reads like an advertisement and a promotional piece. Please, i'm begging you, just let it go off to the big great page dumpster in the sky, or at least the one in the middle of a massive server farm buried deep below some old nuclear bomb shelter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer - please note that Thewinchester's "delete" is to his own nomination. Thewinchester, why are you so desperate for this article to be deleted? Did Victor Tilley drive that big red camper van over your cat? Neil ╦ 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note that his wording did indeed state "as nominator" as the first two words. I've included them in the bold to make it even clearer. Orderinchaos 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Careful Neil, because you're dangerously close to an WP:AGF warning. I'm just sick of inclusionists thinking everything should be on WP and continuing to load it up and up with truckloads of absolute junk - like this article. And I think the closing admin will be smart enough to read as nominator right at the front of the line. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please feel free to warn me about assuming good faith. Perhaps you could bear that in mind when you try to delete the work of others who did not intend to "load Wikipedia up and up with truckloads of absolute junk". Are you assuming good faith on their part? Neil ╦ 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, I'm happy that this article now meets WP:CORP, just. Lankiveil 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Its length of service, domination of a local market and its charity work brings the subject over the notability line. Zivko85 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in addition to the current article, there are plenty of google news archive results that can be used to add more verified details. John Vandenberg 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Just passes WP:CORP for me, with a touch of WP:LOCAL though, this business is a major one in Tasmania. It's another sponsorship essentially, but what passes it for me is that the company has the naming rights for the Red Herring Pro Bodyboarding Championships at Clifton Beach, which is part of the IBA Pro World Tour. --Canley 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CORP. Added some information about its founding. We can't ignore our cousins down south, now can we? Recurring dreams 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete references are all about other events which RHS happen to sponsor / be associated with... ie are trivial mention of Red Herring Surf.Garrie 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh, I also don't see that the Suicide Prevention Steering Committee are reliable sources with regard to establishing notability of commercial organisations under WP:ORG - unless that organisations' primary role is in welfare &/or suicide support service.Garrie 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Canley [[User talk:Savin Me|Savin Me]] 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to the Thewinchesters warm welcome on my talk page I show up personally here and vote for keeping the article that I once created. Isn't the big red camper van enough reason to keep it? No kidding, mates, although the brand may not be known throughout the U.S. or even the mainland of Australia, it has a strong local reputation. Of course the shop owners put in their advertisment into wikipedia, as do many manufacturers. Why don't you just delete that stuff and keep the article? Dbach 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and cleanup. Article most definitely needs to be cleaned up, but I think there's enough potential for a decent article pursuant to WP:CORP. Seems to have a strong local following, though it may not be well-known to an Anglocentric audience. Firestorm 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogalo[edit]

This is a procedural nomination after being CSD'd with db-spam and recreated. Article fails WP:CORP. A very minor chicken shop chain operating in only one state, this article is written like an advertisement, has no information which demonstrates notability (and sponsoring the football club of a private school does not confer notability by association either), lacks any significant references, and is a privately held company of which little is known or can be found about. It's just another of the many examples of corpcruft infesting Wikipedia. Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You need to look at the hundreds of POV and biased articles that exist on WP for products, brands, companies...etc - this one is an Australian company and similar to other food outlets, restaurants (inc Oporto, Nandos..etc) which have articles - yes it does need expanding and ref's cited to make it more notable - I am in the process of cleaning this up to make it better. --Mikecraig 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment This is exactly why we're having a cleanup. If you see one worthy of nomination under the guidelines, feel free to nominate, or let others know. BTW Nandos is an international organisation with stockmarket listings and oodles of independent coverage, so is not in anywhere near the same situation. Orderinchaos 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With respect to the points you have raised, POV is not the issue with this article, something you are now being informed of for the second time which leads me to suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]] in this matter. The fact it does not and will likely never meet the standard required for compliance against WP:CORP is. Also, just because a competing or similar chain (currently) has an article doesn't mean that Chain X deserves one too - it's a faulty argument which does not fly in AfD. You could try and clean up this article as much as you want, but based on relevant searching and fact finding both when I nominated for CSD and before opening the AfD this morning, you'll be very hard pressed to find anything which helps it meet the criteria. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is what I was looking for eariler - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "leads me to suspect that you may have a possible conflict of interest in this matter" - be careful with possible slanderous comments such as that one. Delete the Ogalo article as I cannot waste anymore time on such matters, trying to do the right thing and expand WP. --Mikecraig 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mikecraig, Thewinchester was citing Wikipedia policy. It was perhaps jumping to a conclusion, but it is absurd to suggest that rises to the level of slander. Please avoid raising distracting legal issues that do not help build consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Understood, if that user in question wants to challenge my neutrality or conflicts of interest, then just look at my edits, contributions..etc and see where it lies. --Mikecraig 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per Dhartung, Wikilawyering is specifically frowned upon. I note that I specifically said that I "suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]]". You may not have a conflict of interest, but it just appears that way to the casual observer given your protectionist line on an article which does not and likely never will comply with Wikipedia policy, which is the core issue in this matter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. An unsourced article about a non-notable minor fast food chain. Would be willing to reconsider should independent sources be found. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find no sources related to this chicken shop through Google News or Google News Archive. Given that the article cites no sources, the article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 02:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination from Thewinchester - esp as it is small and as per other editors mention, very few references or articles can be found. --Mikecraig 02:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Man, I would love to know the special way that the Australo-Portuguese make burgers. My imagination is conjuring up images of quarter-pounders garnished with tripe and squid tentacles. --Infrangible 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Very minor chain, not likely to have independent sources. Orderinchaos 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a minor fast food chain. Perhaps when they have more sources available. Lankiveil 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP and Wikipedia is not a directory. Zivko85 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; apparently good for a hangover, but far better sources are needed. Mikecraig, has a TV or newspaper ever done a focus piece on the company? John Vandenberg 00:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not that I can find, as per everyone mentioning above, seeing that there is little media/references regarding the subject then it's probably best it goes away for awhile till it's more noteworthy. --Mikecraig 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Zivko Savin Me 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I CSD-ed this article initially. The reason was pretty much non-notability. I restored it at the request of the author, presuming he could expand it and state the importance. But it seems it won't pass VfD anyway, surely not at the present state. --Tone 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as hoax. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pool[edit]

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

Non-notable and totally unsourced. Clearly made-up silliness and original research. I have lived in New Mexico and California all my life, and played pool with many, many real Mexicans, and they don't play pool this way. Furthermore, any even intermediate player could run this game out 10 times in a row; the only people who could consider this game even a real game would be rank newbies. It's just goofiness, and certainly non-encyclopedic. PS: Note that author isn't even sure of the facts: "Perhaps this game is known by another name." Abandoned by author since Nov. 2006. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment didn't you see El Color Del Dinero? --Infrangible 02:38, 4 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 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goleta English[edit]

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

All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed, term being used can be reliably sourced, but no reliable sources actually talk about the term in ways that allow an encyclopedic entry.--Cerejota 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It strikes me as likely that it can be sourced from Spanish-language sources published in Puerto Rico, and English-language offline sources published in Puerto Rico and in the linguistics sphere. Poor Google results doesn't mean something cannot be sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Puerto Rican, from Puerto Rico (I currently reside in Brooklyn), my family includes language academics, and you cannot find reliable sources off-line that talk of "Goleta English" as a researched linguistic category. Not Maria Vaquero, not Marshall Morris, not other academics who in recent years have studied language use in Puerto Rico have made any research about so-called "Goleta English". This is mostly a slang term used to make fun of people's real (and perceived) mis-pronunciations of American English. Sourced material of use might belong in a wider article on Puerto Rican culture, and more specifically slang or epithets, but it is not an academic term. The contents of the page, in particular regarding pronunciation or pseudo-scientific characterizations are entirely original research, and very novel at that.--Cerejota 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. --Infrangible 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. -- Satori Son 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also per WP:V and WP:NOR. --Evb-wiki 14:30, 8 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. W.marsh 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Clique (TV Series)[edit]

The Clique (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence this show is in pre-production. A fair chance there may be some confusion with Gossip Girl, but when the show doesn't even show up in Amber Heard's IMDb profile, there's probably a reason why. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that it's even in pre-prod. No prejudice to recreation if it should go into pre-prod or will be aired. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. wikipedia not crystal ball. Nonverifiable. Mukadderat 15:35, 7 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. -Doc^g 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dae Gak[edit]

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

Non-notable religious teacher. No third party sources available, the only source is subject's short autobiography on his own website. Subject has written a dissertation and one book, and has established a non-notable retreat center. The subject's notability does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus - the article in question cannot be deleted: Anyone interested in the accepted policy of wikipedia with respect to the deletion of articles should refer to the "Proposed Deletion" section of Deletion policy page, which clearly states: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any adminstrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again."
• Silence equals consent: Anyone interested in the accepted meaning of "consensus" on wikipedia should consult the page on Consensus, which says, in part: "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages."
• Therefore this article cannot be deleted since there are two objections after less than two full days of discussion.
• Further discussion of this page should be moved to the appropriate talk page. Please note, however, that all content on that page must be consistent with wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons.
• Nor can this article be listed for deletion in the future. I hope no one minds me placing this important information about official wikipedia policy with respect to deletion at the top of this discussion. But wikipedia policy is very clear - without consensus there can be no deletion, and articles cannot be proposed for deletion again after there has already been one proposal and discussion. Durruti36 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is some misunderstanding of rules. You should have referred to the deletion_discussion section instead of the proposed_deletion section.
• Regarding the "silence", it probably just means that the other people have already expressed their views. From my side, I can just say that mention in one independent book is better than no mention. I still doubt it passes the criteria regarding mention in publications, as there seems to be just a passing mention of his starting a new school. Anyway, I just gave my views and will let others give their views. --Knverma 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable, and no hits on google except for his homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Zen Master Dae Gak clearly meets the "notability criteria" for people. According to those criteria anyone who "has received significant recognized awards or honors" meets the notability requirements. Zen Master Dae Gak has received one of the highest honors possible in Zen Buddhism - that of "Dharma Transmission". This transmission is clearly referred to on the page in question. Here is Zen Master Dae Gak's Transmission Speech from the Summer of 1995 issue of Primary Point, the magazine published by the Kwan Um School of Zen. Durruti36 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that being a Zen Master is sufficient justification for having a Wikipedia article. Just look at the number of Zen Masters in the world who don't have Wikipedia articles on them. In particular this is an honor given by a school to its members and is not significant from an outside perspective. Something more is necessary to establish notability.-Knverma 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria for notability are clearly met by anyone who receives significant awards or honors. Do you claim that receipt of Dharma Transmission is not a significant honor? Durruti36 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as a google search on "Dae Gak" - I encourage anyone reading this discussion to try it for themselves. Among the "hits" are groups of his students in Washington, DC; Galveston, Texas; and Cincinatti, Ohio - as well as to the group in Brisbane Australia that is led by Master Dae Gak's most senior student, Zen Master Sen Shin, who leads the Queensland Zen Center. Durruti36 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So he is well-known among his students. That doesn't establish notability. --Knverma 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The number and/or nature of google hits is not one of the accepted criteria for notability according to wikipedia guidlines. I was merely pointing out the factual innacuracy of the statement "no hits on google except for his homepage". Durruti36 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From our article on Dharma_transmission it sounds equivalent to either the ordination of a priest or the award of a doctorate. Neither of those would automatically make an individual notable. Perhaps if the subject were the first American to receive the honor it would be different. As for other signs of notability, the Google hits I found were all along the lines of announcements of upcoming seminars, not substantive profiles of the man or his philosophy. Lastly, if anyone here is a student of the subject or has other significant involvement with him it'd be helpful to let others' know. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are making the mistake of relying on wikipedia as a reliable source. Zen Master Seung Sahn fully explained what he meant by "Transmission" in an interview he gave the year before Zen Master Dae Gak received transmission - here is a link to that speech. It is the Winter/Spring 1993 issue of Primary Point, which was completely devoted to the topic of "Dharma Transmission". To see the other articles in that issue go the Primary Point Archives and scroll down to that issue. Among other things, Zen Master Seugn Sahn says that "As more Zen Masters appear, their individual styles will emerge. Perhaps some of them will make their own schools. So maybe, slowly, this Korean style will disappear and be replaced by an American style or American styles." Master Dae Gak has, in fact, "made his own school" - whereas most of the people given Transmission by Seung Sahn have remained in the Kwan Um school. This is mentioned on page 106 of James Ishmael Ford's book "Zen Master Who?: A Guide to the People and Stories of Zen".Durruti36 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding my significant involvement, no, not directly with him, though with Zen practice in general, and with Seung Sahn's Kwan Um School of Zen for the last 4-5 years. Yes, I earlier read articles by Dae Gak and found them interesting. Definitely I consider Dharma transmission to be a significant achievement from a Zen practitioner's point of view, but not something that establishes notability as required on Wikipedia. --Knverma 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is a valid distinction - between what is "notable" to a Zen student, and what is more generally notable. However, this very modest, bare bones article does not make any grandiose claims about Master Dae Gak's "notability". It is a small, informational article about someone who by some standards might be considered "relatively unknown". Here is a quote from the wikipedia official policy on biographies of known persons: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." In light of this any attempt to delete Master Dae Gak's entry clearly represents not only a highly selective application of the "notability" criterion, but one that is clearly at variance with stated wikipedia policies for biographies of living persons. Durruti36 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Durruti36, "notability" is just a guideline, one that serves to implement core polices such as neutral point of view and WP:verifiability. If a person isn't notable enough to have independent profiles then we are basing the entire article on what the subject says about himself. It's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when our only source is the subject. How can we verify anything he says, beyond just saying it's "accoridng to the subject"? So "notability" isn't the sole concern, it's more of a shorthand for a set of concerns that come up with people about whom little or nothing has been written. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a tough one. I spent hours editing and wikifying Dae Gak's entry. I know him and sat several retreats with him. I find him a charming and wise Zen teacher. Yet, according to WP:BIO's new criteria, he is not notable. As I understand it, Zen Master Seung Sahn considered being a Zen Master a job description whose duties included "great love, great compassion and only help this world." There are many jobs that are difficult to get (such as being a professor at an elite school) but that does not make one notable. Is being a Zen Master an award that you earn? Bob's PhD does not make him notable either. Finally, I also Googled ZMDG to find something... anything... to define notability. Maybe a mention of him in a book other than his own or something. I think Will Beback was looking for those types of things as well... not bean counting the results or refences on sangha web pages. Anyway, I wish I could find something to call this entry notable but I can not. In all fairness, it should be deleted. Killerbeez 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Factual correction to the above: Please see the reference above to James Ishmael Ford's book "Zen Master Who?" which includes references to both Master Dae Gak and to Furnace Mountain. This is clearly a "mention of him in a book other than his own". Durruti36 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That does not change my mind. The reference is small and it does not offer any support to why this teacher is notable. Sincerely, he is virually unknown and has not yet made a significant contribution to Zen practice in America or the world. I suspect that he seems like big news to his sangha but we need to keep perspective regarding what is considered notable for Wikipedia. Killerbeez 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The transmission speech link is no longer functioning. Do you have another one? Thanks Killerbeez 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is working now. You can also go to the main page for the Primary Point Archives.
• Thank You. Killerbeez 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep For people in fields where the transmission of information is primarily oral, I would like to find a way to establish notability. I haven't found one. Just perhaps, the training of students who go on to be notable is a criterion which has been used elsewhere, but although students are mentioned, nothing is said about their importance either. DGG 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. None of his students have done anything notable to date. There might be a time when Zen Master Dae Gak and his students are notable according to Wikipedia but not yet. Killerbeez 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry to have to vote that since he seems like a good person who is making a positive contribution. He has not become notable to the world at large however and this is what decides notability to have a WP article. Steve Dufour 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seeing no new response to my comments except the Dharma transmission fact. --Knverma 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Correction: The book "Violence at Kent State, May 1 to 4, l970: The Student's Perspective" was *not* Robert Genther's Ph.D. thesis, it was a separate book published by "College Notes and Texts" in 1971. The correct reference for this book can be found in the on-line article "THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY" - which is by two sociologists at Kent State. Robert Genther's Ph.D. thesis was "Differences Between Black and White Patients in Short Term Psychiatric Hospitalization." Durruti36 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wow, are you really WORKING IT trying to save this entry. I gotta admire your energy even as I doubt your direction. Anyway, It is great that he is a fourth publisher in a 35 year-old book that is not his dissertation. Yet, this book does not make him a notable academic. It is just a blip on his curriculum vitae. It is ironic that you tout this publication which is under his Western name at the same time you deleted that name from his entry. Killerbeez 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For notability to be established, this Zen Master needs to be the subject of an independent, credible, in-depth biography; have name recognition; receive a significant honor (beyond his high level of ordination) or make history. He does not fit any of these criteria at this time in his career.Logrider 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual Correction: The receipt of "Dharma Transmission" is not connected with "levels of ordination", except perhaps in the Soto school, which Master Dae Gak is not associated with. Durruti36 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Zen Master Dae Gak was an invited speaker in the year 2000 at the 800 year celebration of Dogen, Traces of Dogen Conference, held at Emory college in 2000.He has been the invited speaker for numerous functions in a variety of contexts including the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston Texas.For ten years the led Christian Zen retreats at the Abby of Gethsemane in Bards town KY the Monastery where Thomas Merton stayed.He was invited guest at the Gathering with the Dali Lama at The Abby of Gethsemane which celebrated the Dali Lama’s friendship with Thomas Merton.His calligraphy and art have been featured in Arts Across Kentucky, a Kentucky based magazine.His Calligraphy has been sold publicly through Dharma Crafts and other retail outlets.He was cited in the book, “Zen Master Who,” by James Ishmael Ford, published by Wisdom Press, 2006.He was the Key Note speaker at the Buddhist Conference for the Reconciliation of North and South Korea held in Seoul, Korea in 1987.He is listed in numerous publications and web sites as a prominent Zen teacher. By Logrider's criteria, most of the Zen teacher entries in Wikipedia will need to be deleted. =Jazzito 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)— Jazzito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You said he is listed in numerous publications. Could you point out these publications. That's one of the things we wanted to know. --Knverma 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was cited in "Only Doing It For 60 Years," a book about Zen Master Seung Sahn as well as having his own chapter in that book. He has been published multiple times in Primary Point. And if you read carefully there are several other citations listed in the discussion. Jazzito 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should point out, "Only doing it for 60 years" [7] is a collection of contributions from students of Seung Sahn. Primary Point is the school magazine of KUSZ. -Knverma 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Only doing it for 60 years" is a tribute book that was put together as a birthday gift from the students of Zen Master Seung Sahn. It is an homage to their teacher published by the Kwan Un School of Zen (Primary Point Press). Cute book with no Zen substance. Primary Point is the membership community newsletter of the Kwan Um School of Zen. It lists the activities/milestones of the school and a few talks. Jazzito and KwanSeumBosal have simply listed activities that a Zen Master is suppose to do: giving talks, running retreats, meeting with other Buddhist teachers, raising funds for their temples, being listed on the web in Zen Center directories, etc. This is just evidence that he is doing his job, it is not evidence of notability. Oh, it is appropriate to delete non-notable entries no matter what the person's profession. Killerbeez 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: His book 'Going Beyond Buddha' has been translated into Czech and German. The German publisher is 'Fischer Verlag' - one of the most important publishers in Germany. The book has been published in 1999 under the title 'Das Zen des Lauschens'. In 2001 Dae Gak has been invited by the University of Kassel, Compartment of Psychoanalysis to hold a speech about Zen and Psychoanalysis. He has students in Berlin, Witzenhausen, Kassel, Dresden, Nurimberg and also in Bristol, England and London. He is listed under www.zenguide.de among (contemporary) Zen Masters.KwanSeumBosal 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)— KwanSeumBosal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, after much careful thought and taking in all that has been said above. I vote this way mainly per Logrider's points. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, undue promotion. Mukadderat 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I also agree with Logrider's points. --Evb-wiki 14:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmondshire district youth council[edit]

Richmondshire district youth council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No external secondary source coverage that I could find per WP:RS; the only link given is to the council itself. Crystallina 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, and also orphaned. It also needs to be wified, and site resources. Hirohisat 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have tidied the article up and wikified it, but it is still a stub; I have not tagged it as such because I do not know which stub-class. It is a quite new organisation, but potentially notable. As I found it, there was provision for agendas and minutes to be added. That would be wholly unencyclopaedic, and should be on the Council's own website. Peterkingiron 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "potentially notable" means not notable. Clarityfiend 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far from notable and no reason to include here. Punkmorten 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Cavanaugh[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Stellatomailing 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, I don't think the article needed AfD, could be speedy deleted as per CSD A7 --Javit 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a contested prod. Updated only by single-purpose accounts. Looks like she is the director of small productions in the Boise area. About 50 Ghits on her name+ "theater". Older news bring some coverage for her move from Boise to Meridian in Idaho and trivial mentions; nothing non-trivial about her work. Stellatomailing 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn. Mukadderat 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like You (Keyshia Cole album)[edit]

Just Like You (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources indicate that this is the title of her sophmore album. The article is complete speculation, rumors, and crystal ballery. Admc2006 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keyshia Cole stated that this was the titled of her second album on BET's Access Granted for Diddy's "Last Night."
• Doesn't mean much to me. Delete as crystal ball. YechielMan 07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nonverifyable. Mukadderat 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - entire article is written as a set of speculations with no reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KHOU-TV News Team[edit]

KHOU-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Again, these pages violate WP:CRUFT and runs afoul of WP:NN. User:B49, and an unregistered IP address (User:68.237.111.217) he/she may be using to make similar edits, created this page and three other similar pages that are also up for AfD. Rollosmokes 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It works well as a finding source for articles on the newscasters, especially the large market ones. There are also good biographies at the stations websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kepp. Informative. Cruft is merely an essay. --Nricardo 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and WP:USEFUL is not a reason for keeping. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Not enough bluelinks to make this even a worthwhile list. At the very least, Merge back into parent article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - like the other News Team articles nominated for deletion, this page duplicates (exactly, I believe) information already on the main KHOU-TV page. Another editor suggested they be placed on sub-pages, but that can be decided later for main KHOU-TV article. Also, most of the names listed are non-notable. Lipsticked Pig 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, they're duplicated because the nominator reverted the original pages. That doesn't make the stand-alone articles any more notable, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Rollosmokes, my suggestion would be to hold off any more nominations of these types of pages until some consensus develops on the ones already nominated, since they all are pretty much the same situation, and we are ending up with a fractured discussion. Just MHO. Lipsticked Pig 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. Rollosmokes 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very much agree with User:EliminatorJR. --Javit 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Svetovid 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with EliminatorJR. Not enough blue links, and not notable since it is not a encylopedia article. Hirohisat 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't contain anything notable not already on the channel's page. A1octopus 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Mukadderat 15:38, 7 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. If you have no opinion about a page, it would be better not to nominate it for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Allen[edit]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The notability of the subject was asserted sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion: she apparently co-wrote several hit songs, and her death was covered in Billboard Magazine. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep - If the cited reference regarding reaching No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100 is verifiable then keep. Otherwise delete. If keep, I suggest merging with a Sara Allen. --Javit 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand - Notable, but does not have enough information as a encyclopedia article Hirohisat 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this article, and the article indicates that Janna Allen co-wrote two #1 songs on the Billboard Hot 100, plus two other top 10 singles for Hall & Oates, thus qualifying her for inclusion under WP:MUSIC. For verification, see this article at Billboard.biz. It may be relevant that the person who nominated this article for speedy deletion had created an article which I had nominated for speedy deletion a few minutes earlier. (See User talk:Nosliwx and the mention of this article at User:Metropolitan90.) This article should not be merged with Sara Allen since that article doesn't exist yet. --Metropolitan90 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The additional reference has now been added to the article. --Metropolitan90 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a link to her BMI listing to remove the question ("apparently") of whether she wrote the songs or not.Closenplay 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - properly referenced and notable. -- Whpq 16:42, 8 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. — Caknuck 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Moment, Machine (2nd AfD)[edit]

Man, Moment, Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Repost and copvio, see 1st AFD below. Samuel 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This version is not a copyvio and thus not a repost of deleted material. The article is in bad need of cleanup and wikifying, but I believe there is sufficient precedent for broadcast television shows to have their own articles. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Can verify that this isn't a copyvio, but this article is in real need of work.--Blueboy96 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article (with sources) about a television program. What is the problem here? ~ Infrangible 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List elsewhere. If it's a suspected copyright violation, it should be listed at WP:CV, not here. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only reason I can see for this to have even been nominated is deletionists thinking "well, it was deleted once, so obviously it should be deleted again", even though it's been rewritten entirely. Which illustrates the fundamental problem with deleting articles for things like copyvio, instead of taking a minute to remove the copyright violations. It seems to me that unless an article clearly can never become encyclopedic (ie vanity articles, attack articles, etc), AfD should be a last resort. Unfortunately, it's all too often used as the first resort. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep whatever it was before, it's a good article now. Lists of episodes are universal for all major television fiction series, and the same should apply to nonfiction programming. DGG 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A stub about a TV program on a non-obscure network. Any concerns about copyright or cleanup should be addressed in a different setting. SliceNYC (Talk) 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my first article and it's not gonna be perfect. I'm trying to fix it now. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is about television program and has sources, I don't see a problem. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mallanox 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WNYW-TV News Team[edit]

WNYW-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Once again, Wikipedia:Fancruft. This information was originally in, and should be kept within, the main WNYW article, and is not notable enough for a stand-alone page. Same criteria as WNBC news team, WCBS-TV News Team, and WABC-TV News Team. Rollosmokes 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The main article is already long enough; a split is appropriate. Also, the cruft essay is not policy or even a guideline. Please stop referencing it in deletion discussions. --Nricardo 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is only 22K even with this information (which probably struggles to pass WP:NOT) in it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above.--Svetovid 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• suggest Move to List of WNYW news staff, etc, because many of these people already have articles and a list of the people who have worked for a program is useful for navigating among them. Alternately, if you've merged it already (which it looks like) you can just redirect it. There's no need to involve AFD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and the others also. Its a very good navigation aid. They are essentially lists, and make the main article more readable by being broken out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete can't this do better as a category? and it is rather... pointless to have. Whsitchy 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of WNYW-TV personalities and keep. Being on the Fox affiliate in the #1 TV market makes most of them notable, and the list is to large to be merged back into WNYW-TV. DHowell 01:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moving to another article defeats the purpose of this AfD. The information is not too large to be merged back into the main article, and can be pared down considerably. Rollosmokes 02:08, 9 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. Pretty marginal, with one record and a (future) tour as part of a package, but worthwhile I guess. Herostratus 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Abstract[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Was db-tagged way back in December, but the creator of the article removed the tag. Corvus cornix 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Might want to add their album, Nocturne (The Human Abstract album) while you're at it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn. Mukadderat 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They fit the guideline "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." This alone is good enough. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They're signed, they have two major-indie releases (I don't have sales data though), and they're on Warped Tour. What RIAA lapdog recommended this page for deletion in the first place? They're clearly NOT a garage band.

• Keep Non-notable?
  
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 144,000 for "the human abstract". (0.11 seconds)
    
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 22,200 for "the human abstract" +metalcore. (0.12 seconds)
    
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 19,800 for "the human abstract" +nocturne. (0.12 seconds)
    

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 WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me In My Room Records[edit]

Me In My Room Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN record label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP Lugnuts 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7 (corp). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:25, 3 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. By the way we redirect songs by notable artists, not delete them, if the songs are deemed not notable enough for standalone articles. W.marsh 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelo Suelto[edit]

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

The information here is contained in the article Gloria Trevi, this page seems redundant. Paul Tracy_|\talk 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand -- Song seems notable enough, as it claims to be a #1 single and was made into a movie, and is cited as a signature song for the artist in question. It just needs sources, is all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:25, 3 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. Mallanox 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ryan Richards[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO by a large margin. Justin Berry may be notable; this person is not. He was a minor operative in Berry's organization and a porno performer who fails WP:PORN by a country mile. This article appears to exist mainly to shill for Richard's unnotable web sites and to generally hijack the Wikipedia for use in the Berry - Richards fight, which appears to be a minor catfight of limited interest to the world at large. Herostratus 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created to spinoff content about Richards from the Justin Berry article, as the Berry article was becoming heavily-laden, as was discussed in Talk:Justin Berry. How does being a spinoff affect the question of its retention? --Ssbohio 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs vastly improved, but the subject is notable within his particular world, and in consideration of the article's being spun off from Justin Berry, its notability should be considered in parallel with its main article. --Ssbohio 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spinoffs do not inherit or share the notability of the articles from which they were split. The subject does not have enough notability to have an article on his own behalf. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Will, can the article be placed in my userspace (as User:Ssbohio/Timothy Ryan Richards) if the consensus is for deletion? I'd like to do some research on Richards and see if I can establish notability outside of his working for Justin Berry. --Ssbohio 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability, SqueakBox 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – While I very much disagree with the nominator's speculations on the article's authors' motives and I believe he/she is assuming bad faith, it would seem that this article's content belongs in Justin Berry, if anywhere. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. As Richards is a key piece of the Justin Berry article, and certain forces (namely Justin Berry) have opposing views, it is only appropriate that Richards have his own article. This keeps with Wikipedia's main policy of maintaining neutrality as much as possible. In addition, there has been little time to conduct research into Richards to include additional and verifiable information. If the Richards article is deleted, then Justin Berry will cast Richards in such a negative light in order to make himself look like a saint. For this reason, the article on Timothy Ryan Richards must remain available. dmking12370
  • dmking, I agree that the article on Richards should be kept, but having a separate article to give Richards' "side" of the conflict creates what is called a POV fork, where content is split off from an article so that it and the article can push different points of view. I don't believe the article on Richards has been used that way, with the exception of an edit that was reverted (by me) and deleted by an administrator. --Ssbohio 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Mukadderat 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote, so what are your thoughts on this article? Is there anything that could be done to make it keepable in your eyes? Richards has notability, within his field, but it's tough to document. I'm hoping that there won't be a consensus to delete, but that some good ideas can come from this process to get the article up to spec. --Ssbohio 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondola spider[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax, no verifiable information located TeaDrinker 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax. Spider that feeds on small birds, please. Herostratus 19:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure about this article myself, but the Goliath birdeater does exist. Zagalejo 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it does appear that this article is a hoax. The unexplained-mysteries.com thread used as a source ended in August 2006, before the discovery of this alleged spider. Delete. Zagalejo 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An anon claims to have found a reference to it in a Swedish newspaper, but has not provided more than a blurry photo (!) of part of the headline. See User talk:84.217.175.29 and/or User_talk:TeaDrinker#RE:_Gondola_Spider. --TeaDrinker 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add I ran the latin name through BIOSIS (a database of biology publications) as well as the Ohmdahl with no luck (nothing in google scholar either). While perhaps the actual publication of the species identification would be difficult to find, it is surprising (although not unheard of) to find a scholar with absolutely no publication record. --TeaDrinker 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter rampant cobblers. The tarantulas are not native to Italy (what they call a tarantula is a much smaller true spider); the genus given to it (Brachypelma) does not list this one; the two external links are spurious - one is a forum thread (which doesn't even mention it) and the other is about a spider in a sandpit, which turned out to be a rubber one. But hey, it was in Germany, so that nearly counts as Italy, right? Totnesmartin 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, utter balls. Totnesmartin already found the same thing I found. Would this constitute vandalism? Pretty please, with sugar on top? I wanna speedy this.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete bollocks unless reliable sources are provided. Someguy1221 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. No evidence and irrelevant sources. I also wasted some time searching. PrimeHunter 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Stoic atarian 22:23, 6 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. Carried out by Reedy Boy (CSD A1). nadav (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the Klondike.ps[edit]

Back from the Klondike.ps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place to collect computer code. This is not an encyclopedia article. (WP:NOT) nadav (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is there a speedy delete category this would fit under? G1? G12, since it's "JohnH's original content" and not explicitly released under the GFDL? --Charlene 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete with ((db-reason)), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:18, 3 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 A7 and possibly G10. (Note that, despite assertions below, it does get quite a few g-hits, simply due to being a common name. The specific Chris Kane referred to on the deleted page seems to have been this one.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kane[edit]

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

This article is useless IMHO and has no verifiable sources. -- Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - completely fails WP:BIO. IMO, this is also WP:NONSENSE. No g-hits and has no WP:RS support. --Evb-wiki 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Better no article than a bad article, but obviously better a decent, sourced article than no article... Fram 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaco Finlay[edit]

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

Prodded because "Fails WP:BIO. He built two soon abandoned trading posts, and has many descendants. WP:NOT a genealogical site." Prod removed with quite uncivil comment at the talk page, with as main reason "Jaco Finlay is THE most important Native American in at least an eight hundred mile radius.". As for why no indication of this fact is presented in the article, which is over a year old: "It's not done fast enough? I think that's racist!". As I'm not impressed by these arguments, I present the article here at AfD for wider discussion. Fram 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Jaco Finlay garners what appears to be a decent number of Google hits for a late 18th/early 19th century person, including 60 Google Books hits [8]. The article doesn't establish notability as it is now, but it may be possible to improve it to do so. --Metropolitan90 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the first documented persons of European descent to cross the Continental Divide (though his full-blood boss, who came a year later, gets the credit). --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 4 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. W.marsh 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Barr[edit]

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

Non-notable Weatherman90 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless made convincingly notable. Probably an interesting guy, but not enough to show notability. Chris 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being from Portland myself, I can tell you that he is a very recognizable name in the region. I'm sure lots more stuff will be added. He has tons of google hits. Williamb 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Tons of google hits?" Not even close. A search for "Sandy Barr" doesn't even yield 10,000 results. For comparison, a search of my username, Weatherman90, yields over 13,000 results. Do I get an article? Weatherman90 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP There is no question as of this point that the article now contains an independent reliable source. Canoe Networks, through their SLAM Sports section, is a very notable and reliable source that qualifies as an independent secondary source for WP:RS. This article is on my "to do" list, as can be seen by viewing the talk page, and I'm sure other sources can and will be found. While I believe notability can be argued concerning this individual, I should point out that lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy. Further, WP:N is, in itself, only a guideline, it is not a policy; the policy one should look at when determining "notability" is WP:V, which this article has no problem with. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT paper. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It does have a problem with WP:V, as it's sourced direct from the subject. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sourcing directly from the subject (primary source) is appropriate (unless the info is likely to be challenged) as long as there is a WP:V secondary source. There is a WP:V independent secondary source for the article now (there wasn't when you voted), so frankly, you are wrong Hack, there isn't a problem with WP:V. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Point It's hard to say the individual is the source when someone else is writing about their death...man Hack...you crack me up. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, I'm not wrong. What is the secondary source? A book that confirms he was a wrestler? That doesn't confirm anything else, you're sourcing direct from quotes from the subject of the article. I suggest you read the sources you've added before making any further flippant remarks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OK, I've been directed by you to read what a secondary source is numerous times, and apparently where you directed me to read was incorrect...so, since the pages you directed me to where not accurate about what a secondary source is, please tell, what is a secondary source?

The book referenced does not substantiate that he was a wrestler, it substantiates that he was a wrestling promoter (which makes me wonder how much attention you've given to the article in order to make an informed decision and comment). The Canoe Networks article substantiates most of the rest of the information in the article (which if you had read the Canoe article you would have known that). Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (they are a Canadian based company that publish on a WIDE variety of subjects). Any information not sourced from the article is acceptable even thought it comes from an interview with the subject at hand as it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. So, unless your educating me on what a secondary source is was wrong...you are still wrong. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've paid considerably more attention than you, as is already apparent by the source you added. I assume you missed where it said Barr told the DutchSavage.com website, which happens to be the source that was there beforehand? Please provide independent verification for everything that is sourced from a direct quote, as I consider it to be self serving. Without independent sources it's impossible for a neutral, balanced article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*SIGH* So let me point out again, information that comes from an interview with the subject at hand is acceptable when it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which this article does. Add that to the fact that information in the article was also contributed through interviews with Bob Leanoard, Buddy Rose, Ed Wiskowski, Dutch Savage, Velvete McIntyre and Ring Around the Northwest, and you begin to see that the article does have more credibility than you would give it; which tends to support the fact that Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So, everything remains kosher. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep slam.canoe.ca is a reliable source for wrestling articles, the article certainly could do with more improvement. But for what is there, seems to show fair notability to me. Govvy 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barr has considerable local notability and a fair amount of national notability. Now has coverage from local news channel: KPTV, which further shows local notability. I expect The Oregonian would pick up the story soon. Katr67 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's that Oregonian link. Katr67 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fullfills the requirements of Notability and verifiability, it's a no-brainer keep in it's current form MPJ-DK 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT--This guy is famous in Portland AND is very well known through the entire pro wrestling community. He was influential in getting many famous wrestlers their start. If people think he isn't notable, they don't know what they are talking about.

• Keep Barr is well-known in Portland, Oregon, and through much of the Pacific Northwest and in Western Canada. I live about a mile from the flea market and would be happy to post a photo of the sign outside with his name on it if that would help the case. dreadpiraterobins 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sandy Barr's has been a landmark and a gathering place (Tuesday night wrestling matches) for many years in St. Johns, the northernmost neighborhood in Portland, OR. If St. Johns is worthy of a page (and it has one) then I think Sandy Barr is notable enough.

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 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Naked Gun cast members[edit]

List of The Naked Gun cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is nothing more than a list of a few names and there is not much more that can be added. Dream out loud 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Duplicates the list in the infobox of The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, adding Fred Ward, who according to his IMdB credits wasn't in this film. Deor 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 1. as above 2. it's incomplete 3. a complete list would not be of interest anyway as most actors are not of notability FMB 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The list seems to be mostly machine-generated, as the result of a decision to listify a category in March. It may be worth revisiting that discussion. Neier 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the IMDB. This is not a long series of films, and there aren't that many actors common to all three. This list appears unnecessary. --Charlene 20:52, 4 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. W.marsh 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ferrari[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Criteria have changed since this articles last afd. Epbr123 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per WP:PORNBIO. Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 18:16, 3 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. NawlinWiki 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zion-coder[edit]

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

This article uses excessive praise and is a vanity article for the person calling themselves zion-coder. He is also completely non-notable. Patar knight 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:PEACOCK, WP:COI, and Wikipedia:Notability. Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 18:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 and so tagged... "is a really talented coder" is not a claim of notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Miller middle period engravings[edit]

William Miller middle period engravings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is completely unnecessary. All of the images are available on the commons and a simple link to a commons gallery will suffice. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The similar page, William Miller late period engravings should be deleted, too. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as mere image galleries, per WP:NOT. Rkitko has added a Commons tag to William Miller (engraver), so anyone who wants to view the images can follow the link to the page there. Deor 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Edward Waverley 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as per the consensus here. Drachentaube appears to be a neologism and the article is not supported by multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drachentaube[edit]

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

non-notable "mythological" beast; not enough reliable, independent sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a feeling of hoaxiness about this article. Rhinoracer 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really say any more than I have on Talk:Drachentaube. It is very depressing. Ednan 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep On the other hand, maybe I can. "Category:Heraldic beasts" is still severely underpopulated if heraldry is to have more than just superficial coverage in Wikipedia. An heraldic ordinary, sub-ordinary, charge etc. does not need to be notable in itself to warrant inclusion, it just needs to have been used in heraldry (which I have satisfactorily demonstrated). For example, is Ypotryll especially notable? It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of the parts. Ednan 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of course, Ypotryll doesn't seem notable, and Category:Heraldic beasts could use some scrutiny. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether it's notable enough or not is another question (31 Ghits), but it doesn't appear to be a hoax - the image comes from here, backed up by this. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Rehome) This isn't notable in itself - not every microfact or mini-monster connected with heraldry is. There is however surely a place for a useful portmanteau article on Rare heraldic beasts (or Trivial heraldic inventions - whatever you want to call it) in which this (and the Ypotryll and quite a number of others) could find a legit home. But it's not worth its own article. HeartofaDog 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this article looking for information on this beast. I expect Wikipedia to cover things like this and would have been frustrated if there had been no article. The article is well done and informative. If there is some debate as to the legitimacy of this beast, as some have argued, the proper course of action is to note the controversy in the article rather than simply deleting it. All in all I find this information to be notable and well presented. R.E.S.A. 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See also comment by Tressure at Talk:College of Dracology Ednan 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The dove with dragon parts seems to be real and genuinely appears on the crest of Dr. Clackson. However, the name appears to be a nickname for the creature - not an officially recognised name. Nor is it a nickname which has become widely used. It'd be notable enough to discuss as a dove with dragon parts in an article on heraldic oddities, but the name is not notable. It may become widely used in the future, but we don't know that yet. Polenth 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The comments of soi-disant heraldic experts aside, the Drachentaube has a basis in history and heraldry alike. Both informative and well-written, this article is encyclopedic and deserves to remain on Wikipedia. --TheTriumvir 03:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could share with us the sources from which you've gained your knowledge of the drachentaube. Because as far as I've seen, his beast has little basis in history, but rather first appeared in the late 20th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Speaking of category of heraldic beasts... why not combine them into a single article on heraldic beasts? Might make a decent little article. —LactoseTI^T 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be perfectly acceptable, especially since the <span id="subhead"> device allows section redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The College of Arms blazoned it, according to Dr. Clackson himself, as A dove argent beaked azure with a Dragon's wings displayed and a Dragon's legs and a Dragon's tail. The beast is an invention from the grantee's own Fake Middle English poetry. The Google results show that the word shows up in Wikipedia, and in two contributions by the grantee. The Scottish Heraldry Society seems to have taken down their page. WP:NEOLOGISM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The above assertion that the drachentaube was invented in a poem published in Dragonlore in 2004 is incorrect as the creature had already been referred to 5 years earlier in the "Contemporary Heraldry" section of the March 1999 edition of the Heraldry Society's Heraldry Gazette (the same reference as is given in the article). 81.154.90.60 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second edit of this anon. Please read WP:SOCK. It's the same poem; it doesn't matter where it appeared first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note There is no poem in the Heraldry Gazette article. It is a report on a new grant of arms. And yes, it does mention the “drachentaube”. Ednan 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. See Talk:Drachentaube.--Wetman 03:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - see Clackson's Scots Arms at The Heraldry Scociety of Scotland. The poem is there. --Evb-wiki 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this constitute an independent source? The linked webpage is from the "Members' Interactive Galleries" section of the Heraldry Society of Scotland's website. In all probability Dr. Clackson added this page himself; I certainly hope so, because the "poem" that reports the "legend" of the Drachentaube first appeared in Dragonlore, and is copyright Stephen Gregory Clackson. If this post is by the creature's inventor, it in no way constitutes an independent, reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note Allow me to draw your attention to my note above. The Heraldry Gazette reference Heraldry Gazette (ISSN 0437-2980), LXXI (new series) March 1999, 6 is an independent report on the new grant of arms (not the poem) and the term “drachentaube” is used there. Ednan 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton^Assistance! 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed[edit]

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another nomination for soap opera couples. Both these articles are about fictional couples from the soap opera The Young and the Restless. The characters and actors have their own articles, and these articles are just a chunk of plot summary and as such fail WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Note: withdrawing nom for above article per extensive rewrite. AfD remains open for article below. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• • Delete Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. The topic is adequately covered elsewhere. DarkAudit 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the individual characters have their own articles, convergence of the two characters can be documented therein. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Careful. If you delete a soap opera article, it's evil twin will come back, or it will turn out that it was never really deleted, it just got amnesia. It may come back and announce it is the long lost father at a very inopportune moment, usually while a will is being read, or in the middle of a wedding. --Infrangible 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but there are articles that don't have a head. How can you write for an article that doesn't have a head?! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very important couple on the show The Young and The Restless, and I'm not even a fan of this couple, but they are just as lengendary as the Luke and Laura supercouple of the daytime drama General Hospital, though not as noteworthy. No soap opera couple can be as noteworthy as Luke and Laura, but some are, in fact, noteworthy. I am certain that I can better format a lot of these soap couple articles. All of the ones on the Supercouple list here at Wikipedia are indeed supercouples. I need time in tackling this article...as well as the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article, but I strongly oppose the deletion of any of these articles. They serve as clear-cut examples of the very definition of a supercouple and should remain here at Wikipedia, as we are to have a Supercouple article at all.

I'm a participant of WikiProject Soap operas, and our goal is to improve all these soap opera articles, couple or not. My own article was nominated for deletion here not too long ago as well, but it rather ended up with the result of "Keep" due to it now meeting Wikipedia standards, as well as WikiProject Soap Opera standards. The original nominator of that article for deletion, DES, a well-respected administrator here at Wikipedia even declared it as the best any of these type of articles can be.

EliminatorJR, I cite that you're acting in good faith, I understand your concerns on this matter clearly, but I ask that you re-consider tagging some of these supercouple soap opera articles for deletion, unless they just out-right need deletion, and instead rather tag them with "Plot" and or "In the need of expert attention", anything that is about clean-up as opposed to deletion, as we aim to improve these articles. Flyer22 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That'd be fine if these were new articles, or if there were only minor problems with them, but this one is over two years old and is still completely fails Wikipedia guidelines. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction 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." I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion.EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (switching from redirect) Redirect. I'm not a fan of the show, but I've helped develop the guidelines at WP:SOAPS as to when "couple" articles are appropriate. Right now this article is nowhere near the standard. If it can be brought up to speed, like if someone can add some real-world references to prove that this couple is notable outside of the world of soapdom, I might change my opinion though. To see an example of a couple article that was judged a "keep" on AfD, see J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey. --Elonka 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to "Keep". The article has been substantially rewritten and has multiple third-party sources which affirm the couple's notability.[9][10] Good job on the rewrite. --Elonka 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It provides information for Victor and Nikki as a supercouple--information that isn't found on their own separate pages. This page is able to go more in depth on their relationship. Miss Burkle 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your optimism on this matter, EliminatorJR. Or maybe that has more to do with if this article can produce more valid sources, as well as produce real-world context, then there's no problem. Whichever, I appreciate your mindset on this issue. I get that this article is an older article, but again, our project for bettering such articles is fairly new. It's going to be a challenge for me to fix up both of these articles before this debate is closed, and I'm not sure that I can do both at this time, but I'll try. Flyer22 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always copy the basis of the article into your userspace for further improvement, in case it's deleted. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. Most of the article is plagiarised from Soap Opera Central. Kogsquinge 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since a lot of this content is redundant, we could redirect all these pages to List of Supercouples. This page would be formatted as per WP:LIST and expand what is already on Supercouple#Supercouples. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been updated[edit]

This article now provides creation, real-world context and impact. Let me know if you're willing to reconsider it as a keep, EliminatorJR. Although, the Nick and Sharon article still needs fixing up. It might be best to have these two articles separate in their deletion debates, since I might not have the time to fix up the Nick and Sharon article.Flyer22 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better! although I still think some of the plot summary could be removed without any real loss to the article. I'll keep the AfD open for the other article, but withdraw this one. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, EliminatorJR, and thanks for the suggestion. I'll look over editing down the plot summary some more when I get some more time.Flyer22 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nick and Sharon article has been updated[edit]

• Yeah, I know that the cultural impact section is all about the Sharon/Nick/Phyllis love triangle, but that was one of the most notable storylines within that romance, one of the most heated some fans of that show would say, gaining all kinds of different attention.

I didn't really change the summary of this article all that much. I just re-worded it in present tense, and I didn't feel that I needed to add that much to the summary as of now, since plot summaries are limited anyway. Flyer22 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the interest of fairness. If Luke and Laura, a long-defunct supercouple, can be considered Wiki-relevant, then why can't Y&R's couples?! fhb3 08:20, 9 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 but move to more standard name. W.marsh 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCBS-TV News Team[edit]

WCBS-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For the same reasons I nominated both WABC-TV News Team and WNBC news team, which were WP:CRUFT and questionable notability to the Wikipedia community as a whole. This information was previously in the main WCBS-TV article and could be re-merged into it as well, but a stand-alone page should not exist. Many of the bios that are linked within this article should be looked at as well for WP:NN compliance. Rollosmokes 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The programs themselves are notable, and the size and scope of these articles does not lend them to merger with the parent articles. Furthermore, any AfD that uses the word "cruft", or any form thereof as an excuse for deletion ought to be retained for that reason alone. Alansohn 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An excellent finding source for linking to individual biographies, especially when all you know is he is that fat guy that does the weather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Informative. "Cruft" is just an essay, not policy or guideline. --Nricardo 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on the station itself. I'm not sure why seperate articles on the news team are needed, and it seems to me that an article on the station would logically cover the staff, including the news team. Breaking out all of these articles into smaller articles isn't a great idea anyway: the WCBS-TV team may be notable, but then this is going to start happening to articles on, for example, the ION affiliate in Missoula, Montana. I'd prefer to keep these articles slimmer and more encyclopedic. It seems these articles are turning into little more than station web-site bios/publicity pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with WCBS-TV per Firsfron.Blueboy96 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually a lot category by job entries are getting deleted. The problem is that in a business like this, people work for too many stations and in most cases, the station is not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's the honest point of having this list around? Categories work better for this type of work Whsitchy 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would say Merge but wasn't the point of having separate articles for the news team to keep the main page from getting too big? WAVY 10 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of WCBS-TV personalities and keep. Being on a major network affiliate in the #1 TV market makes most of them notable, and the list is to large to be merged back into WCBS-TV. DHowell 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moving to another article defeats the purpose of this AfD. The information is not too large to be merged back into the main article, and can be pared down considerably. Rollosmokes 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, noteworthy and verifiable, meets content policies. RFerreira 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Flores[edit]

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

I can't really see how being added to anybody's top ten is particularly notable. Navou 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep If references were added it would be suitable, its not just anyones top 10, its the FBI's. Regards --The Sunshine Man 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If all the other current FBI Top Tenners (Glen Stewart Godwin) get a page, then this guy should. It just needs a little cleanup. --PAK Man + 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who else got an article, and not sure how that argument is helpful here, I'm not really seeing this one satisfy WP:BIO. Navou 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because he's covered by multiple independent sources. Nick mallory 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per multiple independent sources. SakotGrimshine 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup — Looks fine to me. It has sources, but just needs to be cleaned up. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete- Per nominator Navou. Hundreds of people have been on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list and last time I checked not all of them have their own articles. Thus Being placed on the list alone is not notable enough to warrant an article. We really shouldn't waste valuable server space creating unessesary articles. WP:N states that articles on people only notable for one event (i.e in this case being placed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list) should be redirects to that particular event. Sincerely, --William Howard Hart 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hundreds of articles would fit on a floppy disk, probably a hundredth of cent of disk space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not paper. Having articles isn't a waste of 'valuable server space'. Arguments should be based on policy, not on personal dislike of or distaste for article subjects. --Charlene 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any reference to the editors like or dislike of the articles subject. How do you address the latter part of the argument referencing WP:N? Navou 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its well sourced and enough information. If there is not enough information for people that have been on in the past, they can have a line or two at the main article space. Top 10 is always notable, buy there isn't always enough meat for an entire article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are notable. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that each fugitive on the Ten Most Wanted list is sufficiently notable to warrant their own page. The fact that not every one has had a page created is not justification for deleting those that do. 3 June 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanGentry (talk • contribs).
• keep it is notable enough to be on top of the fbi list so it is notable for us too yuckfoo 01:56, 4 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. Executed by Kurykh (claim: CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion.) --Aarktica 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeshem[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:CORP. Zero g-hits. Wall Street Journal article cited cannot be found and appears to be bogus. Previously speedied. Evb-wiki 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article should definitely be deleted. Anon345 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...care to tell us why you think it should be deleted? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Know what, just delete it because it's too small a corporation to be considered fit for an article in an encyclopedia, and also it's probably going to fail since it is going to be working for 10 months without money until it released its final project. So since I am the creator of this article, I give my concensus for it to be deleted. So if an admin sees this, delete Heeshem at once. --Mack540 15:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Noting that the author of the article has requested prompt deletion. Can't speedy as user request, since the article has also been elsewise edited, but I wonder if we can speedy it under A7 (((db-corp)))? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh can we just ask an admin to delete this?--Mack540 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but if you want to nuke it now, check out WP:CSD. This is how you request it be deleted immediately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 3 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. Resurgent insurgent 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Tan[edit]

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

Per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO (notability) Javit 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Article creator suspected of WP:COI, written like a high-quality spam, notability questionable. --Javit 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix, Nominator changed position - The article was substantially improved by KP Botany et al. It is on its way to be well referenced and recognised as notable. Therefore I withdraw my nomination. --Javit 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:COI policy clearly states that a COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion, so please avoid offering this up as a reason for deletion, poorly written requires other tags, as does spam. The notability may be debatable or not, but sources have been added, and it has been cleaned up. Please note this from the WP:COI policy:
    • How to handle conflicts of interest
    • ....Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.
• Speedy Delete, zero tolerance per ((db-bio)) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per db-bio. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup — The artist has placed or won in a major musical competition - Asia New-Singer Singing Competition - which is notable as it has over 262,000 hits on Google. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cleanup: Non-notable singer. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Could you give the URL to your Google claims please. I don't seem to be able to find such a thing. Also, I suggest you check out the website links given at the article page. My opinion is that we can't have every single MySpace sort of may-break-anytime-but-not-yet musician in Wikipedia. Especially with this sort of blatant advertising. Therefore, I hope you'll reconsider your position. --Javit 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. For some reason, when I did the google search in my initial post, it had 262, 000 hits. Apparently I wasn't searching the competitions on the page. For this ignorant mistake, I change my vote to Delete or cleanup. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just fixed the blatantly advertorial tone but the core issues remain --Javit 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup multiple coverage in reliable sources (China Radio International, People's Daily, Sin Chew Jit Poh) clearly visible in the first page of the 11,000 GHits on the Chinese name. [11] cab 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article creator Kinkylaney is a single-use account. --Infrangible 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It stays or goes based on the merits of the subject of the article, that's all--even COI articles have to stay or go based on the merits of the article. KP Botany 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's always hard to tell with pop stars, but for now I'm for keeping this one. KP Botany 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Signed singer that's mentioned in reliable sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 6 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 A7 (web). Peacent 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing Comedy Sagas[edit]

Animal Crossing Comedy Sagas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article cites no sources. Non-notable web comic; only 10 Google hits -- MisterHand 14:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as ((db-web)), obviously non-notable. If a webcomic gets only 10 GHits, then there's no way in heck that it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 (web). Already tagged. Echoing TenPoundHammer's commentary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — violates ((db-web)), no useful search engine hits for me. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:26, 3 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. Krimpet (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIFY: Codename Internets![edit]

OIFY: Codename Internets! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable game mod. Weregerbil 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not non-notable, it's known to lots of people out there. I speel good 17:24, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
• It has gotten alot of attention where it was first announced, Facepunchstudios.com. Gutted 16:35, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
• You mean forums.facepunchstudios.com, the forums of Facepunch. I speel good 17:35, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, being posted on a forum is not a sign of notability. Phony Saint 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it should be noted that I speel good and Gutted describe themselves, in their user pages, as creator and head writer of OIFY respectively, and have made little to no edits outside of the article and this AFD. This seems to be a case of using Wikipedia as free advertising, which ought not be tolerated. Charlie 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable self promotion. This has less than 50 Google hits. -- MisterHand 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's our fault we wanted to give more info to the mod. I speel good 17:55, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Also, it should be noted that we are not the creators of the OIFY, but the creators of the MODIFACATION BASED on the OIFY. I speel good 17:58, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• On a sidenote, having offered a forum, having 36 people watching the mod and 10+ pages of discussion is a sign of notability. I speel good 17:58, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • ...um, no, it's not. Read that link. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I say that you are being very unfair right now. People will want to know about this mod, and we will update the page regurlarly. Gutted 17:05, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
  • Having come into this late and reading this, it looks like the delete args in here are quite fair. You may want to give WP:AADD a good read, along with the above link to WP:N. A few hits on Google, three dozen users, and a forum doth not notability make. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it will help you to understand why this is happening by taking a look at some of our policies, specifically notability guidelines. The most important point there, is that notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Charlie 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Minerva, the multiplayer mod, is notable, but this is not? How so, what is the difference? Gutted 17:22, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)

We aren't talking about Minerva. We are talking about this one. Besides, where's the article for the Minerva mod? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to that (i_speel_good), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINERVA_%28mod%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by i_speel_good (talk • contribs)

Looks like somebody has asked for some cleanup, so it may qualify for an AfD as well. Even so, this isn't the AfD for MINERVA (mod). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heck, I suck in english. I speel good 18:16, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
• Delete already. Crystalballery for something the authors admit is not likely to see the light of day for a year (if it ever sees that light). Create an article when the thing actually exists; notability can be judged then. Deor 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as WP:CRYSTALlized and non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let me count the ways. We've got spam, conflict of interest, crystalballism, and multiple failures of what Wikipedia is not, reliable sources, and arguments to avoid. DarkAudit 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sheer crystalballery, and I'm starting to think that WP:SNOW applies as well, based on the arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, when did we actually DO all that stuff? We made a page about something, I don't see how it's spam or anything else. About the Crystalballery, ok, but I have seen several stuff like that on several places not get deleted. So fine, if you continue whining like that delete it. We'll make our own wiki on our own server. HAH. And no, don't start "oh you're so rude" BEACUSE I DON'T CARE. If you can't just accept the fact that we worked on something then WikiPedia is the worst place ever. I speel good 20:35, edited on 20:38 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
  • OK. Yes, other articles are just as non-notable. We find them, they find their way here. Just because they exist doesn't mean that your article can violate the rules. As for your article, let me distill it for you: I have to follow the rules, and so do you. All articles on WP have to follow the rules. The must be notable, this must be demonstrated (i.e., verifiable) by reliable sources. Your article fails to do any of these, and that's why we're here. To answer your note as to why we can't just accept it, it is because we are not a site for the appreciation of the written word or article. We are, in fact, striving to be an encyclopedia. Aside from that, if you really think that we're the "worst place ever" because we demand that you follow our rules when you write an article, well, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you still have to follow the rules. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, for what it's worth, I encourage you to set up your own Wiki. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know it would be "illegal" to call you people names. But I'll do it mildly. BASTARDS! Gutted 20:18, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
  • Dude, be nice, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Obviously non-notable and maybe a promotion. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Items that are in development, but not adequately covered by the media or reliable sources should not appear, per WP:CRYSTAL. After all, I cannot find any mention by any popular gaming mags.--Kylohk 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:I speel good's first contribution was on 03Jun2007 at 07:24 UTC - on this AFD. User:Gutted has been around since January, but has made few edits outside of the scope of this AFD or the subject thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoah, wait there, tiger. I made a OIFY Mod page a long time ago, about August, and it got deleted for the same reason. I see we aren't getting anywhere. NEW WIKI, HERE WE COME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I speel good (talk • contribs)
  • Hey, go for it. I for one encourage you to run your own site. It's a big internet, and we don't have a monopoly on wikis, youk now. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DarkAudit, others. This is just advertising for vaporware. Edward321 23:35, 3 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 closed; no reason for deletion offered, as this is essentially a request for clean-up. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends[edit]

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

This is not so much for deletion, but for discussion. This article is rather bad, completly an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and has seems to be just self-promotion. I don't completely think is is deleteable, but needs a major reworking. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created to ridicule the organization. Though many people put their efforts on improving the article, it still cannot be taken to a NPOV standard. I suggest deletion case should be re-opened. Baby Dove 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD G5. MaxSem 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Ghost[edit]

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

Hoax. For a show that supposedly was made by Hanna Barbara for 27 years, no sign of it appears anywhere on their web page, or Cartoon Network that supposedly aired it, in fact no google search for "Bloody Ghost" turns up anything related to this supposed show, and with no sources cited (and the supposed logo looking like something made in MS Paint) this appears to be a blatant hoax. Also nominating Bloody Ghost (disambiguation) which only references above article. Nominating the MS Paint logo too. Wingsandsword 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No information anywhere about this cartoon, apparently a hoax. The MS Paint logo is what made me take a second look at this article. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant hoax. Creator also made hoax article Theatre Trash (with more MS Paint imagery too), which I've prodded. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles. Hoax. -- MisterHand 14:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete-HOAX-KnowledgeHegemony 15:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, possible speedy as nonsense. DarkAudit 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Most possibly a hoax; nonsense. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per above. This page is a recreation of a page made by a User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet, as seen here. Pants^(T) 18:58, 3 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. Krimpet (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon Avenue MRT Station[edit]

Quezon Avenue MRT Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can't find a thing on the article's subject from any reliable source, let alone coverage by multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. The article's author is on record on the talk page stating that the article is written from personal experience, and that reliable sources do not exist. From anything I can find, I have to agree with him. The subject is thus unverifiable, non-notable, and impossible to write about without the use of original research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I really want to say transwiki here, but what you can transwiki this to is sitting on a rackmount server that is soon to be heading to Oakland, California via FedEx Ground. Is there some way to archive this stuff pending deletion, or will I just want to userfy it to my own user space? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...there's always userfication to one's hard drive, too. Although generally if you want to transwiki something that's been deleted, you can ask to have it temporarily history-restored and userfied while you do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am but one user who wrote that article. I may have wrote my share of the article possibly using some OR, but it does not mean that everyone else did. Does notability solely have to hinge on it having references (by the way, I inserted a reference on an incident at the said station)? --Sky Harbor 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can give a source (magazine) for this and all of the MRT and LRT articles. --Howard the Duck 07:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't understand the notability of this station. Sure the system is notable, even the line probably can meet notability guidelines, but I am unconvinced that the station does. The ref just added to the article doesn't provide any information on the station itself at all, but just mentions it as placemark for the extent of an incident. "The incident stalled the southbound train between the Quezon Avenue and GMA-Kamuning stations . . ."
• Weak keep. A system map will show the station. [12] shows some reliable sources for its existence. If there were public planning studies, those can be used to fill in information; I'm not sure how this works in the Philippines. If nothing more can be added than what is already here, it is probably better merged into Quezon City or a new Quezon Avenue article. I myself am on the fence regarding individual rapid transit stations. Normally an underground one on an older system will have enough information, as I discovered when I tested this on the Grand Army Plaza station in New York City. On a newer elevated system with every station almost identical, it may not be possible to do this. --NE2 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also agree the system is notable, but I fail to see how the station is notable. BeckyAnne(talk) 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. While this is a new station and not much about it is available as secondary sources, the train line is notable and the intersection it serves is also notable. Ultimately, this is better merged with a well-developed article on Quezon Avenue, an important trunk line in Metro Manila. Until then, I say keep. --Polaron | Talk 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a major metro station in a major city. This is where systemic bias really comes in; it's just not feasible to say "give me a source right this second" when the sources (of which, we know from dealing with similar cases, near-universally exist) are in the Phillippines, and to assert that because such a source isn't immediately forthcoming you can make any judgement about its notability is simply nonsense. Rebecca 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca. Major station in major city. --Oakshade 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the keeps are piling. I have nothing new to add. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional - If Quezon Avenue MRT Station should be deleted then delete all other light rail stations like the Choa Chu Kang MRT/LRT Station of the Bukit Panjang Light Rapid Transit in Singapore otherwise keep. I think that is fair enough. - Jojit fb 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about metro stations? --Sky Harbor 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those conditions should apply in metro stations as well. Actually, what I said is viewed by some Wikipedians as one of the arguments to avoid in a deletion debates. Nevertheless, what I'm after is consistency. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia but also a community. If we (the community) disallowed a specific article then we should also disallow other articles with similar nature. Also, the one who proposed for Quezon Avenue MRT Station's deletion should have opted with other alternatives and consulted the Philippine notice board if the said article is notable or not. - Jojit fb 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Metro stations in general are a notable landmark in every city. The inclusion of a news article about an incident further strengthens its notability.--Kylohk 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems this article has potential for improvement, especially once Phillipine sources are found and used. In any case, I believe any such station is sufficiently notable infrastructure for Wikipedia. - Axver 13:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Price[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. Player has never appeared in major leagues. He has also never done anything notable. Fbdave 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No WP:RS provided. Seven-year minor leaguer. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable minor league player. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Non-notable player. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think it might be possible to have a notable minor-league career, but I don't see that here. Gimmetrow 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably look at Ray Navarrete, who appears to be another minor-league only player from the same team. Gimmetrow 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes geographical names[edit]

List of songs whose title includes geographical names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs on this massive list have absolutely nothing in common with each other beyond the coincidence of having a "geographical name" of some sort in their titles. They do not share subject matter or theme in common. It indiscriminately captures songs titled with any geographical feature from a street to a continent, across multiple languages. Lists for songs titled after landmarks and fictional places have been deleted and this list is an order of magnitude worse. Otto4711 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT, along with every other damn "List of songs whose titles include…" article. Deor 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete "List of songs..." are a nuisance, they are over-sized, overworked and over-here! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete poor list.KnowledgeHegemony 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete (WP:NOT), also if lists like this were allowed to be made on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be filled with millions of articles like this, which have no real importance. —  ^T_C Jackrm 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is impossibly huge and will only get bigger if not nuked -- it's definitely indiscriminate, and sorely lacking in reliable sources (if it could even be sourced). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete — Immense scope of songs and completely useless. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -lists of thsi kind are utterly valueless. Peterkingiron 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, delete for all the valid reasons that other similar lists were deleted, ie; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that are also the name of a TV show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes dates and times, etc. Masaruemoto 01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable list, extreme end of cruft.Blueboy96 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., and all. --JayJasper 22:01, 5 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 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Heroes[edit]

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

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of this fictional television program. Otto4711 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor plot point not needing it's own article. Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. DarkAudit 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I had many search engine hits, but none of them could be used as sources. WP:SOAP *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --JayJasper 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable plot point. I tagged this article for speedy deletion when it was first created, but the author continually removed the tag. BH (T|C) 15:57, 8 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 as an attack page and BLP violation. If it turns out it was a hoax instead of an attack on a real person, no harm done. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Achilleos[edit]

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

This looks like a hoax. Cannot find this person on Google and it has only been edited by a single use user. There are also certain passages in the article which are extremely hard to believe if they are true e.g. "he worked as a Dentist for 7 months before being struck off for being caught on CCTV, putting his schlong into a male patients mouth while he was unconcious" and "attempting to spunk in his own gullet" PTSE 12:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if not a hoax, the subject is not notable per WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a hoax per language, lack of editors and lack of links. — Taggard (Complain) 14:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously not a person notable enough to have a wikipedia page, even if he is a real footballer. Jackrm 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The tone would suggest this is an attack page as well. DarkAudit 17:21, 3 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. W.marsh 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akrab[edit]

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

Based on my religious faith, I consider the Hebrew Bible the most reliable source that exists. However, by Wikipedian standards, it's rather flimsy for suggesting that the identity of Rehoboam's "Akrabim" were long rods with metal balls inside, or whatever. Either source it or delete it. YechielMan 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beta Scorpii, unless sourced. Quite interestingly, I read that in Arabic Al Aqrab (العقرب) means scorpio, suggesting a Semitic alternative, or an antecedent, to the accepted Germanic etymology of crab. Stammer 13:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I did a bit of cleanup, but the interpretation still sounds like a fantasy to me. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of sources. No objection to making this into a redirect to Beta Scorpii after the existing article is deleted. When the sources are so thin, the article risks being false. EdJohnston 18:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The source doesn't support the interpretation and is probably false. Based on inference from the articles Zuben-el-Akrab and Omega Scorpii, I think akrab means "scorpion". The article should redirect to a disambig page with links to each of these and Beta-Scorpii. --Smtomak 20:45, 8 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 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airus[edit]

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

Looks like another non-notable band. The statements of national tour are not attributed, and the interview in the Chicago Sun-Times that would have taken place in 2006 does not show up in a Google search. YechielMan 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Much as I love to save band articles, this one's difficult. No secondary sources bar musiqtone.com, which I'm a bit dubious about, unless someone can find that Chicago Sun-Times interview, and Google throws up nothing but a few blogs and primary sources. Their website [13] shows a Elgin local newspaper article about their CBGBs appearance, but nothing else. Their album was supposed to be released last year, but I can't fins anything about that either. It doesn't need much to squeak through, but at the moment it's not quite there. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely non-notable. See how many ghits you get when searching "Airus + Garbrecht" (the singer's last name). Totally fails WP:BAND + WP:V, and it's WP:AB, too. Closenplay 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inadequate sources to verify that they are sufficiently notable to meet WP:Band. A1octopus 18:33, 5 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 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin[edit]

Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who fails to meet any other notability criteria Google [14] doesn't show up anything unrelated to the election Valenciano 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable failed candidate Nick mallory 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. --Svetovid 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Obviously non-notable and no references. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:31, 3 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 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan O'Brien[edit]

Jonathan O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who doesn't satisfy any other notability criteria Valenciano 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Also very un-notable. It's a stub that lacks any information other than that he was in the elction. It should be deleted without discussion! Meldshal42 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable failed candidate but there should always be a discussion! Nick mallory 11:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Obviously non-notable. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:13, 3 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 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra McLellan[edit]

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

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who does not appear to satusfy any other notability criteria. The only thing that google turns up are pages on her written by her own party Valenciano 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Yes. Very true. This article lacks more notability than a tissue. It's also a stub; and Sandra McLellan has not done anything important. It should be deleted. Meldshal42 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable failed candidate Nick mallory 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 11:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — No search engine hits for me; non-notable. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- non-notable, poorly sourced, nothing special there. Turgidson 21:38, 3 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 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Capone[edit]

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

Fails to provide external sources, I have already speedied a good bunch of articles related to this one. Article claims that the subject was killed and returned to his brother in 10 bags, but a google search shows nothing[15], which is strange considering that such a case would be likely to at least be mentioned in the media. Delete for being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It has been speedied twice. This and its companion articles appear to be complete bollocks. --Evb-wiki 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom. No hits on four different search engines, and unsourced. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Does not seem to be a real notable person
• Delete as non-notable and possibly a hoax. Bearian 20:28, 5 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. I'm closing the AfD since the nominator has changed his vote to keep, and keep is obviously the consensus anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal[edit]

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

Way too short, not much band information, less than 10 words, and the page seems not have no one contributing to it to make it grow into a real encyclopedic or informative article.Migospia †♥ 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those aren't actually reasons for deletion. Nick mallory 10:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Expanded on reasoning then--Migospia †♥ 11:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not suggested, no refs, no info about albums or concerts or whatever. What is this article good for? Pavel Vozenilek 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Only a stub here because of language, I'd say. They pass WP:MUSIC easily; 20 albums, tours of North and South America [16] [17] and a big article at es-wiki [18]. Wonder if someone would like to translate that article into English to expand this stub? EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to translate it when I have time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The band's had over 20 albums, I would say that alone makes them at least a little bit notable. Granted, All Music Guide only lists one of said albums, but I've found that quite often, All Music Guide falls woefully short of the "All" part of its name... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say that AMG has problems with WP:CSB... EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. AMG is not strong on world music. Even albums that have sold over a million copies in other countries may not be found on AMG if they weren't marketed in the English-speaking world. --Charlene 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The es-wiki page has some serious POV issues, so translating this may take longer than I thought. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand- band is very notable in the Mexican scene, so sources will be found. There might be delays as translation happens, but this is a needed addition to Wikipedia. Nominator is encouraged to use appropiate tags to expand article rather than AfD.--Cerejota 23:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand- Since people are willing to expand this article, my answer changes--Migospia †♥ 00:42, 4 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. W.marsh 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Utilities[edit]

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

This is blatant advertising; in addition, the article's creator removed the speedy deletion template. Anthony Rupert 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'll duck on the advertising question, but it seems to be a non-notable corporation, at least if you don't live in the Cayman islands. YechielMan 12:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Possible advertising, but not sure. Certainly non-notable. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [19] --Nricardo 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A significant employer in the Cayman Islands, and also notable to investors in Canada and elsewhere through being listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. --Eastmain 07:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastman, companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange have inherent notability. RFerreira 06:22, 10 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.