< June 5	June 7 >

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Academy of Castle Rock[edit]

notability of three year old middle school Chris 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to fail WP:SCHOOL, though that policy is inactive. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources for anything--I would have considered it possibly speedy-deletable as advertising/.DGG 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Article edited to show only facts./.CJANSON 4:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment, thanks, but it still doesn't make it notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Chris 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, then why would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodlands_Academy_of_the_Sacred_Heart be left alone? Do as you will or must. We just wanted to be included. I realize wikipedia is not a directory and did not put this entry in for any other reason than to have it recognized as a school in Colorado. -- Craig Janson 5:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- reply, first, the school that you bring up as an example is a high school, not a middle school as yours is. Second, the sourcing and the article itself bear that the Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart was founded in 1858. That makes it 150 next year, and predating the Civil War qualifies it for historical notability. Significant claims of notability include: famous alumni, historical importance, national attention or notoriety, unusual architecture, grounds, facilities, athletics, etc. Usually only high schools (or similarly-situated "top level" schools) are notable enough for inclusion, since a high school generally is a focal point of a community, especially in smaller towns. Middle and elementary schools are not inherently notable, and information should generally be included in the article for the district that operates it. Since yours is a private school and would have no district, the most it rates as written is a sentence or two in Castle Rock, Colorado Chris 06:09, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John E. Douglas[edit]

Was tagged as an A7 speedy, but disputed. Gentleman was a professor of medicine at a state university, no evidence he passes WP:PROF, or WP:BIO otherwise. Delete. Xoloz 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem notable to me. If deleted, please also remove the incoming link from John Douglas. YechielMan 04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 05:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed.gov shows at least 35 articles by this physician (search Douglas JE(au) and at least 58 show up, a few by the John E. Douglas, profiler but most by the John E. Douglas, cardiologist and also another JE Douglas who appears to specialize in equine health). Keep in mind his career spanned 1960s to present and as such the medical reference databases may not capture all of his early work; some databases only go back a couple of decades. John E. Douglas, cardiologist published in JAMA, Lancet, American Journal of Cardiology, among others; I didn't search the number of citations to him, just the articles on which he himself is an author. Yes, he was a professor of medicine at a state university; what is rather remarkable about him is that he chose such a career, after graduating medical school at Johns Hopkins University (in top tier of his class) and serving as chief resident at Duke University, to bring high quality medicine to what was a relatively rural area in East Tennesseee (and prior to that, Arkansas). I'd say it's 1960s idealism at its best. [[User:TerangaCat|] 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)TerangaCat

Delete as no notability established (just the one article cited). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not convinced that he is notable enough, but this page was tagged for speedy deletion less than a minute after creation. I just don't find that acceptable. I suggest giving the author a chance to improve the article (most importantly, add references) and get back to it in another month or so. Pharamond 17:30, 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 At this time, there is no consensus for deletion, and it appears consensus is unlikely for deletion given more time for discussion. Nomination withdrawn and Keep. Navou 01:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow tipping[edit]

ITs difficult to find sources for this. Currently the only sources seems to be original research and appears to be no reliable source for this act, or vice-versa. Navou 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thirty hits in google news http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=cow+tipping SakotGrimshine 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear your meaning. Navou 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD was speedy closed by non admin, but this was contested by the nom, so re-opened.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it might be hard to believe, but this is a wide-spread, long-time cultural "phenomenon" in rural America -- often talked of as a "rural legend," never done. Sourcing isn't ideal, but is sufficient for WP:V purposes. Xoloz 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is admittedly sub-optimal. However, added references are promptly reverted by agressive editors trying to own the page as being "pop-culture references" or "trivia" or "unencyclopedic." The topic is cow tipping...what else besides these sorts of references can you expect? —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xoloz, above -- this is a very popular term though it may be hard to source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xoloz. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cow tipping is well-enough known phenomenon to have been parodied by tractor tipping in the movie Cars. Give it time to find better sources. Capmango 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the sort of sourcing that would be stricken down as juvenile, pop-culture, or unencyclopedic. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alex Pankratov 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as US phenomenon. Chris 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snowball Keep This is an easily verifiable notable neutral topic. Suggest closing AfD early to save editors time debating this issue. This stems from talk page discussions on the Cow Tipping article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, widely-mentioned phenomenon. - Merzbow 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what happened to the sources (such as they are) that used to be in the article (including the Straight Dope)? --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All removed...see my comments above and see especially the talk page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I could actually write a scholarly, well-sourced article on the topic, but will not even bother given the apparent nature of the page's tribal guard--plus the article would just turn to crap over time. C.m.jones 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is verifiable as an urban legend, but the silly photos and captions have got to go 64.7.166.38 01:29, 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. Sources do not establish notability in a scientific context, and there are not enough independent sources to establish notability in a non-scientific context. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling theory[edit]

The article starts: "The doubling theory, developed between 1996-2000 by Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet and Philippe Bobola can explain the electronic stability of the atom, corrects the Titius-Bode Law, and defines the fine structure constant in the solar system." These are big claims and a decent, unbiased article should explain how the scientific community views the theory (see WP:NPOV). However, the scientific community seems to have ignored the theory; at least, I could not find any independent evaluations. This makes it impossible to write a neutral article, and it also shows that the theory is not notable (see WP:SCIENCE). Hence the article should be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the remarks by Eep², I concede that the theory may have gained some traction in some fields of knowledge that I'm not familiar with (e.g., The Science of Extraterrestrials). Therefore, I abstain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google turned up one relevant hit: A conference proceedings that cannot be accessed for free. Google scholar came out even worse (namely nothing). Based ont his it is safe to say that this fails WP:SCIENCE and almost certainly also fails WP:NOR.--EMS | Talk 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are not independent. Theory is mystical nonsense. Αργυριου (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this is still a relatively new theory, it appears to be more popular in France, where it originated, allegedly. A Google search turns up several (not one, EMS) relevant hits: American Institute of Physics, an British Computer Society, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (which gets plenty of Google Scholar hits, email from a French physicist, Xavier Hebras (Google Scholar or Hebras Xavier, working with the same Phillipe Bobola--Google Scholar--Malet is), who mentions a quantum physics "doubling theory" of time (in relation to ermanometry, financial market analysis by William Erman). Also, there are other doubling theories: morphological doubling theory (Sharon Inkelas), etc (Google Scholar). Regardless of so-called "wide" scientific acceptance, this theory is notable. As far as Argyriou's biased "mystical nonsense", that isn't very civil or neutral... It deserves an article as much as any conspiracy theory, spiritual idea, or philosophy does, at least. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Extraterrestrials: 2007 the Year of Explanations by Eric Julien, 2006 (and a review by Don Reed) mentions Galet and analyzes and applies his theory:

"As closest to his Absolute Relativity theory, he discourses at length on the work of J.P. Garnier Malet. Malet characterized true time as “stroboscopic”, a series of moments of observation intersected by times of non-observations. In this so-called doubling theory, a particle in its horizon is always a horizon of particles like Russian dolls nesting inside each other(horizon = two particles twice as small). Time and space are thus fractally proportional. Time dilation occurs at the exact point where a particle crosses a curved line and another crosses a straight line. In this sense, a horizon is an observation boundary and the interactions demarcate time flow deviations. Similarly, the result of an interaction can be anticipated as doubling time elapses more quickly than time on the scale in question."

"Therefore, the exchanges of interactions would correspond to time accelerations and decelerations, precisely concurring with Kozyrev’s observations. This is the consequence of the doubling generating possible exchanges of trajectories (and therefore information) between internal particles (accelerated time) and external particles (decelerated time). The internal horizons, which he called “temporal openings”, are defined by stroboscopic observations. Julien then extrapolates from Malet’s theory that, as accelerated time (that which reaches a point more quickly) exists side by side with the observer’s real time, it would be legitimate to argue that the future is visible (premonition/precognition) in the present. Accordingly, he claims that intuition finds its roots in the future, where time is accelerated, and usually guides us in our decision-making."

"The author observes that in terms of unraveling the current enigmas in physics, the Malet theory demonstrates that the instantaneous potential of doubling particles is the result of a fundamental property of time that may solve the EPR paradox. As far as technological advances which might result from applying the theory, Julien claims that rotational motion of a body coupled with a change in its vibratory state (the similar protocol used by Kozyrev with gyroscopes), might cause change in relativistic parameters: gravitational potential, local time-flow and energy. The rotation of bodies then constitutes the link between inertial reference frames (motions) and sinusoidal changes (i.e., time fractals/vibratory states). Also, since Malet, upon applying the doubling theory, showed the speed of light is related to the maximum deviation of a doubling transformation - seven temporal fractals between observer and horizon – Julien argues that one could legitimately call velocity c as a boundary between two reference frames, without being absolute. Consequently, using this reasoning, he speculates that UFO technology might incorporate a time dilation larger than the seven steps described by Garnier Malet. In a later chapter in the “Explanations” section Julien actually uses the reasoning above to propose a possible operating technology for UFOs, involving the following components: double-rotor, crystal oscillator, and superconductor network involving a spinning electromagnetic field."

"Due the brief summary here, sincere apologies are extended for possibly taking Julien’s fascinating time theory out of context. The author himself suggests that experts who wish to skirmish on this frontier in greater depth should consult J.P. Garnier Malet’s website (www.garnier-malet.com) for further formalistic development of the doubling theory, and of course Julien’s own possibly breakthrough treatise."

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the theory is apparently supposed to be a scientific theory, at least that's what the Malet's website at http://www.garnier-malet.com/ states. As such, we should be primarily concerned about notability as a scientific theory, i.e., are the scientific publications referring to the theory? As far as I can see, no.

In French, the theory is called "la théorie du dédoublement". This term is indeed mentioned in some web forums (e.g., [1]), but I couldn't find any academic discussion. Another théorie du dédoublement, by Stéphane Lojkine, might be notable, but that's a different theory, and I don't think we should somehow add up the notabilities of all doubling theories. Anyway, almost all French scientists publish in English, so if the theory had seen substantial scientific evaluation, it would be in English.

You say "it deserves an article as much as any conspiracy theory, spiritual idea, or philosophy does, at least." Well, not every conspiracy theory, spiritual idea or philosophy deserves an article. For instance, I'd say that conspiracy theories need at least to be mentioned in a couple of major newspapers. I'm also rather reluctant to have us rebrand the theory as a spiritual idea or philosophy, where the author maintains it's a scientific theory. Is there any source supporting this rebranding? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we should be primarily concerned about notability as a scientific theory", you'd think that, wouldn't you. However, scientific notability is only part of the package. Notability in ANY field is acceptable as notability. For example, OJ Simpson. He is a sports star, an actor and was the defendant in an internationally covered murder trial. Any one of these things would give him sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry of his own. It's the same with other topics, a scientific hypothesis that is hijacked by UFO-watchers (for example) can be considered to be notable if it is notable in science or in Ufology, or both. Equally, even if it was only marginally in both that fact that it is marginally notable in several areas could make it notable overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major newspapers don't need to mention a theory, spirtual idea, and/or philosophy in order for those things to be notable--there's a lot of underground and non-mainstream-media things that are notable--to people who follow those things. Obviously, if there's a conference/convention for these kinds of pseudoscience/spiritual/new age ideas (and a lot less significant/notable and superficial crap, I might add), then that is notable in that context, just as there are conspiracy conventions dealing with conspiracy theories, new age conventions for new age/spiritual things, and, oh yes, videogame conventions--notability is relative/subjective. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, belief and notability in fringe areas can operate entirely independently from the mainstream. For example, a viral meme spread through message boards can attract millions of believers yet never be covered by the mainstream media - perfectblue 07:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if there is a conference or convention dedicated to the doubling theory, with say 10 people giving talks, then that would be enough. There are plenty of ways to show notability; major newspapers was just one example. For conspiracy theories it seems not too much to ask, but it's not a good criterion for philosophy. If you can show notability as a spiritual / new age / philosophical idea or pseudoscience, then we can say in the article that doubling theory is generally considered one of those and support that statement with sources. At the moment, we cannot, and that's where the problem lies: we cannot adhere to the fundamental policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, thus the article has to be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this post for more info about other people who have refined/expanded the doubling theory, specifically Ari Letho and William Tifft. I have to go now but please check out this post for more info. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back (damn work). Don Reed's review of Eric Julien's book, The Science of Extraterrestrials, appears in the May/June 2007 issue of Infinite Energy magazine, p.51.[2] Don't think Infinite Energy is notable? Think again.[3] The doubling theory is notable. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a "Greek text about the Doubling Theory of Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet and Ancient Greeks" by Yannis Piljoy'ni (translated) mentioned on http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm (by Michael Lahanas--see [4] search results for exact name--PhD in physics, according to his CV). Unfortunately, I don't know Greek, the Google translator doesn't do Greek, and the AltaVista Babelfish translator gives an error decoding it (copy-pasting the entire text into Babelfish yields an unformatted poor translation, however--sorry, no direct link). :/ ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of the translation that mentions the theory, specifically:

"This recent theory of (Djtto'titas) [Doubling theory] that it revises drastically the significance of Time is result of work of 17 years of Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet, natural, writer of recent book for the wide public "CHANGES YOUR FUTURE WITH the OPENINGS of TIME" (Editorial house JMG, France, December 2003) and became object of many scientific publications (1997-2005). In December 2003 the periodical Third Eye published a article of Dr Garnier Malet with general presentation of basic beginnings of theory and her repercussions in each one us and in the total, while one two-day seminar from the himself in Athens in February 2004 assembled 80 individuals. ... Charm in the theory of Djtto'titas (Doubling theory) it is now anymore possible we occupy the fundamental importance of Greek language and her alphabet that codes in the perfection the strictly scientific significances of this theory. ... The caduceus, symbol of clairvoyance of Ermi', uses the double helix of Djtto'titas. ... The Greek mythology, that has been twisted by millennia of obscurantism [obscurity?], allows the teaching of creative beginning of a'lfa [?] and Wme'ga [?] that can be observed so much in the galaxj'es [galaxies?] what in particles. It is henceforth possible we explain the bond between the arhaj'as [?] Greek writing and the theory of Djtto[']titas."

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your investigations. This leads me into terrains I do not know. It does make me doubt whether we should delete the article, so I'm switching to abstain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the multiple Google hits!. Each and every one of them refers you back to the same conference presentation! IMO, that is only one reference, even if it is linked to from multiple places. --EMS | Talk 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just one conference presentation, but at least 3 different presentations in 3 years of the same conference (that I could find). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy would ease the pain. WP:BOLLOCKS and completely non-notable one person's theory. --Pjacobi 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one person's theory; did you even bother to read the article (let alone this deletion review), Pj? Note how it says "by Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet and Philippe Bobola". <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one person's theory is metaphor for a theory which has no standing and no impact in its field. --Pjacobi 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define impact (then define the degree of impact to which you aspire to judge this theory by). Obviously, the theory has impacted the International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (which, again, gets plenty of Google Scholar hits). I'd say the theory has standing, even if it doesn't appear to be accepted by mainstream science. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is useful tool for a quick look into issues (and it is a free service), but it is not anything like a real Citation index, which is one of the measures of acceptance in science. --Pjacobi 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if it should ultimately be kept or not, but it doesn't seem obvious that it can't evolve beyond a stub. Give it some breathing room. However, Pjacobi may be right that Eep should save time and not bother... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The link to the conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems seems mildly interesting to me, but I can't see that any notability for this theory can be demonstrated without substantially better referenced sources than at present. — BillC ^talk 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep somewhat sourced. JJL 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe theory with no mainstream acceptance. Nick mallory 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "mainstream" acceptance is unnecessary if it's achieved relative notability--which it obviously has given the references. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Easily fails the proposed WP:SCIENCE guideline and also clearly fails WP:N and WP:OR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KONGER[edit]

Seems to be a more minor group, I had prodded however seperate user objected, so here we are at AFD. Matt - TheFearow 23:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to the deletion for the following reasons: the group had a huge influence on Polish performance art, the artists who belonged to it are still alive, active and internationally recognized. Most of them have their pages on the Polish version of Wikipedia. Because the Group acted in Poland under the Martial law, it could not have been noticed abroad, as people were not allowed to travel, the galleries were closed or boycotted and any trace of artistic / politically engaged activity was persecuted. Hence the heroism and importance of the Group.--ZenDl 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what makes you think that this is a "more minor group". I would be happy to improve the Article. --ArtInterventions 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed to be a more minor group from page - if you can improve please do, as to me and other unrelated editors it appears to fail notability. If that issue can be fixed then I would vote Keep. Matt - TheFearow 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, bear in mind, that in case of art, and especially performance art it would not be possible to find any criteria why a person or a group should be notable or not. There are no awards, ranking lists or anything like that. Try to imagine, that we are talking about the times of curfew, secret services, militia, censorship and so on and that these people simply risked being persecuted for trying to express their thoughts about the political situation. The only way to do it was to act together. If you think there are any objective criteria that would convince you that those people were notable artists, please, let me know, as I (and other unrelated editors) am under the impression that you do not quite get the historical context and that you're looking for some typical elements that are not possible to include. I would really like to be able to satisfy Wikipedia policy. Best regards. --ArtInterventions 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You could always look at the end all notability guideline, WP:N. Non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Newspaper articles, interviews or other coverage from major news broadcasters, etc. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of the cited references, their being in polish and all. Someguy1221 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am talking about - how are you going to find references in newspapers or major broadcasters while they were in the hands of the communist regime? It is like trying to find the news about the opposition in China or North Korea. Officially they don't exist! I could find hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that do not cite any sources or I think are far less notable. The sources that I cite I think are reliable, I can find some more, but they all would be in Polish anyway. I encourage you to learn foreign languages... --ArtInterventions 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ in that case. If no reliable sources exist, how are we supposed to write a reliable article? In addition to the notability guideline, there is verifiability to consider. Someguy1221 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, as my comment below has come true. Someguy1221 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think my sources are reliable and you think that the only reliable sources are major news broadcasters. This is a bizarre opinion given the political circumstances the article is about. --ArtInterventions 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you bothered to download the source article (in Fort Sztuki Magazine) you wouldn't even have to be able to read in Polish to be able to verify some of the information given. --ArtInterventions 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never said those are the only reliable sources, just giving you the best possible examples when you seemed to be questioning how to prove notability. And if all the sources are in a language I can't read, I certainly can't verify it, now can I? If some members of the Polish wikiproject bother to get involved, I'll withdraw my suggestion for delete. Someguy1221 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite sad and deeply discouraging that you only accept sources in English as credible... --ArtInterventions 21:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, you misread my statement. I said that I cannot verify anything from Polish sources. Fortunately, there are Wikipedians who speak Polish, and there's actually a portal (right here) through which you might find one. Again, I cannot verify anything with only Polish sources, but I'll usually trust any established multilingual wikipedian who thinks it's OK. Someguy1221 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was going to say delete, but it has article on pl wiki, and is mentioned in a few publications. A historical footnote, but seems to be notable after all. Unfortunatly with the amount of spam about artists we are getting its hard to pick up such stuff :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay. The group was a sensation in the 80s. The sources about that time in Poland are scarce and you won't find much on the Internet in English either, for obvious reasons. I think it's important to make that obscure time available to the English speakers. The artists and witnesses of their activity are still alive, so the information given is possible to verify. --ZenDl 23:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took the liberty of rewriting the article according to some basic Wiki standards and I moved it to a more English language title. Please take a look. --Poeticbent talk 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Thanks so much! I hope it will stay... --ArtInterventions 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per guidelines WP:MUSIC - this time I'm citing the proper phrase verbatim: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". We've got here not one but even two members, who are notable - see Wladyslaw Kazmierczak and Peter Grzybowski - both are in English wikipedia. Also, check it out, that they didn't even make it to Polish wikipedia, which is otherwise run by a bunch of 14 years olds or so, mostly descendants of families, who once condoned martial law mentioned in this very article, and hardly a reliable source of information. greg park avenue 14:15, 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 delete, fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Demos[edit]

This article clearly fails WP:MUSIC Barsportsunlimited 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside Wikipedia, I have no association with popular music, so I look at music articles here mostly from pattern recognition. This article "looks" like many others. Could someone please clarify what the nominator's reasoning is? YechielMan 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can put up the album infobox and a track listing and "look" like any number of notable albums. I'll try and put it in generic terms: This was not even publicly released, it was just a promotional tool submitted to the media hoping to get coverage for the band. I would think something would have to be seen/heard by more than just the media to get a Wikipedia article. Morgan Wick 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article makes it clear that this barely-released song does not satisfy any of the guidelines for song notability. MKoltnow 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - demo album with limited pressing, and no independet reliable sources wrting about it. -- Whpq 16:18, 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 delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl[edit]

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

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

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

Contested prod. Non-notable bio that has already been speedied twice. Article restored pending promised improvements from original author, but author removed prod tag without adding new content. --Finngall ^talk 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails notability criteria, and its a re-creation of previously deleted content without a deletion review, and without anything particularly substantial happening to make it notable. Matt - TheFearow 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep Google search on Arden Wohl gets 16K hits, lots of them mentions in fashion mags and gossip columns. The person obviously passes notability criteria (maybe not as a film director, but as a socialite); that the article fails to establish this means the article should be improved, not deleted Capmango 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has been greatly improved and expanded since it was initally sent here; I think it warrants another look. Plenty of external sources now; some are blogs but lots are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Changes up my vote from Keep to Strong keep. Capmango 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe it fails WP:BIO, and remember WP:GOOGLEHITS, Capmango. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- sigh. My point wasn't just, hey there are 16K of hits. I actually followed the links and educated myself a bit before weighing in. Unless Wikipedia has a built-in bias against people who we think don't deserve to be famous, any look at these sites will show that within the odd world of NYC socialites, this is a very notable person. I'm not judging whether she ought to be notable, but there a lots of pages like this one that clearly show that she is. Personally, I hadn't heard of her before now, but I'm an Arizona computer geek, not a NYC socialite. Capmango 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So fame within "the odd world of NYC socialites" is now sufficient for Wikipedia? Morgan Wick 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless someone has added a socialite exclusion to WP:N, then yes of course. Notable socialites are notable human beings, ~~or do we have reverse-elitism happening here~~? Capmango 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the very least, needs better notability justification. —LactoseTI^T 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm interested to know just what kind of philanthropy a 24-year old film student is capable of ~ Infrangible 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The Observer calls her an heiress, Infrangible. But that doesn't make her especially notable. She'll have to go to jail or be in a reality TV show first, like you-know-who. Clarityfiend 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject clearly meets the letter of WP:BIO, ~~though you seem to have a distaste for the independent sources that cover her. Again smacks of reverse-elitism~~. Capmango 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure of WP:BIO. "Socialite" and "philanthropist" are pretty wooly claims of notability, they equate to "party goer" and "nice person" (unless used in the true sense). The film she has made doesn't seem to be notable in itself, it's barely got an IMDB page. Just a note to Capmango, I'd be more impressed if "an Arizona computer geek" had heard of her than if a NYC sociliate had! Mallanox 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that she is not currently notable as a movie director, but Subject clearly meets the letter of WP:BIO~~, though you seem to have a distaste for the independent sources that cover her. Again smacks of reverse-elitism~~. Capmango 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many mentions thought google, working with notable people like George Clooney on a movie about sexually exploited children, has been since cleaned up quite a bit!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)
Delete, mightbecomenotableoneday != notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the edits made to the article, and while it has improved a lot, I still believe that Wohl is not notable enough for Wikipedia at this moment in time. I have no objections to a new article when she meets the guidelines though. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since User:Capmango has rather snootily come down on people questioning the subject's notability and accused them of being "reverse elitists", almost as though he had been the article's author, I decided to check out the sources one-by-one, ignoring imdB because while Wohl may be on there, so is my dad, doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia article:
- http://www.playgroundproject.com Web site for an NN group subject happens to be involved in. Not sufficient notability.
- http://gawker.com/news/arden-wohl/ Appears to be a blog, and Wikipedia tends to look with disdain on blogs as reliable sources. I would ask Capmango for a precedent for Gawker to be considered RS kosher.
- http://nyobserver.com/2007/arden-eden This one I might be able to concede. Generally however, multiple sources (not to mention secondary sources) are needed to meet WP:BIO.
- http://forums.leeleesobieski.com/lofiversion/index.php?t2138-50.html X! Forum post. Definitely not a reliable source.
- http://www.blog.zoozoom.com/culture/2007/04/the_nest_founda.aspx X! Blog. Also has trivial coverage at best of subject.
- http://suestemp.blogspot.com/ X! Another blog.
- http://www.papermag.com/?section=article&parid=1603 Nontrivial, subject of article, but website doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Is this a reliable source?
- http://www.thenewyorkscene.com/webready_coven102206/default.htm Just a collection of photos.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhq0CtKi2K0 A YouTube clip? Please.
- http://coacd.blogspot.com/2006/01/arden-wohl.html Sigh... yet another blog.
- http://www.observer.com/2007/ya-gotta-have-arden-wohl-flower-chic-grips-girls-and-guys-whitney-party Gossipy. Trivial-y (though the subject's shindig is supposedly the subject it seems to talk about everyone else). Bloggy.
- http://www.style.com/peopleparties/parties/slideshow/042707ECO?pseq=15&play=false Just a picture. Even if site is notable, one picture is a trivial mention.
- http://popchatter.com/article/view/532 Gossip site that looks like a blog. Sure don't look like RS.
- http://www.manhattan.smugmug.com/hack/feed.mg?Type=gallery&Data=2619783&format=atom03 Not sure if it's an RS, but pretty much just a collection of images in any case.
- http://terrorfilmfestival.net/_wsn/page11.html She submitted a movie to a film festival. Big whoop. She was nominated for a couple awards at said film festival. WP:BIO says any "awards or honors" must be significant and recognized. She didn't even win, and I don't know this would qualify as either significant or recognized.

So we have maybe one bona fide article in a reliable and respectable publication, a few questionable sources, and a bunch of sources I wouldn't trust to write an unintelligible screed on a napkin. And I was actually starting to come around on notability reading all those sources. Capmango is going to need to do a little more than resort to personal attacks. Morgan Wick 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't intend anything to be taken as a personal attack (I was trying to address the arguments, not the people making them), and I'm not the one who said the subject needed to go to jail in order to be notable. If anyone took my remarks as being uncivil, I apologize. Obviously I had nothing to do with writing the article, I have no connection with or previous knowledge of the author and I have nothing to gain or lose by its inclusion or deletion from Wikipedia. I am motivated only by a concern that we may be inadvertantly developing a double standard for inclusion, that we are all of us a little too willing to stand in judgment of (or be summarily dismissive of) areas we really know very little about. ~~It seems to me that your rejection of everyone of these sources (in a not particularly civil way, IMHO) just underscores my point~~. I'm not sure if the consensus here is "socialites as a group are not notable" or if it is "Arden Wohl is not notable in the world of socialites". If it is the first, then I am worried that we have a double standard. If it is the second, then I would really like to hear that argument from someone who can demonstrate a deep understanding of that world. It appears from the nature of the arguments presented here that the author of the article is the only one involved in these discussions who has much of a grasp on that. Capmango 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep this Arden Wohl person seems to have done alot for NY charities and is using her talent to bring attention to exploited children. She is doing a movie with George Cloony. Lets not tar all socialite type people with a Paris brush people...what is wrong with rising talent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk • contribs)

Comment This IP is almost certainly the same person as Tweety21 above, based on editing patterns. --Finngall ^talk 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree the author's behavior is having a determintal effect here. Looks like all the keep votes besides mine may be sock puppets (how embarassing!)~~ Capmango 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith and assume the author's multiple IPs (including the latest, 142.205.213.42) are a result of simply using several different computers and not bothering to log in, rather than an attempt at vote-stacking. Still, they should be taken for what they're worth. --Finngall ^talk 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both IDs have attempted to remove the AfD template from the article--I have restored it multiple times. As the author appears to be impervious to advice about policies and procedures, I recommend salting if the article is deleted. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add 216.191.208.99 to the list of potential socks of this user. --Finngall ^talk 16:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why IP's normally are not allowed to vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep one delete voter, states that Philatropy is hardly a matter for wiki..ever hear of Bill Gates, or Andrew Carneigie?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs)

*strong keep maybe I'm just a hick from the sticks, but it seems like Arden is doing alot to bring awareness to exploited children..who can argue with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs) Second vote from this IP, see directly above

Delete - lots of mentions in blogs, but no reliable independent sources. She may be popular, but not notable. -- Whpq 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think we all need to just chill out!! some comments about me as the author are bordering on libel..I am actually in a sorority and for all you know there could be a bunch of us using the same ip, I would watch these kinds of comments..I try and do a good thing by doing an article about someone who is trying to help society and you guys all hold a bloody witch hun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.42 (talk • contribs)
comment I am withdrawing several of my ill-considered statements, now that I have sobered up :) Capmango 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - I am editing this story to include sources; furthermore, you will note she is directing a film starring George Clooney, and she has been mentioned extensively in the press? Regardless of whether you agree with the way this article was created -- or is being defended -- you cannot question that this subject exists, and is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.80.109 (talk • contribs)
Comment I, as the author would like to say most of these delete votes was when I just had a paragraph and nothing really there, I since researched the subject and found extensive info on notability!! everyone in the art, charity circuit knows Arden!!! I did this article as an "anti paris" kind of thing, meaning that there are some girls in prominent positions who use their money, and skills for good!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk • contribs)

Comment To be fair, the article has been improved quite a bit since the nomination was posted, and while I'm still dubious about her notability, I do hope that this will be taken into account by all commenters and the closing admin. --Finngall ^talk 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT..HEY I thought that this had to be decided within 5 days of first nomination or tag was removed....what is going on...????

Five days is the standard period of time, but discussions can run shorter (in cases of clear consensus, withdrawn nominations, or application of the snowball clause), or longer (in cases of lack of consensus or the admins simply not getting around to it). In any case, the admin who closes the discussion will either delete the article or remove the AfD tag, and nobody else should mess with it. --Finngall ^talk 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to comment that 95% of comments are when first entered (when I had just one paragraph) and not researched propertly, since then I have fixed this up! I hope this gets resolved soon because I wanted to do a stub for The childrens charity "The Playground Project", and also for the movie "Coven" I made the first entry on the 7th, when I actually had time off from work, I greatly improved this and researched how to do a proper page. Thanks much, Charlene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.254 (talk • contribs)
Comment I commented early on in this debate and I have to say I'm still not convinced by the sources as per Morgan Wick's analysis. The latest source is pretty sketchy. I think she could well be notable in the future but not now, and to keep on the chance that her next film will make her notable would be crystal balling. Mallanox 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, some of the sources in that list were of questionable reliability, not completely lacking in it. Morgan Wick 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Mallanox, I dont mean to be rude, but for Gods sake you're in ENGLAND! I don't know what Fish and Chips are ...doesnt mean its not important!!! :O) of course you wont know an up-and-coming like Arden, and its a shame you think only the Julia Roberts and such are noteworthy..I mean Coven was narrated by LEELEE Sobreski, shes an A-lister!! thats pretty impressive and shes produced a movie with George Clooney for Gods sake ..have you???

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 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Enescu[edit]

Per WP:Notability. The player hasn't been on pitch for Steaua 1st team. No verifiable references provided. Can't have a two line article for every football player in all leagues in all countries Javit 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom: not notable. Turgidson 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has he played for the team he was sold to? It's article says it's in the top Rumanian league, in which case he would be notable enough. Clarityfiend 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no evidence that Enescu has made a first team appearance for either Steaua or Pandurii. In fact, it looks like he isn't even part of the Pandurii Târgu-Jiu first team yet [5]. The article can be recreated when he makes a first-team appearance at an appropriate level (whatever that is for Romanian clubs.) Scottmsg 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Angelo 02:19, 12 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 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugball[edit]

Procedural nom - Restored from PROD After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google search gets lots of hits for Rugball, but it appears to refer to a number of independently-invented games with unrelated rules. The russian game appears better established than the Goshen one. Either need a neutral article describing the various games with this name, or an article on Goshen Rugball, which might not meet notability guidelines. Capmango 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tell me what form of WP:N, this falls under? --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I said might not meet notability guidelines, which was my attempt at being polite and assuming good faith. sigh again. Capmango 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite literally something made up at school one day. ~ Infrangible 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - There is an article from the Goshen College school newspaper featuring this game. Would citing this source add to the notability/credibility of the article? Also, would the best approach be to create a page for both Russian Rugball as well as Goshen Rugball? Though I would agree the Russian game is far more established than the Goshen version, I would say the Goshen version, in turn, is somewhat more legitimized than some of the other sites returned by Google. Maybe not. Thoughts? Mrody 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this is something that is "made up in school one day", it seems to have spread out and mentioned by a school newspaper independent of the origin. There may be a small pinch of notability here.--Kylohk 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - popularity spread is asserted but not backed up with reliable sources, and found none in searching. -- Whpq 16:33, 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 delete. W.marsh 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magee (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a biography of a living person, yet there are no reliable third party sources cited whatsoever. I don't believe such sources exist, so this article will always be in violation of WP:BLP. GlassFET 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of (how many?) founders of the Register is of extremely limited notability. The Register is not as notable as it seems to us because internet-related stuff is overrepresented due to our demographic. Founded another online mag, which is bluelinked. This is still not enough. We don't have founder information except for very notable entities. Furthermore, the inclusion of links such as "The post that got Magee fired from The Register" makes my nervous indeed, that this is or could be scurrilous information and thus a violation of WP:BLP. Herostratus 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moreschi ^Talk 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the (co-)founder of two technology publications would seem notable, there are too few reliable sources for a balanced article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 12 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 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file sharing networks[edit]

Seem's unnecessary, doesn't really compare anything. More details about clients than a comparisan. had prodded but user removed Matt - TheFearow 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It appears to be the result of a split discussion at Talk:Peer-to-peer. The original content appears to be from Peer-to-peer#Networks, protocols and applications. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-User has also created other articles with identical content (minus AFD tag) under different names. I changed them to redirects. Matt - TheFearow 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me an arbitrary collection of data. I see nothing wrong with the idea of having a comparison of file sharing networks (although I think this is quite small enough to fit into Peer-to-peer), but there is no real context here, no explanation of why any of this is being compared. Comparison of file sharing applications has the amount of context I think should be aimed for. Someguy1221 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:01, 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. W.marsh 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpoena (band)[edit]

Non notable band. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment claim of a 19-state tour, if true, would maybe establish notability. Then again, that tour is still in the future, so maybe not. Capmango 05:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the tour starts in a month, someone who edited the page, made a mistake and said 19 states, it's really only 16-17. You can also buy their EP online from sites such as Interpunk, showing some notability. Also, the label they are signed to, Infidel Records, is run by Rob Grenoble, who has worked with the Dismemberment Plan and Antigone Rising which happened to be well notbale bands. So if Grenoble signed Subpoena, they must be doing something right. Also, the biography part of the Subpoena page, someone made it more like a fanpage and I will fix it up, if the page ends up not being deleted.--Thakur24 16:56, 12 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 an original research POV fork. --Core desat 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid[edit]

A db-nonsense tagging which got complicated. See long discussion in Talk:Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Anthony Appleyard 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As background, this timeline started in the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and sparked a revert war for several days, in which one faction deleted the article and another restored it. After a few days of this, I moved the timeline to a separate article, the one we're now discussing. The subject is controversial and editing has been contentious. --John Nagle 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article looks like a timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a few items related to people referring to Israel or its policies as apartheid. Appropriate portions of the the article should be merged with Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. Indeed it does look like "a timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a few items related to people referring to Israel or its policies as apartheid," but this is because bad-faith editors hoping for a merge/delete have intentionally loaded it with irrelevancies, original research, and WP:POINT violations in order to create the appearance you're talking about. The "few items" you refer to were the ones added by good-faith editors, and constitute the raison d'être of the article. Keep/delete recommendations should not be based on a vandalized version of the timeline.--G-Dett 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly false. Even if you eliminated the WP:POINT violations, the article is still WP:OR: you cannot possibly make a timeline of a debate or idea. Its illogical.--Cerejota 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can have a timeline for a debate or an idea.--G-Dett 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be acceptable to me.--Cerejota 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (in fact, isn't POV-forking Speedy Delete???) - this is a POV fork. Instead of debating the contentious inclusion of this timeline in the appropriate page, editors who disagree with not including it have created this page.--Cerejota 06:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two votes by same user. Please change one to "Comment". Thanks. --John Nagle 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote.

In fact, people who only put a vote-like comments get generally ignored.

This is a discussion to seek consensus. Please readWP:AfD. You have much to learn, little padawan...

The point of my comments is that this AfD should not be about the notability, verifiability, or otherwise the quality of the material, but the fact that presenting it in a timeline and under a POV fork makes no sense. So its either delete or merge with the only possibly non-pov place these things fit...a merge basically means a delete that keeps the information somewhere else. --Cerejota 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just back door point of view pushing. Nick mallory 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a merge of anything unique and sourced per Cerejota. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and original research (which includes "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" per: WP:OR). ~~If "merger" is really an issue I support that as well (with deletion of this article), but I believe that all of the information is already in one or both of the articles mentioned by Malik Shabazz.~~ The material in this timeline/article can be considered for inclusion in the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No new timeline should be created in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. 6SJ7 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until trolling/disruption/vandalism etc. dies down, then merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid.--G-Dett 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until trolling/disruption/vandalism etc. dies down, then merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Best idea I've heard so far. This thing needs to settle down a bit. --John Nagle 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is trolling and vandalism is because this page, an obvious POV fork (as you admit in here), practically invites the practice. I am not excusing the obvious trolling and vadalism, however, you cannot possibly expect to disrupt wikipedia with a POV fork and then everything be calm.--Cerejota 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete shameless prejudice drivel - the sort of thing that makes it hard for sensible people to take wikipedia seriously. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POVFORK of Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork and OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The timeline is indeed beset by a great deal of original research, but almost all of it has been inserted by Jayjg in an obvious violation of WP:POINT. As the apparent goal of thus defacing the article was to influence an AFD, it would be helpful if editors would make an effort not to go along with the ploy.--G-Dett 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This particular timeline is inherently OR. 6SJ7 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The items I added were obviously more relevant to this topic than the nonsensical or irrelevant trivia on G-Dett's "approved" list, such as a polemic by the Soviet ambassador to the U.N. during the height of the cold war, or the founding of the State of Israel, or the Yom Kippur war. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment While it is true that Jayjg is doing WP:POINT, the very existence of this article is [[WP:POINT]. To evils do not make one good. The reason this AfD will succeed is because this article has no reason to as per the explanations given in Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid.--Cerejota 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hardly WP:POINT; the items I added were infinitely more relevant to the evolution of the current situation than most of the nonsense on the list as originally created by John Nagle. I admonish you to assume good faith; I was actually turning the list into something meaningful and relevant, before it was brought to AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please. I admonish you to show respect for WP:AGF by not demanding such credulity from your fellow editors. None of your two-dozen some additions are cited to sources relating them to Israeli apartheid. They are brazen violations of WP:NOR. Not borderline, not iffy. Just totally brazen. If they were plunked down by a three-week-old newbie editor, it would be important to assume good faith and patiently explain the rule against original research. For an editor/admin of your experience, and one moreover who prides himself on being an OR strict constructionist, the violation of WP:POINT is undeniable. If you have specific complaints about the items that have been added to this list in good faith, then articulate them specifically, but don't make vague attacks to deflect from your own disruptions.--G-Dett 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my Delete statement below, where your comments (past, current, and future) are fully addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My comments focused on your apparent violations of WP:POINT and WP:NOR. You do not address this "fully" or even in part – here, below, elsewhere, anywhere. And on the talk page of the article we're discussing you have categorically refused to cite any of your two-dozen-plus additions to any sources that deal with allegations of Israeli apartheid, or to say how you feel they could be in compliance with policy.--G-Dett 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Malik Shabazz. CJCurrie 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entries not relating to title (about here is good) and Merge back into Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. —Ashley Y 06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. --Cerejota 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, inherently OR. No "Timelines of Israeli apartheid" exist in the verifiable, non-original research real world, only in that rarefied Wikipedia world where the usual suspects POV-push, and their abettors and co-dependents whine on Talk: pages and AfD discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an original research aimed at pov-pushing. creator should be sanctionned. Alithien 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the point? This "article" hasn't a hope of ever conveying any useful information to the reader. Too many broken articles like this on the Is/Pal conflict already, do we really need another one? Gatoclass 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense and Wikipedia's disgrace. Beit Or 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment. Roughly two-thirds of the items on this timeline were intentional violations of WP:NOR, added by an editor who opposes this article on grounds of original research (not an unwitting irony but rather a deliberate WP:POINT). Editors should have a look at this version before voting; though arguably flawed, it reflects the good-faith version of the timeline.--G-Dett 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entire timeline is an intentional violation of WP:NOR, created by an editor who deliberately and openly created a POVfork. The issue is compounded by G-Dett's persistently bad-faith focus on other editors, rather than article content, and by G-Dett's persistent attempts to keep the POV in the article as one-sided as possible, not permitting any opposing views into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, unequivocal delete - this is nothing but original research, an attempt to retrofit carefully selected past events to fit a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)
Delete - This bizarre list was not allowed into the main article because of WP:OR concerns and wide opposition, so it is now POVforked into a new article, hoping that in this new form it'll survive. Sounds very illogical to me. Noon 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G-Dett; too many messes trying to convey this or that point of view instead of neutral, quality entries. Any events that are objectively related to Allegations of Israeli apartheid are already discussed at length in that entry, and any synthesis of a timeline is only bound to offend everyone and accomplish nothing. Tewfik^Talk 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to it being a POV fork and Original Research. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:14, 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 delete. Sandahl 00:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLV[edit]

GLV is an acronym for "gained life value", a non-notable term coined by a "noted educator" who doesn't even have an article. All Google hits for "gained life value" are Wikipedia and mirrors except one blog post. szyslak 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as externally unsourced and unverifiable. -- saberwyn 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLT. This definition is not listed in two acronym dictionaries I checked. Clarityfiend 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rare term, and all links to it are either from AFD or are completely unrelated acronyms. Matt - TheFearow 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to be searched often, plus wikipedia is not a acronym dictionary --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sleep two hours less a night? I'm worthless with 1 hour less. ~ Infrangible 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What if you sleep two hours a night as it is? RFerreira 07:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as breaches WP:OR and is a complete load of WP:BOLLOCKS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:58, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Vengeance[edit]

Solar Vengeance is a game that is part of a "'somewhat esoteric' game developer with a community of roughly 30 players". The community that created it, Silicon Commander Games, was deleted for non notability. I don't see how a game created by a non-notable organization is notable in any way. It was also suggested by Dr bab that Solar Vengeance be deleted during the deletion debate for Silicon Commander Games.

For all of the above reasons, delete. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, much of the article looks like it is copied-and-pasted from somewhere else. However, if that is true and that part (the FAQ heading down) is removed, the rest of the article still does not qualify for notability. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. csloat 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —LactoseTI^T 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:43, 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 wasDelete, though this doesnt preclude restoration if the player plays a first class match as per WP:CRICKET guidelines Gnan garra 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worrin Williams[edit]

Non notable cricketer who does not meet WP:CRICKET guidelines for notability in that he has not played at first class or List A level at this stage. Mattinbgn/^talk 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cricket notability gudelines. —Moondyne 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Part of a squad for a first class team that has not yet been selected for a first class match. Has also been selected for indigenous sides see [6] and Queensland youth sides. This is a borderline case as he has coverage in Google News Archive [7] and Google News [8]. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep named article here and respectable enough mention regarding a Twenty-20 game.Ga rr ie 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, section on Athletes. Sportsmen who've only played for Youth teams aren't notable enough yet, however much people predict great things for them. (And Garrie's Twenty20 citation only says that he was at the game but didn't play!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalroadster's list unfortunately included a lot of articles where he is one of a list of mentioned players - but the two I linked clearly discuss him individually. I think that is sufficient for the primary inclusion criteria at WP:N.
- If that's what's easily found online I'm sure there's more offline.Ga rr ie 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, normally I'd say that as he's not actually played he's not notable enough for inclusion, but the fact that he's in the squad and probably will play in the near term, as well as the other references, makes it good enough for me to keep. Lankiveil 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per cricket notability guidelines. Orderinchaos 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he's any good he'll soon make his Queensland debut and it can be recreated then. Unless a non first class player does something remarkable or is important in the history of the game then they shouldn't be included. We expect a vast number of first class and list A players to be in without question - quite rightly - so we have to be fair and not add people who don't yet qualify. Nick mallory 12:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would easily qualify as a keep if all the newspaper references to him were included in the article. There are so many (compared to what is usually accepted these days for notability) that he would easily meet the multiple secondary source criteria in WP:BIO irrespective of him not playing representative yet. Assize 12:53, 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. Tyrenius 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overton Loyd[edit]

~~Apparent autobiography~~ Article apparently heavily edited by article subject, that fails to meet notability criteria per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me say up front that I have been the chief contributor to the article. Until today, the subject's only contributions had been two external links (one of which I helped fix). Today I see that he addded a section with "Exhibitions"; had I seen it, I would have deleted it as fluff. Regarding notability, Leuko and I spoke about it last month. I added several references that established notability (I thought) and Leuko removed his objections. Here's the article as it stood before the subject made any edits. I can provide additional references if notability remains an issue . — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I have added more information to the article about Loyd's contributions to Parliament-Funkadelic, along with two more books that discuss him inter alia. As I wrote in the article, Loyd's biggest role with the band was related to Motor Booty Affair, for which he drew the artwork and designed the costumes. There has been a book written about that album and tour, which discusses him at length. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, concerning "heavily edited": Most of the subject's edits have been minor. For example, his 7 edits on June 5 were an effort to create a single external link. In a similar vein, with his first 6 edits today he created 3 references to some of his published work. Since being informed of WP's COI policy, he has reverted all of his edits except 2 external links that I think are appropriate and, had I known of them, I might have put included them myself. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to me passes WP:BIO for creative professionals. Capmango 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:37, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-fifty-one[edit]

Prod removed by editor (not creator of article). It's a car that allegedly has a "cult follwoing" but I can find no info to verify this. Wildthing61476 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a copy of the page at [9]. I will tag it db-copyvio. Leave this afd here just in case the tag is removed again. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 21:11, 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 nom withdrawn. I am not an admin, in case we have to clarify that now. Morgan Wick 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Bunch (animated film)[edit]

~~Spam page created by spam account. Does not assert notability.~~ Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See other spam creations, such as Ayelet weinerman by Douglaswood (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in Variety establishes notability. Capmango 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Withdraw AFD for this entry. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 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 speedied as spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FingerSmears[edit]

Non-notable painting technique by non-notable artist; advertising. Only 4 Google hits for 'FingerSmears Sullivan'. Corvus cornix 20:44, 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. --Core desat 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice[edit]

Fails WP:V as sources simply demonstrate that it exists not that it is notable. Delete. TerriersFan 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on the group have been deleted twice. If the group's not notable, neither is the album. Deor 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor: if the group isn't notable, the album isn't either. Closenplay 15:04, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. Donovan Mullaney[edit]

Evidently written by subject; needs review. Chick Bowen 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thinnest of thin assertions of notability. "Poems have appeared in" the New York Review (an open-posting website for creatives, not the New York Review of Books) & The Watermark, a journal he edits. This may be a step up from chapbooks, but it's not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notabilty. Accomplishments do not distinguish this individual from other aspiring poets. -- Whpq 16:37, 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. Anthony Appleyard 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats & Bullies : The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story[edit]

Short documentary film; speedy-tagged as spam (see author's contribution history). I declined speedy because the article at least asserts the film's notability (2 indep. news sources). Bringing here for full discussion. NawlinWiki 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (so far). I am not sure yet whether this has sufficient notability to remain, but I fully agree with the decision to discuss it here --Zeraeph 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a short, it's 102 minutes. It won two awards at the 2004 Thunderbird International Film Festival, whatever that is. It seems a worthy and very high-quality product. It seems to have impinged itself to a small extent upon Canadian conscousness. Herostratus 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is Thunderbird International Film Festival and here is 2004 Thunderbird International Film Festival at IMDB. See what you think. I admit to feeling prejudiced against this film by the promotional activities of the Producer on Wikipedia, not because it was against all policy (though it was), but rather because it looked SO unprofessional to me that is gave me a sense of the documentary as unprofessional. However it does seem that it might be a worthwhile project after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs) 11 June 2007

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelet weinerman[edit]

Non-notable entertainment executive per WP:BIO. The author, Douglaswood (talk · contribs), is apparently a business associate of article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline PR spam as it reads like her CV. --Evb-wiki 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of torn. The COI is concerning, but I do find some major media mentions about her as a part of the new animation studio (which seems to have some buzz behind it). She's quoted on SFGate.com[10], and mentioned in the Jerusalem Post article[11], as well as a number of other media mentions - but in most cases, it's just mentioning her name. She is recognized in a couple of industry trades as a veteran of the industry, but not a lot is out there on that. Thus, sort-of-weak delete until more referencing becomes available. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. Without non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources, not much to build an encyclopedia article upon. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam account adding spam pages. And who chooses a name that has weinerman as part of the title? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, uh, assume her parents or husband (if she's married) had something to do with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that it's her real name. I believe it means "resident of Vienna". --Charlene 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if sources can be found. Animation Lab presidency could be a claim to notability. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does seem to be reliable source [12][13][14] Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources now added into article and stubbed. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. President of an animation company that is working on its first film? Puleaze. Let it be a big hit first, then we'll talk. Clarityfiend 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite, she's also a "a celebrated Israeli producer of major TV commercials". Puleaze. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources have been found. As long as there's verifiable information that is enough to write an article, it must be kept. nadav (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment the latter two sources ([15], [16]) seem to be discussing the same event/film, while the IMDB listing is minimal [Girlfriends (1994) (production assistant)]. I'm not sure that this satisfies 'multiple, non-trivial coverage', but I'm not sure that it fails either. Perhaps we can find a second non-trivial mention, or maybe merge into an entry on the film in the meantime? Tewfik^Talk 04:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found only one Hebrew source with her name [17] (from Haaretz), and it's based on the Animation Magazine source. Changed my vote to weak keep. nadav (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of multiple non-trivial third party sources, and reads like a resume to boot. RFerreira 05:33, 12 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 speedily redirected to Pirates of the Caribbean films#Future. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the caribbean 4[edit]

Prod removed without reason by author. As of right now a 4th Pirates movie is being considered, but has not been finalized, much less been decided upon. Any talk right now is speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am also adding Pirates of the Caribbean: The Fountain of Youth as it is essentially the same article. Wildthing61476 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. +Not notable as nonexistent. --Evb-wiki 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation on an unconfirmed possible event IdreamofJeanie 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence, all speculative, researched originally, and crystal balling. Therequiembellishere 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, merely at discussion phase -- too early per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Timan123 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as crystal ball, with option for recreation if and only if core facts including the title, director, major cast members, and a release date more specific than the year can be indicated and verified through the use of external, non-trivial, reliable sources independant of the film's creators, cast, and licensing company. -- saberwyn 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per crystal balling, article is just going off of speculation of recent current articles promoting the movie. Wait for more confirmed articles down the road. --Nehrams2020 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - put any worthwhile content into the Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_films article, and delete. Matt - TheFearow 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, only if externally verifiable, reliably sourced, and independant. -- saberwyn 03:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, save none of it. Whs itc hy 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL --Fredrick day 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unfortunately, I'm not either. Useight 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is already snowballing and to be honest, I don't see any way that these articles could possibly be saved. We've already had a few other articles about this movie which were essentially like these two in every way, only with different titles. Since all the information that the two nominated articles contain, can already be found in the Pirates of the Caribbean films article (where it's properly sourced) and due to the fact that it's a crystal clear WP:CRYSTAL violation (no pun intended), I don't see much point in prolonging the inevitable. I do, however, anticipate that deleting the article wouldn't prevent well-meaning editors who are not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL from recreating it (even with the deletion log in plain view). Therefore, I'm speedily redirecting both articles in the spirit of being bold to Pirates of the Caribbean films#Future. --Seed 2.0 20:25, 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. W.marsh 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General manager (football)[edit]

Already listed in List of current NFL staffs. Also, the term "general manager" doesn't apply to most of these names (i.e. Scott Pioli is V.P. of Player Personnel, and Bill Belichick is considered the de facto GM). Pats1 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article was worth keeping, it should be renamed to "List of NFL general managers", but as pointed out, it's redundant to the other article. fuzzy510 22:18, 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. >Radiant< 11:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Jerzey Devil[edit]

non notable. Entirely unsourced. Original research. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Only albums are mixtapes produced on a label that has produced only a single record. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google has about 150 relevant hits, but the top few are from WP, myspace and similar. A couple of sentences should be merged into The Black Wall Street Records. YechielMan 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article will be edited for sources, the article does fall under the correct procedures for a noteable persons page, and person is currently produceing more songs and releasing mixtapes and is a member of more then one page --- KingTee 15:58, 03 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only produces mixtapes for a minor label. We should just redirect it to The Black Wall Street Records. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Article has been edited for all needed sources, "person" produces songs for other people, and has scored the music for a mainstream d.v.d, owns his own record label, and is a dj and hosting his own mixtapes. So it meets up to ALL the neccesary needs for wikipedia. Secondly correcting user "Efil4tselaer: Resurrected" The person in question, produces for a distributed label --- KingTee 21:23 , 04 June 2007 (UTC)

It is still minor. It only released one mixtape as a group and no actual studio albums. Also, just in case you were going to say "you do not know enough about the record label"... I am a fan of The Game, I have their The Black Wall Street Journal Vol. 1 mixtape OK? That should tell you something, if a fan of his music does not think he is notable enough then maybe he really isn't notable enough. I am actually pretty surprised that the article for The Black Wall Street Records has not been deleted. They don't have any notable artists (other than The Game), and they didn't release any major studio albums yet, only mixtapes. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only produces mixtapes for a minor label. We should just redirect it to The Black Wall Street Records. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 21:41, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Awareness of Fire Education[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. Google results suggest that this is a program in one state (Massachusetts) but has no large-scale notability. Contested prod. Metros 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were gone in 5 years, I think nobody would care to reference it. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-sourced and non-notable. I guess every organised fire service in the world has similar programmes; certainly the fire brigade in my county in England has an education programme and it similarly lacks any notability. TerriersFan 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fire safety education which is an encyclopedic topic that is not only of national importance but international importance as well. Do a Google on "fire safety education". --Richard 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oppose merge - well, the new article needs to be rewritten from sources - at the moment it is OR. But, in any case, we don't want a non-notable local programme merged into a general article or we would have thousands of examples. TerriersFan 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited safety education program - oppose merge for same reasons as above, -- Whpq 16:40, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sins O' the Flesh[edit]

Delete - one of many, many local groups that perform along with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There do not appear to be any independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of this particular group. The article is sourced by the group's website (not independent), the website of its home theatre (not independent) and the IMDB page for what appears to be a direct-to-DVD documentary that features this cast as one of five casts interviewed. A7 speedy tag removed by user asking for time to conduct original research for the article which, since it's original research, is not a good reason for retaining the article. Otto4711 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not conform to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:35, 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 redirect (content can still be merged). W.marsh 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trispzest[edit]

This fictional lightsaber combat style is non-notable even by WP:FICT; only mention of the style comes from an article from the producers of the RPG [[18]]. The mention of the style in the article Lightsaber Combat is probably more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. GJD 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Star wars trivia -- Whpq 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small amount of this sourced info into the main light saber combat article and redirect. Eluchil404 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Perhaps some of the info could be merged as suggested above, but I'm not sure this is necessary. Content should be deleted and article redirected to Lightsaber Combat whether or not any material is merged.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegavox[edit]

Article is not even a complete sentence and in no way establishes notability of the instrument type/model in question. No context of notability whatsoever. Bumm13 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eddie Peabody. There's more information there, anyway. Someguy1221 07:43, 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. W.marsh 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emcads[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. The article is not written in the proper tone, but I cannot determine the notability of the product based on the available information. Chick Bowen 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google query returns under 1000 items with top items related to the trademark registration, marketing materials and pages from the developers website(s). The product appears not to have any active userbase and the technology itself has not seen any peer reviews at the moment. Therefore, formally, the article does not satisfy the very basic notability guideline, which is a significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Alex Pankratov 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex thanks for your remarks, I hope I will get a chance to change the "first attempt" of this document to avoid removal. It has now been greatly edited by one of the guys who created the patent. You are right the technology and hence the subject is very new. How old does a subject have to be before it can be referenced in an encyclopedia? A topic should be deemed notable by definition not simply by association. If someone found a cure for cancer using an unknown compound. Is that compound notable? Do we ignore it because no one has heard of it? Ron Wilkins 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, it merely records well established notable facts. So the answer to your last question is YES. The cancer cure compound will not likely be included in Wikipedia until it gets enough publicity, accumulates some peer reviews and/or perhaps stirs a notable controversy. In any case, it won't make it to Wikipedia until it becomes notable.

I have no principle objections to keeping Emcads article, but it needs to be (further) trimmed down to one or two sections. In its current state it does not have accurate and factual summary, it is heavy on unimportant details, it is hard to follow. It also implies the alleged notability of its authors (e.g. are they notable for something else aside from "conceiving the technology") and it very heavy on "tm" usage. The "tm" is not commonly used in Wikipedia (if ever), have a look for example at Skype entry.

The article still reads like an ad/marketing material, i.e. something that _you_ as a developer would like to tell the readers. This introduces natural POV, which is considered one of the greatest Wikipedia's no-nos. The article must be told from neutral point of view, and for that it needs to be edited by people experienced, but not directly affiliated with the subject matter. And, as you can probably already see, these people won't exist if the subject matter is not notable. Therefore the notability is a natural requirement for producing POV-free articles.

The best bet at the moment in my opinion is to reduce the article to Stub, let your technology/product mature and the proper article will follow naturally. Otherwise there is a very good chance it will get deleted. Alex Pankratov 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart of missing formal notability problems the text is not written in encyclopedic style (overview of a topic in a broader context). I doub't it could be rewritten that way. Pavel Vozenilek 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete, i.e. convert to Stub or delete if it stays in its present form. See my remark above. Alex Pankratov 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking multiple non-trivial reliable sources at present; agree it needs a rewrite if it stays. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken and unterstood. I will need a little time to greatly reduce the content. Thank you all for the pointers to skype and OpenVPN. Ron Wilkins 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is too obviously written as an ad, mostly by a single user, (Rocketron5), who is no doubt personally involved (POV). It seems such user is trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of his product, which is not acceptable. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, please refrain from personal attacks. Alex Pankratov 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Apologies Ron Wilkins

Still working on the contents of the emcads document. Looking at pointers. Ron Wilkins

Delete on grounds that this article is a very bad case of Spam. --Gavin Collins 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a simple article now which is "what it is" and "what it does" plus a little of "how it does it". Only brief mention of the company as to who owns the technology and the product it is used for. I'm not clear how this article can be termed spam as it is not trying to sell you anything. Rocketron5 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Green Wing[edit]

In a reversal of the usual "cultural references" articles, this one collects references within a show to other pieces of pop culture. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and trivia sections are to be avoided either within articles or as free-standing articles. The items mentioned are not notable for having been mentioned on Green Wing and they have nothing in common past the mention. Otto4711 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A version of this article under the title "Green Wing trivia" was AFDed a year ago and closed no consensus with sparse participation. Otto4711 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So many of these type of articles have already been deleted, and this is just a junk trivia fork. Biggspowd 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Is this a new trend for articles? It's like an "In popular culture" article in reverse. Masaruemoto 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several other articles has a cultural references section, such as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. ISD 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. Otto4711 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:44, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capo Famiglia Records[edit]

NN label, created by someone working for the label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP, etc Lugnuts 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; no sources given Αργυριου (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see even a credible assertion of notability here. Eluchil404 18:22, 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 delete, clearly fails WP:BAND, potential sockpuppetry. Sr 13 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Evolution[edit]

An Irish punk band. Contested speedy deletion. Relevant guideline is WP:MUSIC. Chick Bowen 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, unsourced, and fails WP:BAND. tomasz. 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete. They State there record history and even radio airplay it matches other bands and if u delete them u may aswell delete all unsigned bands - Jamie F—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.159.6 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The band's releases are self-published. No outside sources, either. The featured interview on radio is about the only thing they have going towards notability and on its own it doesn't cut it. Closenplay 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dont Delete~~ there is a link to a festival they headlined 3 gigs, as for self publication indie labels in the area are few if not non existant and not very punk to sell out now is it? - Jamie again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.159.6 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- One "vote" per editor, please. Closenplay 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Hey I Wrote The article does i think that deleting based on not being the biggest band around is just plain stupid think about it, its information if anyones researching them its there when its needed and isnt that what wikipedias about? its not to advertise its not mindless bulls**t i think i put across a decent article and am very against deleting it as its a reference to a local band in there area user:randomevo
Dont Delete Hiya, I live in the states and have heard of this band, and believe that they will become a very influential part of Irish punk. I personally like them a lot more than big SIGNED bands (which I don't know if I'm allowed to post the names as they might be copyrighted). Indie rock is a driving force for all bands around the world. If you think about it all bands started out indie, and probably had help from the internet, such as Wikipedia and other sites as well. Don't delete this page due to the fact that some ignorant people may say "they have no credibility". It shows that they have done radio interviews, and they are self produced with some amazing quality sound work. I was surprised when I heard it. Also I am almost positive that more credibility will be added quite soon. Don't delete this page. — Rock the sock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Dont Delete This band is a real band and their article is just like any other band article. Don't delete this page. User:DarkBunny 23:49, 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 delete. Will reconsider if someone shows me sources (see WP:CORP) W.marsh 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weed music distribution service[edit]

Article contains no assertion of notability, nor any evidence of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Speedy delete tag removed by anonIP. Αργυριου (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weed Distibution is noted as a viable and valuable source in "Modern Recording Techniques Sixth* Edition Randomevo 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (* Not Sure On The Editon)[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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecession[edit]

Been sourceless for the 10 months since its creation, half of which it has been tagged as needing references. Googling only brings up ~300 hits, most of which are wikis/mirrors and none of which are remotely reliable. Delete as original research/unverifiable term. Wickethewok 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, non-notable neologism (or nnn). The term seems to have originated in the wiki's linked in the article, and if not, I see no evidence that it has received any attention from independent sources. Charlie 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is based on a point of view that cannot be substantiated by any source. --Gavin Collins 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 897[edit]

Very non-notable event, engine fire, no major damage, no one was hurt. There are two refs, but this falls into the category of news of the moment without any lasting importance. Though we at the Air Accident Task Force haven't finalized incident/accident notability standards, this most certainly would fall outside of them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that rather POV comment on the article's talk page as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For reasons given. - BillCJ 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a larger article on, or list of airline accidents. There can be an article of ones by country, or by year, or by airline. The individual events may not deserve their own article space, but there needs to be an article consisting of the shorter incidents. Airline safety is an important topic. For an example see: List of United States foodborne illness outbreaks --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed, would not be notable for the airline accident page either. MilborneOne 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Strongly disagree with proposed deletion -- This was a flight to Beijing from Washington. What if the fire occurred over the Pacific or Washington D.C. and fire containment systems failed? This incident is of note just for that foreseeable possibility of this kind of event. Such an incident, if the engine had cought fire over the ocean, could have resulted in the loss of all 349 people on the flight. If fire containment systems had failed over Washington D.C., you could conceivably have a situation like the 747 that lost one engine, which knocked another engine of the wing, resulting in loss of control, where the 747 crashed into an apartment building, killing many more people than were on the cargo plane. Post 9/11, this incident should receive permanent mention here and the investigation results should be tracked here fro the public to see. If fire containment systems had failed ove Washington, D.C., you could have easily had a fully fueled out of control jet much larger than any hijacked on 9/11 crashing into the Capitol, White House, Pentagon, etc., causing a castrophe much greater that that the terrorists caused in Washington on 9/11. I know these engines intimately, as I used to inspect their build up into an assembly from a core engine while I was an inspector at Boeing. I also inspected the struts/pylons that held these engines to the wings. You can find some of my experiences as an inspector at Boeing at thelastinspector.com. After viewing that info, I don't think you will be about as non-confident as I am about the integrity of these fire detection and containment systems. Indeed, just before I left Boeing, I identified many flaws in the engineering of the fire detection systems of these very engines. I have no idea if these defects I reported to Engineering were ever fixed. Remember that when you want to deep six this type of crucial information for the public. Its a good thing the fire was noticed by the crew/passengers on this flight. Even though noone died, there should be a section of this web site that compiles all of these mear-miss disasters and tracks their causes. The Last Inspector 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_897"[reply]
- comment - (partial copy of my response to this on the talk page) First of all, Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, and we aren't interested in "what if's" Our standards involve notability, and articles here are evaluated based on whether it meets certain criteria. Engine fires just are not that uncommon, and you can see that in the NTSB database. Because we're not an advocacy site, our articles are not vehicles to expose information to the public or to otherwise promote your concerns with Boeing. Further, your username being that as your website name raises some serious conflict of interest and NPOV questions, as does these comments being your very first edits at Wikipedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "What if it had been notable" is a new argument, at least to me. Offers infinite possibilities...DGG 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not sure if I would want a list of (ex.) "Aviation Incidents - Engine Fires" other than ones resulting in loss of life or aircraft (I think a comprehensive list would be thousands of entries, and essentially trivia.) Even near-misses are problematic for a list (again, a shockingly large number occur, and formal reports issued on, every year). Regarding what *might* have happened, I don't think that is relevant. Factual content about catastrophic pylon failure is best kept in articles such as El Al Flight 1862, or the similar China Airlines 747 cargo crash in 1991. Lipsticked Pig 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As serious as such incidents are with strong potential for catastrophic structural failure, loss of hydraulics, electrics or fuel lines, etc etc, the fact of the matter is that this did not develop into anything that we don't see time and time again on airliners; there really is too many of these to cover encyclopaedically. There must be one or two of these every week worldwide - more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there was talk of a standard for air accidents and incidents a while back that showed there wasn't even consensus for including all scheduled commercial flight accidents with fatalities, let alone minor incidents such as this. Sure, it could've been worse, but so could lots of things. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a link to said discusion - not for any practicle purpose, just to satisfy my couriousity. The only discusion on the matter I've ever seen is four AfDs where it was decided a crash with fatalities is automatically notable - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohawk Airlines Flight 411, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohawk Airlines Flight 405, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 Rochester air crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwork Flight 23. Now I'm at it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air West Flight 612 is relevant, tto, as an example of a nonfatal article being kept. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This extremely minor incident is not that unusual. Wikipedia doesn't have a written policy regarding aviation accidents and incidents, but there is precedent that accidents causing major loss of life (the number depends on the year), terrorist attacks or hijackings, the first accident of an aircraft type or design (say, the first accident involving a turboprop engine worldwide), or any accident that causes a major change in the way the airlines do business (e.g. causes them to sell off an aircraft type en masse or almost puts a major airline out of business) are notable. As it stands, this extremely minor incident (do you *know* how many engines catch fire every week in the US alone, let alone worldwide??) is not notable. --Charlene 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Airlines. 132.205.44.134 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - way not-notable enough for a general airline overview article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. This is Just not a notable enough incident to mention in either the airline or airliner articles. - BillCJ 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is "noticeable" partly because of the final paragraph in the article. it may not be the most disastrous of accident, but it has a high visibility due to its high profile route -- two most important capitals in the world, with a lot of high-profile people flying on this route regularly, i think the engine fire is very noticeable. also, somebody said engine fires happen all the time ("every week") -- is that actually true? i mean, do planes burn and dump their fuel all the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.11.211 (talk • contribs)
- First, it's "notable", not "noticeable". I'm not being picky, it's actually important around here. Second, the route is irrelevent. United Airlines is a general overview article, and only the most significant accidents get mentioned there. Third, dumping fuel is standard practice for an emergency air turnback, to get the plane light enough for landing. It's a precaution that is part of the standard operational practices. Mechanical failures may not happen every day, but they are certainly frequent. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not apparent from the cited news articles that this was an uncontained engine failure; consequently there may not even be an official NTSB investigation Lipsticked Pig 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - I did a query of the NTSB database], using all of 2007 and United as search parameters and nothing on this flight came up. This makes it even less notable. It might well have only warranted a Mechanical Interuption Summary to the FAA. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started this entry precisely because it was very notable. How many engine fires get reported on the Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, China's official news agency Xinhua [19], multiple national papers and publications in greater China? (just a few Chinese references here) [20] [21] [22] This may not be a serious aviation incident, but it's a very notable public incident. And for an airline that tried so hard to lobby for a route like this by setting up huge campaigns and made it one of its most high-profile flights, a fire like this is certainly notable. I think this is something that people would want to read about when they check on United Airlines. A lot of these arguments here make perfect sense to me, but people are all using their own standards in judging it, i.e., agreed-upon guidelines are necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinmiedoanada (talk • contribs)

Since this discussion is going to be referenced later in notability discussions, I'd like to point out that the reason the notability standards require multiple non-trivial secondary sources is because it is assumed that they will take place over time. When multiple sources occur on the same day, and then the incident is quickly forgotten (meaning it's not mentioned again in the media), that doesn't confer the same kind of notability. The fact that there aren't follow up reports indicates a lack of notability. As to the Chinese reports you've mentioned, one of them even says "Aviation officials said while such incident doesn't occur often, it's not uncommon that a jet will lose an engine in flight." None of the reports say the aircraft caught on fire, just that the tower reported seeing flames coming out of the back of the engine. This, thus, isn't even a real engine fire. What happened is nothing more than a technical malfunction that got blown way out of proportion by the media. Media sensationalism, based on technical ignorance by reporters compounded by the ability of wire services to instantly transmit a story around the world, does not connote true notability. The point I'm making here, for the record, is that there's a difference between mulitple media reports that happen all at once, which are essentially mirrors of each other, and on-going media coverage. The endurance of the coverage is the true source of the notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working up to starting guidlines recently, and we've begun discusing what they should be today - please go here to contribute to the discusion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Engine fires happen. If we start having an article on each one, this is no longer an encyclopedia. The event needs to be notable. For airlines and aircraft that is generally considered to be someone killed, major aircraft damage or at least many significant injuries. Vegaswikian 23:02, 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 no consensus. --Core desat 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith[edit]

Keep, Keeping this article adds to the already standing list of victims at the MWWS entry. Dyno541 3:55PM, 7 June 2007 Eastern Time.

Delete: Biography of a person who prior to her disappearance is otherwise completely unremarkable. Many people go missing every day. That she is missing does not make her notable. Should we scan police reports and write articles about every person that goes missing now? --Durin 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by that logic it seems you would want to delete Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Dru Sjodin as well. Talmage 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or transwiki. This isn't a biography: it's news copy. Charlie 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to get an encyclopedic tone. I think you are trying to use the slippery slope fallacy. Wikipedia guidelines say that you get an article if the information comes from "multiple non trivial sources". We don't have to listed to the scanner, just monitor the standard media sources and when they report on it in more than one reliable venue, its notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the point is being missed. This person has done nothing that makes her notable. Nothing. --Durin 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a person isn't notable simply because the majority of their life wasn't is completely off-base. Should we get rid of the article on Todd Beamer? VanillaX 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of most famous people's lives aren't notable. What makes them notable is their accomplishments, noteriety or — as unfortunately the case is here — their abduction and grisly death, and also the resulting media attention. Also, per WP:SOURCE, police scanners are not reliable sources, so that cancels out that argument. [[Briguy52748 12:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
By that logic, we should also delete Paris Hilton! Hmmm, on second thought, maybe we should... --Itub 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral...at least for the moment.Delete She in her own right she IS not-notable, however there is a good deal of media coverage regarding her disappearance. The coverage she is starting to get is slowly building up to that for Natalie Holloway, and I'd say coverage on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, ABC etc does count as a number of reliable sources. My issue is that are we going to create an article for every widely covered missing persons case from here on in? I know it's the slippery slope fallacy, however it does merit mentioning. (I won't even get into my personal beliefs on the actual news coverage of a situation like this, which I could write an essay on) --Wildthing61476 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I've done some thinking on this, and this is a NN victim whom the media is overexposing. Wildthing61476 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a clean-up. Also a mention to that oversaturating news media coverage of it (as in the article Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome). LILVOKA 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be damned, there goes my essay. Wildthing61476 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, WP:NOT a newspaper. Kusma (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fervently hope she is found ok, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper or True Crime Gazette. Per WP:NOT: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". A recent abduction story is better suited to Wikinews than to an encyclopedia. Fox News, CNN and newspaper editors use lurid stories about missing white girls while ignoring other disappearances to boost readership/viewership, while encyclopedias try to assemble NPOV stories about facts of enduring historical importance. Edison 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unfortunately not notable. Arzel 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Becoming incredibly notable, yes she is pretty, but we cant hold that against her. They have recently found a body. this maybe become another Ramsee. and I would like to adobt this article and improve it if anyone has any objections Ksharpe126 3:49PM, 6 June 2007 Eastern Time.
Keep: If you were to delete this article, that would be somewhat like deleting Adam Walsh, who was abducted. Thanks! JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Walsh is notable for multiple reasons. --Durin 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, because he was abducted.JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being abducted was not in itself what made him notable. Otherwise, we might as well add every single abduction that happens every single day around the world. --Durin 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And now she is dead. What point does this article serve? Shall we start including victims of every murder every where? --Durin 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was no notable before abduction, and her abduction and death is not notable. 24.63.204.55 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's more signifigant than "every other murder" 71.172.28.176 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Durin 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this not like every other abduction? The only thing the police have, coming from the media, is a surveillance camera picture. No name, no motive, nothing else. Most abductions within 48hrs have a suspect named. This is coming up to be 5 days old with no known suspect name. This is also being featured on America's Most Wanted on Saturday evening. Make it an even more high profile case. AcePuppy 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, don't look now but they've already arrested someone. I'd be very surprised if this is news even tomorrow, and it sure won't be on AMW. --Durin 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Her case is still being featured on the show as a follow-up. AcePuppy 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even though she was found dead, the killer is still out there, has not been named, nor is there any known motive for the abduction. AcePuppy 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - The situation has received significant media coverage, it's something people have definitely heard about. The article is a definite keep. VanillaX 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the media chooses this one person to create a sensationalized story out of does not mean that she is/was worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I would only see this as necessary if 1) someone involved in the crime was already notable enough to have an article about him/her, or 2) this was a completely original or unique event (which it isn't). User:Thereisn0try 15:28, 6 June 2007
Keep, The abduction has received significant media coverage which, by default, makes her remarkable. ThomasC22 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reiterating what user Edison said: WP:NOT: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". Better suited for Wikinews. Flummery 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per ThomasC22, et al. The fact that this has been covered by the media to this extent will unquestionably create an informational interest in the subject which, by definition, should be at least partially satisfied by an encyclopedia article. --WarEagleTH 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On balance, and as compared to other articles, I think the prominence in the media was relatively limited. DGG 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is the internet running out of space?
Delete per nom. Oh, and that's an IP edit above me. G1 ggy! _{Review me!} 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that this person was unremarkable up until this point in time, the shear amount of news coverage and media attention should justify an article for her. As someone pointed out earlier Adam Walsh and indeed his father were completely unremarkable until their event. Walsh's father himself was not even involved in television. Perhaps at some point in the future this issue may become "just another abduction/murder" for the statistics books, but at this point in time the interest of at least a nominal amount of people here in the U.S has made this situation and indeed the person of remarkable status. --Tigerman81 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry guys, it's gotten too much media attention and is too notable to leave aloneStayinAnon 05:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use Wikipedia daily, like now when I searched for this. I agree that it's media sensationalism, but because space isn't an issue, Wikipedia shouldn't be deciding what reported event is worthy to be included ... What if someone wants to do a research project on MWWS, wouldn't it be nice to have these articles etc? 70.254.205.24 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are rightfully articles on Natalee Holloway, Dru Sjodin, Laci Peterson, etc. Talmage 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. This seems like a no-brainer to me. This story has received prominent coverage in the American news media. Though coverage may be fleeting, once notable is always notable, and I think it's safe to say this has already made it to that point. The past few days, it's been impossible to turn on CNN, etc. without hearing something about this case. I'd like to believe that high-profile news events should be inherently notable. --Czj 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Natalee Holloway, etc. all still have an article, there's no reason that this should be any different. --EmperorFedor
Comment That is the invalid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Each article must stand on its own merits.Edison 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then we should do a AFD on Natalee Holloway and the other missing white girls. No offense, but as she's young, modelesque, commnity-loved, well-natured and Caucasian, the coverage will continue to flow. More crap in a few from Star and the other rags. I RE-ASSERT my keep 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Then aside from the Holloway etc. cases, there's also the fact that the case has received international media attention, as well as the circumstances involved (broad daylight, on tape), the fact that the story is still developing, etc, etc. I also reassert my Keep. -EmperorFedor
Keep per Czj. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is relevant, and needs to be linked to the TARGET corporation because of its efforts in video tracking of everything in and around its stores. That is what really made this case end up solved quickly. Along with the cell phone pings... a remarkable case, when you compare it against Dru Sjodin's case. ---Sturmde 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable due to the media coverage. The argument that "we might as well add every single abduction that happens every single day around the world" is nonsensical; we are talking here about an abduction that, unlike 99.99% of abductions, was covered by the international media. Whether this case itself is more "important" than the other 99.99% in an objective sense is not relevant, and not for us to decide. --Itub 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Yes, I agree that many people go missing every day as the nominator notes, and this case got media attention due to the MWWS. Yet, I want to take a wait-and-see attitude on this case; if this winds up your ordinary "kill the pretty white woman" case, then I'd delete. However, I also agree that we just cannot speculate on what developments (e.g., motives) might arise; perhaps something will come about that will make Ms. Smith's case unique. Also, it is not Wikipedia's role to determine which cases get national media attention. as several editors have pointed out. Briguy52748 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Weak Keep - May just be another case of Missing white woman syndrome but it seemed to gain considerable media attention. Besides, the outcome of Taylor Behl was to keep. Sectryan 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If you're bitching about how other major-media stories don't get an article, than make an article for those stories. Let's not delete the work of someone who added something of fact to Wikipedia. 12:19, 7 June 2007 (EST)
Strong Keep This story has had national media attention for days. Jinxmchue 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Wikipedia will devote pages of useless information to people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, who have done NOTHING noteworty, surely Wikipedia will devote small articles to young women violently murdered with whom the public has empathized (despite however fundamentally shallow these emotions may be). Some people prefer reading a Wikipedia article to gain information that has not been cluttered by typical press release jargon and doublespeak - why deny a murder victim and/or the ensuing murder prosecution a entry in Wikipedia? The article already exists; deleting it just succeeds in removing factual information from a fact-based website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.140.254.10 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 June 2007(UTC).
Keep - I agree that this is a no-brainer keep. While the victim herself may not be (or have been) notable, clearly -- at this point -- the event itself is indeed notable. (JosephASpadaro 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Notable only because of the circumstances of her death. Outside of family and friends, who will remember her in 5 years? WWGB 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly -- notable for the circumstances of the death -- but notable nonetheless. Furthermore, we remember Kitty Genovese -- also notable only because of the circumstances of her death -- more than 40 years after her murder. (JosephASpadaro 05:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. While WWGB may have a point per se, I believe people may want to research this further. Without a proper conclusion, this article may be more encyclopedic in the near future. When Jessica Lunsford was initially found, people might have come to same consensus, but look at the legislation that came from it. I certainly feel it is too early to delete this as if nothing else it provides a bias-free point of information. Natalee Holloway just got more coverage. An abstain might be logical, but I believe this will be encyclopedic, even if only to a law student a few years from now. 65.83.231.100 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly, though the article should be about the incident, not a biography. Huge national media attention makes the notability a no-brainer, applying our policies in a straightforward manner. — brighterorange (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm in complete agreement with Brighterorange, above.
Keep The reason I came to read the article is because I'd seen a report on CNN (but I live outside the USA) and I was looking for the background to a case I'd never heard of before then. For that reason the article has value and I suppose she is (was) notable if people in other countries are hearing about her. EdX20 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest WP:SNOW to rule in favour of Keep at this point. --3M163//Complete Geek 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable person. how many victims have been featured on, America's Most Wanted, for example? It doesn't mean they should have an article. just because she was a missing white woman does not make this victim notable. --Philip Laurence 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She was not notable before abduction, and while tragic, her abduction and death is not notable. Tom M. 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and every person that is a victim of a crime isn't suitable for an encyclopedia entry. AniMate 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the entry is titled "Kelsey Smith disappearance," when it should be "Kelsey Smith murder." To me this speaks volumes to the appropriateness of this for Wikinews rather than Wikipedia, as it is a developing news story. I'm honestly confused by people who argue that this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia based on media coverage when there is an appropriate venue in Wikinews that is specifically designed to catalog media stories and events. AniMate 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with WP:N or not see how it applies? This incident has been front-page news for over a week. — brighterorange (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep eLLe.Le 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established due to heavy media attention, and the tag has already been removed from the Edwin R. Hall. I personally think this AfD should be closed early. Although some people are clearly upset this is getting so much media attention, and feel that the way to counter it would be to remove the article, that's personal bias against MWWS getting in the way. --Milton 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We wouldn't be having this fuss if she was some random non-caucasian from Brooklyn.Merumerume 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the discussion about. Although I agree, notability has been established due to heavy media attention. --Milton 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not our place to decide who should become notable, only to document those who have become notable, regardless of our personal feelings of whether they merit this notability. When much of the country knows her name, she has become notable, like it or not. Talmage 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It is not our place to decide who should become notable, only to document those who have become notable", I find that comment to be silly. If Wikipedians do not determine notability, then what does? Is there some form of cosmic intervention that makes the decision for us? We have guidelines to establish notability, let's use them responsibly and consistently. WWGB 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it has gotten media attention, but that doesn't mean it is fit for an encyclopedia. We have to think long-term, this is after all an encyclopedia that will stay on for hundreds of years (that is, if the human species survives that long), and I just don't see this is something that will be relevant in 30 years. Jon Harald Søby 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disagree. Kitty Genovese was (and is) "notable" only because of the circumstances of her murder. That was 40+ years ago in 1964. (JosephASpadaro 00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - yes, but she is notable because of the "discovery" of Genovese syndrome surrounding the case. --Philip Laurence 11:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ~~again, another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS~~ never mind. Merumerume 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well publicised crime victim (see also Joshua Bryant and Lillian Martin for a similar case which was kept). Zerbey 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject is notable and verifiable through multiple non-trivial sources. RFerreira 07:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep publicity and cultural impact sufficient reason. Tfine80 22:31, 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 tagged as such, feel free to reopen if needed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kov roghan[edit]

Per WP:IINFO#4 recipes should be in wikibooks - needs to be transwikied - Tiswas^(t) 17:14, 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. --Core desat 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra-Morphic[edit]

This page is about a fictional, googleably non-notable product. Even though it's rather verbose in its quest to signify nothing, it does not belong to Wikipedia. Digwuren 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found, which seems pretty darn unlikely since it seems to be a hoax. I like the part where it says that the graphics come from album covers that nobody has ever found. Chunky Rice 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, likely a hoax. NawlinWiki 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. no sources Jazzito 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks Alex Bakharev 02:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the speedy on procedural grounds, but this is completely unverifiable and should be deleted.--Isotope23 13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dollars to doughnuts Soundgeeks is a hoaxer and here to cause trouble and waste time. He complained to ANI about MGlosenger redirecting the article to William Lang and then he did it himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectra-morphic&diff=136250633&oldid=136250125 It's obvious from the article history where Soundgeek kept deleting the tags asking for sources that there aren't any sources, but this is just icing on the cake. 192.250.34.161 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax and non-notable one at that. RFerreira 07:08, 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 delete. 'Mentioned in mainstream media news' or similar isn't enough - they must be independant and non-trivial. If the drummer's notable, heck, write your socks off. But at the moment, the article asserts no notability, and has no sources. Daniel 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Ra Riot[edit]

Strong Delete.Not very notable band, written like a fansite. Basically an article spouting Fancruft. Deletion Quality 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, agree on the fancruft above. themcman1 _Talk 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Done more research and changed desicion. themcman1 _Talk 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ban fulfil notability requirements having been subject of article in NME: http://www.nme.com/news/nme/28721 and Billboard.com: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003593382 77.99.135.197 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the articles found by the above anon user -- they appear to be the same article in two different places, but either way, there seems to be some notability at work here. They also have a (somewhat short) profile on All Music Guide. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. Zerbey 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. They're all over Google News - but most of the refs are regarding the drummer's death and there seems to be minimal reference to their actual musical career. 136,000 Google hits, too, but again a lot of that is blogs and similar refs to the drummer. However, hidden amidst all that, I do find non-drummer-related stories on CMJ.com, NME.com, a nibble on Buzzgrinder and a few others. I wonder if they'd meet WP:MUSIC without the news aspect of the drummer's death, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - mentioned in mainstream media/news. Madder 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The missing persons case, and eventually discovery of the body is certainly notable, even if the band hasn't made any notable pieces of music.--Kylohk 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article say that the band has one self-released EP. Hardly notable by WP standard. The drummer's strange/newsworthy death does not render the band notable. Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pike (musician) - Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources covering teh band. There are articles about the death of teh drummer, but they are specifically about the drummer with little attention to the band. -- Whpq 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently none of the members are notable enough to have articles themselves (all are redlinked). One of them died, that's it. No compelling claims that the band meets notability per WP:BAND (eg: published articles, chart hits, awards, competitions, use of music in media, radio play, broadcasts, certified gold sales, international touring beyond US and UK, major label support, unique style beyond run of the mill indies, etc.). No significant supporting info that meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles mentioned by the anon are articles about the death of a band member. A dead person doesn't assert notability, unless he was already notable (and this guy wasn't) - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:34, 14 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, does not assert that this musical was ever performed anywhere besides a local theatre in Maine. NawlinWiki 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In our grandmother's attic[edit]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this musical is notable. Zero Google hits for the title, and the closest thing I can find by searching for "Elaine Hewes" is a pastor in a Bangor church. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any evidence either. themcman1 _Talk 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link in the article is unrelated to the subject. Other than that, per nom. YechielMan 17:58, 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. --Core desat 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pisschrist (band)[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity band page. Two sources mention that the band has toured but not every band that has toured is notable enough for an encyclopedia. External sources are the band's own site and its myspace page. csloat 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is quite POV. Deletion Quality 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - repost - Tiswas^(t) 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom as WP:VSCA and not meeting WP:MUSIC. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national tour (except Perth; par for the course) and international shows; meets WP:BAND. John Vandenberg 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unreliable list of tour destinations for the first international tour[23] (more reliable sources... [24]...). The current US tour[25] has a host of destinations as well[26] (scroll down to "OTHER TOUR DATES (BANDS NOT ON HAVOC BUT THAT ARE STILL RAD)" to see a full list of venues); some with Oroku [27], othertimes with Wolfbrigade [28]. John Vandenberg 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet section 4 of WP:BAND. They've toured internationally as a minor support act. *Anyone* can do that - even I can (and yes, I do play.) Orderinchaos 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if none of the sources are primarily about the band - they do verify sufficient travel / appearance that the band does indeed meet WP:BAND. Ga rr ie 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above alone does not appear to let the article pass WP:MUSIC. Also serious issues with finding WP:RS. Orderinchaos 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate; dB Magazine and Austin Chronicle are reliable sources for the bands shows, and WP:MUSIC allows for bands that "[have] gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." John Vandenberg 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources above say they toured. They however do not address the band's notability, which is the core issue here. Orderinchaos 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - these guys are quite a famous cult punk band, but unfortunately I can't find anything to verify the information—arf! 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayvdb -- had this been nominated for deletion exactly one year ago, we would have comedy gold. RFerreira 10:15, 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 delete. W.marsh 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Saxena[edit]

Starting a company that is acquired by Commerce One and being a Michigan State Distinguished Alumni (presumably he gave some money to the university) are nice but not notable. His one slim claim to fame is being selected as Entrepreneur of the Year by Inter@active Week. But (if I recall correctly) Inter@ctive Week is or was a free giveaway magazine, which reduces its ability to confer notability, and anyway (assuming it's true, which we don't know as it's not sourced) that is only one minor honor. Herostratus 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only citations are his UM alumnus page and a non-notable blog...the Intera@ctive Week claim isn't even sourced. I also recall it being a free giveaway mag, but if I'm wrong and he can source the claim it might well meet WP:NOTE. Excepting that, though... Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UM University of Michigan are the guys in Ann Arbor whose team wears maize and blue. MSU Michigan State University are the guys in East Lansing whose team wears green and white. Arch rivals. Edison 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete "Interactive Week" is a "controlled circulation" professional magazine--it is primarily advertising-supported, and supplied free to people in a position to buy large amounts of relevant products or otherwise prominent in the industry--that's how almost all such publications are distributed. Only the outsiders pay. The quality varies, but some are excellent, and this is one of the better ones. Their entrepreneur of the year designation is probably significant, as for any other major trade journal, but I would not regard it alone as enough for notability. The significance of the MSU award would depend upon their selectivity: it's from the BSU Business school, not the whole university; they currently display 12 others, none of whom are in WP. Frankly, I do not know how to judge N for technical figures whose contributions are mainly in industry and therefore do not publish, and are not cited in newspapers, and are not in top positions at nationally known companies. I'm used to professions with publicly visible output. The only ones we seem to be able to tell, are for those in industries familiar to many people here. This gives a bias, but I do not know how to overcome it. DGG 04:04, 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. --Core desat 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Krilis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steven Krilis (2nd nomination)

Notability of this scholar is claimed, but goes completely unverified. Fails WP:PROF and largely violates WP:NPOV.

I did not find verifiable claims in the article that could be used to show that he meets WP:PROF. The article is, however, cluttered with POV and weasel-word statements ("made numerous discoveries that have greatly advanced...", "is at the forefront of medicine", "recognised as one of [...] the world's leading immunologists", etc.) Removing all the POV-laden parts, what remains is that S.K is a professor of medicine at an Australian university, who does research and publishes in scientific journals.

External sources I found are not convincing towards notability: Google Scholar shows that some of his publications are cited quite often (one is >200 cites), but judging just by these numbers can be grossly misleading. Also, there is an information page by his university, UNSW, with nothing particularly notable; a press release by UNSW; and he won an award issued by the same university (cannot be counted for notability, since not independent).

The previous AfD nomination 1 1/2 years ago resulted in "keep" according to closing admin, but maybe "no consensus" would fit better. Votes suggested that the article should be rewritten to be kept, but no such rewrite occured, just more unverified statements were added.

I propose to delete the article now. If S.K. is really such a renowned figure in medice, then sooner or later somebody will write a new, verifiable article about him from scratch. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would need a complete rewrite to meet WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:PROF, and it's barely more than a stub. Assuming the editor's been properly advised already, there's no sense in nursing this thing along. They can always come up with some actual citations and rewrite it responsibly. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination for deletion is not an excuse to allow unadulterated crap in BLP. I removed the crap. Don't care whether he stays or not, but stubs are part of Wikipedia, and there is NO requirement to delete stubs. KP Botany 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - Prof. Krilis is a genuinely notable academic, but this is a terrible article. No citations, no actual understanding of antiphospholipid syndrome (ah, its about blood clots! Eureka!), and peacock words galore. A reduction to stub status and then reconstruction with appropriate references and writing style could make this a worthwhile page. Euryalus 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And you edited it after I removed reems of crap--you should look at one of the older edits. Stunnin crap. I know an editor who might have some time to look at it, too. KP Botany 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I see what you mean. I also notice the very early versions also had more actual biographical info in them, which was removed some time ago to make space for more glowing plaudits. Take out the facts, add in the opinion ... anyway, if it survives AfD I'll add a more meaningful summary of his antiphospholipid research. Euryalus 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; strong google scholar results. John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a lot of published work which seems pretty notable. I may end up revising this myself. Sci girl 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the below: anyone who wants more actual citation results than provided by Google Scholar can ask me to check scopus or WebofScience. I'd rather do it without the time pressure of an AfD. In this case 120 peer reviewed papers on scopus, , the highest--in PNAS, absolutely top-flight journal-- 920 citations, followed by 284, 195, 147, 116 , 111. . All of this very good, as normally the case for full professors at research universities. I've added them to the article. There has to be a better way to improve these articles that one at a time at Afd. DGG 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all keep votes above. Lankiveil 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly notable don't use afd for cleanup--Buridan 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, improper useage of AFD as well. RFerreira 07:22, 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 delete. Sr 13 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dansynch[edit]

Neologism, no sources, except user submitted dicdef & friendster page. No attempt to establish notability, or even claim it. - Tiswas^(t) 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without the social information, all that remains is a dicdef.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources; all references given are self-published sources, even Merriam-Webster. (It's interesting that M-W now accepts user-generated content as well; but their notability checks do not seem to be very rigid...) --B. Wolterding 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how all of you seem eager to shoot down an unpopular coined word just waiting to blossom...I understand being a newbie here and still tweaking around with wikipedia seriously though why the bias? I can name a dozen wikipages here that don't, won't meet to your standards or to your interpretation of Wikipedia's standards...using your logic how would you deal with Ted Turner's word's do you delete any article published by his media magnate? Do you thoroughly comb each and every article here or just plainly because of the fact you just happened to pick my entry? Please reconsider or teach a newbie on how to? If blog entry's are not consdered then how would newspapers catch a glimpse of it and bothered to publish it if it wasn't first seen through a snapshot of an event. I'm sorry but i'm deployed to a ************* and have no access to the source ******************... I will post it once I get the chance please understand and reconsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyports (talk • contribs)

Comment re the unsigned entry above: What is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia are reliable sources. Blogs, Youtube, and other user-generated content sites are not considered reliable in this context. If the topic is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, then certainly newspapers, book authors, etc. have written about it. (I doubt that in this case, but if so, please supply the sources.) If not, it should not have an article on Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - furthermore, wikipedia is not here to further the spread of neologisms. - Tiswas^(t) 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. WP:MADEUP applies in spades, and I'm deeply distressed that Merriam-Webster is apparently publishing user-submitted neologisms without any evidence of their notability. I wasn't aware of that...anyone else think that might be worthy of a RfC? Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user submissions only appear in the Open Dictionary. Although it's also on m-w.com, it's pretty easily distinguished from the rest of the site. They all say "submitted by ...", for example. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bullzeye. Nice name by the way. Bulldog123
Delete, neologism, not supported by reliable sources. This Merriam-Webster "Open Dictionary" appears to be a clone of Urban Dictionary. NawlinWiki 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, word better describes an individual or a group of individuals seen in by a third person in the act of synchronizing the lips and body movements to a music heard from a PA or spear system. i.e. The term could be used for the acts made during a Music Video recording or the sudden urge of an individual or group who does the same in a public place such as a Mall, Department Stores, Fast Food, Restaurants, Supermarkets etc...Hence the term to Dansynch!

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yfe uttarakhand[edit]

Non-notable with 10 google hits. Antonrojo 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of being verified - Even with references, I would be hard pressed to make head or tail of the article. And I'm a frikkin' genius. - Tiswas^(t) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be political agitation without any hint to notability; far from being verifiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --B. Wolterding 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even make a half-hearted attempt to look NPOV, so in its current form it is just propaganda. Also not well written. Maybe an article about this movement ought to be written, but better to delete this one than try to fix it. Capmango 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youth for Equality, which appears to be the same organisation. 82.35.8.10 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. Forgot to log in. BTLizard 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV, no content, borderline nonsense, you name it. NawlinWiki 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:35, 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 DELETE. The Keep arguments - that it's a fine resort, that we should give the guy a break - are not strong. Herostratus 10:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Buena Vista Beach Resort[edit]

I can't find any notability for this place. There seems to be a Tribune article, but it's not linked. Whs itc hy 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources do not necessarily have to be on the web for them valid.- Tiswas^(t) 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know that, but he doesn't even have a specific article mentioned. For all we know, it could just be a simple review of the hotel and nothing else. Whs itc hy 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is reasonably NPOV and cites multiple independent sources. Unless someone looks all those sources up and finds them to be bogus, we should assume they are legit. Capmango 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just checked the SD Tribune site, this is all I got, unless they don't archive articles from 2000. Whs itc hy 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add-on comment most if not all the sources are in fact reviews of the place, nothing of real note happened there except for a fish getting caught. Whs itc hy 17:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --Kyle Emerick 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I created the page as my first entry into Wikipedia as I went there almost two months ago now and I thought the place was unreal compared to the other resorts areound it. The owner treated my family like royalty and so when I got back to the states I looked them up and found no Wikipedia page for them. There seem to be plenty of other resorts that have Wikipedia pages and there is nothing at all notable about them. I thought the underground river which makes the area super lush was a reaooddity as the surrounding area is desert and this place in like an oasis. Regaring the referneces, I found all of them on the web or from scanned magazines or newspaper articles either specifically on the region or the resort itself.[reply]
Delete, non-notable resort, no claims of notability, probably part of the Hotel internet marketing SEO scheme. Corvus cornix 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's another reason why I did this, could be part of that. Whs itc hy 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Kyle Emerick 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I visited the resort due to the resorts huge boat fleet which takes you out to one of the best Marlin fishing areas there are in the world. Cabo San Lucas just to the south has great Marlin fishing but the East Cape teems with life like no other sport fishing area, that me and my fishing buddies have ever heard of. The resort is far superior to the other hotels around it and is the reason why I picked it. I would not have flown my family down there had it not been for this places reputation of repeat customers and world renowned sport fishing. Maybe I did not state it well enough but I thought I kept it short and sweet, and I tried to add some history to it other than the place is world renowned for its sport fishing.[reply]
Comment The article doesn't look like spam or advertising. Having reviews in multiple independent publications is plenty to establish notability. Capmango 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It also looks like a promotional item rather than anything else. Virtually any place that was open for at least one season can now provide multiple sourced reviews. Hotel reviews is a weak source of notability. Alex Pankratov 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it looks valid to me and does not look like advertising. I just looked on the reort homepage and the links are all vaild. give the guy a break, its his first article. — 72.197.86.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:56, June 7, 2007 (UTC).
Weak Keep I am normally skeptical about the notability of hotels and restaurants whose only references are articles in local newspapers and tourist magazines., but I followed up the preceding suggestion and looked at the web page, where there are links to many articles from speciaiist fishing journals, and I'm willing to accept that it is a notable fishing resort. Inadequate article. Keep if the refs are inserted properly. DGG 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--Kyle Emerick 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I believe I have edited the references so they show up properly. Please let me know if there is something else I should change. I'd like to create and help out here on Wikipedia and not waste your time everyone. I just thought the resort was unique enought to have one little page on Wikipedia.[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel, unless multiple sources have written about them in detail. Corvus cornix 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: --Kyle Emerick 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC) In just a few minutes of looking, I have viewed over 40 references to the resort and 15 or more are magazine or newspaper articles devoted to the resort. I can add more if it helps but I thought a few references were sufficient. It is the most popular resort in its region by far [29]. It is know as the "Jewel of East Cape" and that region has pretty much the best sport fishing in the world. I'll also add a page to WikiTravel but I think the resort deserves a Wikipedia page. Ask anyone that goes deep sea fishing in that region and I guarantee you they have been to or have heard about the resort.[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, and he's 14 per the article, not 16. NawlinWiki 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne O'Brien[edit]

The article does not specify which sport Shayne plays as a goalie, but it appears as though there is a 16 year old hockey player named Shayne O'Brien who is a goalie in the Atlantic Youth Hockey League. So, it seems like he exists, but there's no indication that being a star in that league is enough for an athlete to be regarded as notable by Wikipedia's definition. If anyone can find info about another goalie in Connecticut named Shayne O'Brien who is more notable, show us here. Leebo ^T/C 15:00, 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. --Core desat 02:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gray[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any meaningful sources for the author (having a common name makes it harder). Each individual book had only minimal Ghits.Stellatomailing 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per primary criterion of WP:BIO, article subject has not been published on secondary sources. The Sunshine Man 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell WP:COI Whs itc hy 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:48, 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. --Core desat 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia St. John[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minimal GHits. Virtually no news coverage[30].Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - claims notability with multiple exhibitions, but sources are needed - Tiswas^(t) 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exhibitions are trade shows and/or non-notable.Stellatomailing 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The degrees are in doubt, too, with the way this is written, presuming it is written by the subject. Established artists have exhibitions which show up readily in on-line google searches--gallery owners and museums know how to do this. KP Botany 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no references. Turgidson 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks NN to me, just a self-advert. Peterkingiron 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KP Botany and Stellatomailing. Freshacconci 13:11, 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. --Core desat 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon M. Easton[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest claim to fame is having written six issues of a failed comics mini-series by a small publisher.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source of notability is a red linked article. Otherwise it is unverified - Tiswas^(t) 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling suggests he's actually better known for having written a script for a movie of The Man in the High Castle that was never produced than for any work he ever published. JulesH 08:08, 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. Sr 13 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Oleson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the former members of Newsboys(his name is -supposedly - misspelled as Olesen there). News coverage is trivial and related to his new band.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a member of a notable band, which is enough for WP:MUSIC - Tiswas^(t) 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Appeared on at least two Newsboys albums that I can source, both of which charted on the Billboard 200 Peak and the Top Contemporary Christian/Top Christian Peak charts. He also went on at least two major tours of the US with them. Passes WP:MUSIC. --Charlene 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the policy in WP:MUSIC (#6) gives merit to any member of a band that has an article to have a separate article. In this case, this is definitely a keeper. I am fixing the links on the band article to point to this one. Stellatomailing 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:49, 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. --Core desat 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Albrecht[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assistant professor in an University, fails the Wikipedia:Professor test.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete his notability would be as a computer fraud detection specialist, not an academic, and I don't see it demonstrated here. DGG 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his notability as computer fraud detection specialist is unsourced and looks dependant on his academical career, I focused on this angle, what would be the only thing who could assert some notability.Stellatomailing 23:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to establish notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very few news and normal academic output. John Vandenberg 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, academic productivity looks appropriate for an assistant prof at a research university but not special enough yet to be noteworthy here. The article is full of fluff: Mormon missionary work, resemblence to Stargate characters, support of open source, spends time learning about new technology? Some amount of human interest is ok but this just looks like unencyclopedic filler. —David Eppstein 19:03, 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. Sr 13 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sprung[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-claimed aquarium expert, biggest claim to fame is authoring a non-notable book.Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of a number of aquarium and marine biology books per Amazon [31]. Volume 3 of the reef aquarium series does pretty well at number 19,953 in sales (out of about 4 million titles) at Amazon, for a $56 nonfiction book. Lectures widely, author of magazine articles. Edison 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarification, I used the Wikipedia:Notability (books) as a base for saying the book is non-notable. Stellatomailing 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guideline to whether a book is notable enough to have an article, not whether the author of multiple books is notable or not--or that's what it says in its introduction. Not all of Picasso's sketches are notable enough to have their own entry, this does not mean that Picasso does not merit an article--so don't use that argument, stick with the criteria listed. KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calm down, people. I am just citing that to show the basis of the comment the book was non-notable. Stellatomailing 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Edison. KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the data, looks like the subject has much more importance than what is in the article. Maybe somebody who knows about aquariums could expand/validate this view?Stellatomailing 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be expanded to be kept, though. I posted a note at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes for what it's worth. The guy appears to have written more books on marine aquaria than I thought existed. KP Botany 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a tricky one for me, because I'm a professional writer within the aquarium industry. I've also written books and articles, but don't have (and don't expect) a Wikipedia article on the strength of them. On the other hand, I do accept that some aquarium writers are influential and productive, and should be recognised at some level relative to their output. I don't like the Julian Sprung article as it stands for a variety of reasons though. Primarily, I'm not sure how he can be a "recognized expert". There's no BSc or PhD awarded to 'expert' fishkeepers. Writing for books or magazines doesn't bestow peer-group recognition upon you. It isn't like winning an Olympic medal or Academy Award. Saying he was "a zoologist by training" could mean anything. Does this mean he did a biology degree at university? Or does he have a PhD? Has he ever published anything in the scientific journals or been part of a scholarly research group? The rest of the article seems about promoting his books and company, something not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. So while I accept he may be worth an article here, I'm not at all convinced the article as it stands contains anything of real value. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these issues. He's a zoologist, that implies BS in zoology. It probably took me less time to fix these issues than it took you to write about them. They are the sort of thing that generally should be fixed on Wikipedia. So, now that these issues are fixed, do you have an opinion on keeping or deleting the article? KP Botany 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better now. Keep. I'd perhaps dump the "zoologist" bit though -- a BSc doesn't really make someone a zoologist, all it says is they have a zoology degree. Let's face it: unless you sleep through all four years of college, you can't really fail to get a BSc or BA in most modern universities! Anyway, a "zoologist" is a scientist who studies animals, and unless Sprung has actively researched and published in peer-review journals, he's not really a zoologist. By all means say he studied zoology at the University of Wherever, but to me, a zoologist is someone who was or is active in the field of zoology. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's debatable, but I don't actually know what his degree is in. If it is a BS in zoology, you're right though, it should simply say that. Can you check? KP Botany 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a zoologist BA.Stellatomailing 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? this says BSc. John Vandenberg 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSc it is. Sorry about the mistake. Stellatomailing 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; he is a big fish in the small bowl.. John Vandenberg 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure that's true at all. Big fish would be people like Dick Mills (publishing over 40 years, literally hundreds of books, or Herbert Axelrod, who set up what's become the largest publisher of books on pet animals in the world (TFH). To be honest, I'd not even heard of the guy until I read this thread, and I work in the trade (admittedly, on the freshwater site of the industry). So while he may be a significant figure in the world of aquaristic publishing, I'd not say he's any bigger than, say, Bob Fenner (US), David Sands (UK), or Frank Schaefer (Germany). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This could be a good opportunity to set the bar here. Neale, I understand that the coverage of aquarium books must be naturally small in the media - limiting the verifiability we could get, how could we attest the notability of a particular author? I.e., somebody can write 100 books, but maybe all of them are bad.Stellatomailing 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellatomailing, you're right, but I'm not sure how to answer your question. But as a first pass, you'd perhaps go with writers who have published with mainstream commercial publishers (as opposed to vanity presses, self-publishing, or club/association publications). Such books will usually have a brief biography for verifying details (I certainly know this to be true in my case). The nature of commercial publishing will also mean that such works will [a] have to have reached a certain quality standard; and [b] will have been printed at a certain volume such that the books are available and potentially significant. Beyond this, I'm not really sure how objectively one can "set the bar". I don't know Mr. Sprung's work at all, so can't say whether his 3-volume self-published work is a standard textbook or a vanity project or something in between. But I think I'm being fair to him by saying that while he may be a recognised writer within the marine aquarium field, he isn't in "the big league" as far as publishing goes any more than I am. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neale. Looks like his work is widely cited as good, but the sources are not RS (no NYT, Reuters, etc) but this comes with the niche as we discussed. What would be "big" conventions and magazines in the Aquarists' world?Stellatomailing 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, difficult to answer. The biggest publisher of aquarium (and other pet books) in the US (and indeed the world) is TFH Publications. Then there are smaller pet-specific publishers such as Aqualog and Interpet Publishing. Most other publishers who do non-fiction books, such as Dorling Kindersley and ...for Dummies have done aquarium books of one sort or another. For magazines, the two major league ones in the English language are Tropical Fish Hobbyist (part of TFH) and Practical Fishkeeping (part of EMAP). These two will have circulation figures comparable to other hobby magazines, though rather less sports or lifestyle magazines. There are whole bunch of smaller magazines in the US and UK. I'm not aware of any "big" convention that stands out as the worldwide meeting place for professionals. There are lots of regional ones, but many of the speakers at those won't be writers but breeders, collectors, and businessmen. Not sure how much this helps really. It's a niche market, so you're never going to have fishkeeping writers who get awards from media professionals in the same way as, say, journalists or biographers. On the one hand, you have people like Axelrod who set up multi-million dollar companies, so obviously deserve recognition. On the other hand, you have people like Bob Fenner and Julian Dignall who run web sites that get million+ hits per month as well as being prolific writers in books/magazines. On the third hand (!) you have the likes of David Sands who may be a aquarium writer but is also a scientist and collector, and has published taxonomic works on catfish that get used by other fish scientists, and are honored by the science, for example by having species named after them. So I think people like that obviously deserve recognition. But on the fourth hand you have people like Julian Sprung (and, dare I say it, me) who are basically doing this as a job. He (we) aren't any more influential than any other non-fiction writer, and such recognition as he (we) get will be primarily from the hobbyists. It's basically the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) situation. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like this article is going to be kept, so I am waiting for your article on WP soon. :-) Stellatomailing 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides reliable sources, which support the assertion that he is notable per WP:BIO. The article does not articulate them all very clearly, but that's cause for expansion and cleanup, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable expert within the field of fishkeeping, no need to extend any sort of WP:BIAS about it. RFerreira 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a marine aquarium hobbyist for a few decades, I have found very few "experts" that I trust. Sprung is one of the best. As a speaker for local reefs clubs, national and international conferences, he is great. I think comparing him to authors of freshwater aquarium books is like comparing apples to oranges? The above references to authors of other hobbies are moot?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.218.63 (talk • contribs) — 71.35.218.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Tyrenius 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel liaño[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manuel liaño

Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Stellatomailing 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is there not real assertion of notability, the whole thing sounds a bit wierd. He was a member of groups called "]]" and "." (assuming these are not typos). His infobox lists an instrument but no mention of music is made in the article. He joined the "Art League" (whatever that is) at age 12. Hmmm. Anyway, no indication of notable showings, reviews, etc. is given. Herostratus 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:29, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Anthony Walker[edit]

Another blow-by-blow crime report. Again newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. Is it just me or do these all seem to stress alleged racial overtones? -Doc^g 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely well-known crime, was widely covered at the time by all major British newspapers. Yes, a lot of these stress racial overtones: that's one of the things that turns an otherwise run-of-the-mill crime into something that makes front page headlines in national papers. Definitely notable by the definition at WP:N. JulesH 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of on-going notability? Sure, murders and trials hit the newspapers. So what?--Doc^g 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard news story blown up by the tabloid press due to the involvement of a relation of a professional footballer. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the crime was the subject of much news coverage at the time, I think this article would be more suited for Wikinews. The Sunshine Man 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder if murdercruft is going to be the latest trend on wikipedia. How many of these articles can people create? Lurker 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cases like these are a bit murkier than the usual notability dispute, as it does in fact meet notability guidelines and has multiple, reliable sources. However the victim has no notability beyond the murder, making this more a news article than an encyclopedia article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waffling keep. There is an abundance of murdercruft on Wikipedia to be sure, but this one surpasses the standard level of media attention that these sort of stories tend to generate. Burntsauce 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newscruft, murdercruft, whatever. delete. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the BBC isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is. And anyone calling something cruft isn't giving a reason for deletion that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Its just saying "I don't like it". It also is showing regional bias against events outside the USA. If it was covered on CNN you would have heard of the event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in the UK, and I'd also say delete any similar cases from any country. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also British and a great fan of the BBC. Please don't second guess people's motives ond certainly don't accuse them of bias.--Doc^g 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N in respect of crime figures (victims, criminals, defendants, witnesses) is in process of being fixed. WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Even though we do not have to keep an article on every crime which gets a couple of newspaper stories, per WP:NOT, this crime is somewhat more than ordinary in its import, since it was racially motivated (per "urban life Darcus Howe. New Statesman. London: Jan 9, 2006. Vol.19, Iss. 893; pg. 17, 1 pgs" the killers were angered to see a black student walking with his white girlfriend). This is not included in the article, and I'm not sure with all the BLP deletions if we are now allowed to mention it.), a killer was related to a prominent sports figure (not unlike Michael Skakel the Kennedy relative who was convicted of murdering a teenage girl Martha Moxley giving that crime enhanced notability), and they fled outside the country before being apprehended. Edison 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep nominator as well as subsequent "delete" supporters have not mentioned any specific wikipedia policies/guidelines this article violates. It says very clearly that when you nominate something you need to put that in there, and if the delete supporters can't even help you out, i don't know why we're bothering having this discussion. Barsportsunlimited 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A basis for deleting an article about someone or something which has been in the news is WP:NOT where it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and continues "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This should apply to articles about crimes or dead people, even though it was written with the apparent intent of deleting articles which might embarass persons who were in the news. Policies are also written by the consensus of AFDs, where it appears that a number of editors feel an encyclopedia is not a newspaper or a news/crime archive, or a collection medical oddities or water cooler stories or cute animal stories. Edison 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crime was a particulary grusome one and was purely racially motivated, involving to men who premeditated his death by rushing to get a murder weapon. You can compare it two other articles Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor. I strongly agree that not every crime or criminal needs a forensic examination on Wikipedia. But this is still a notable incident and is still used by journalists to demonstrate hate crime in the UK. Mike33 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not count the Independent front page as an measure of notability; I do count BBC. DGG 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just another article to be proposed for deletion in the binge being undertaken by DocG. This article is a highly notable murder as it was racially motivated and this was cited by the judge and a large voluyme of media coverage was given to this case.--Lucy-marie 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just an average murder - the racial motive, age/popularity of the victim and link to Joey Barton ensured this was front page stuff.--Vintagekits 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is denying this was front-page stuff. But front-page stuff isn't necessarily worthy of a Wikipedia article. The question is- is there a long-lasting effect? Lurker 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Racial murder cases get lots of attention. Think Emmett Till or Amadou Dialo. Certain crime victims, by the very nature of the crime, merit bios. Think Kitty Genovese. Rather than being "unencyclopedic", I believe that no encyclopedic purpose is achieved by deleting these sorts of articles. --JJay 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the BBC is a perfectly valid source here. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep - this was a notorious racially-motivated murder - not an "average" murder. Note for USA users: murder is much less common in UK than USA.User:Peterkingiron 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable (as in notorious) racially motivated murder worthy of encyclopedic coverage. RFerreira 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why? What is the clear evidence it was racially motivated? Just because the attackers were white and the victim black? Would you say that if it were the other way around? How do you know this entire crowd didn't know each other and hated each other for schoolboy reasons which had nothing to do with race? Wikipedia should not be an alternative emotive Daily Mirror. Thousands of people are murdered annually. David Lauder 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CPS and practically every media outlet regardless of political outlook would tend to suggest it was racially motivated. Got a source that says different? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my everyman opinion thats all. You know as well as I do that the media blow these things up. You will also know how youths behave towards each other and the language they use. My view is that actually proving a crime is racist is almost impossible. You will also know that the CPS plays to the gallery (and political pressure). Whatever, I cannot see how murders of this sort warrant inclusion in an encylcopaedia. There must have been thousands of similar murders int he USA, South Africa, etc., and if we include this we should include them. David Lauder 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I've already agreed with the deletion above, but there's no denying that it was clearly a racially motivated crime. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the articles first Afd - it was intially called Anthony Walker (now a redirect) and passed Afd in 2006. (It came up on my suggestbot today) Mike33 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High-profile, heavily reported murder case. In what way is this not encyclopaedic? -- Necrothesp 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As per nominator's remarks. Nothing encyclopaedic about this at all. It is just another page from the crime registers hyped up by the media. Had he been an MP or important figure it might have been different. David Lauder 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all murder victims are encyclopedic! --Counter-revolutionary 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tell us which ones are then. -- Necrothesp 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like Ian Gow, Airey Neave and Sir Norman Stronge, oh, and Prince Louis Mountbatten or Faisal II &c.--Counter-revolutionary 10:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it - when a bigot is killed then thats notable but when someone is killed by a bigots thats not. Glad I got that cleared up.--Vintagekits 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if they're famous before they're murdered then they're notable. If they're famous for being murdered then they're not? No Yvonne Fletcher. No victims of Jack the Ripper. Basically only people who have been assassinated. Sorry, I completely disagree. However, Vintagekits's remark was utterly uncalled for. -- Necrothesp 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ridiculously notable murder, one of the greatest in terms of media coverage in recent years. I'm surprised this got nominated, some news incidents are incredibly trivial and forgotten about very quickly (Essjay, Joshua Gardner etc.), this isn't. - hahnch e n 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable murders in recent times, heavily reported by non-trivial third party sources. Myles Long 21:25, 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 Eluchil404 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th Cat[edit]

Unnotable novel, poorly written article, unreferences, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 14:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently a very popular manga series in Korea [32]. JulesH 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep The article as it stands is useless. It does not give any kind of encyclopaedic information -- when was it written? In what medium is it published? In what language(s)? How many issues? Is it ongoing? The storyline section is unnecessary, but that's all there is right now. If it's going to be kept, it at least needs an infobox manhwa and an external link. The manhwa list includes 'The 11th Cat', which should be set up as a redirect here also. Capmango 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been changed to address my main complaints. I still think article is way to heavy on plot synopsis and way to light on encyclopedic content, but it has earned its 'keep'. Capmango 01:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this make me the 12th cat? -- Cat ^chi? 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable, but needs major cleanup. -- Ned Scott 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Ned Scott (Duane543 16:24, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Leneghan[edit]

Another one. Poor child was raped and murdered - do we need to record it. Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedic, no. We have too many of these British child muder victims - and many seem to be chosen for their possible racial dynamic. I don't want to imply anything, but.... -Doc^g 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the 'biography' of her killed Adrian Thomas (now made into a redirect) needs nuked too.--Doc^g 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh delete this, it appears to be motivated primarily by a political agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill this article. Appearing in the papers doesn not make an incident worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless the crime is particularly notorious, or has a long-lasting effect such as leading to the creation of a new law, it does not belong in wikipedia Lurker 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable crime. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability (speedy candidate therefore?) and very little chance that it can be expanded at this time. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, news article that is unsuitable as an encyclopedia article. No notability outside of being the victim of an otherwise non-notable crime. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, this happens every day, but it does not make the subject of such a crime worthy of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 17:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments in the Afd above. Carlossuarez46 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT] we do not have to keep an article for every crime which was in the newspapers. Otherwise it would be "Crimopedia." Edison 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, Guy, Lyrjer, violet, Arkyan and Burntsauce. JoshuaZ 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The racial dynamic is what makes them at lest newsworthy, and the general public agrees, as hate crimes statutes demonstrate. I think we can follow it. This was a double murder attempt. I however notice signs that t he articles are being written to a formula, though by different people, with emphasis on how long the guilty will stay in prison. To the extent we are encyclopedic, we should probably not include photos in most cases. DGG 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that you can get famous by murdering someone can encourage unstable minds to committing a crime.

Keep. High profile, heavily reported murder case. Very definitely encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 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 DELETED patent nonsense. -Doc^g 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futtergate[edit]

Contested prod. No references. No google hits. Of dubious signficance outside a local community. Rick Block (talk) 13:23, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valdeck Almeida de Jesus[edit]

Appears to be hoax, but not obviously so. The author of the article is capable of, and has written, other articles with better grammar, so I don't think the wackiness of the article can be attributed to language barrier. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or not, the article doesn't even claim (much less attempt to verify) any real notability. Almost a speedy for that reason alone, except that the list of places in which the poetry has been (allegedly?) published is fairly extensive. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Hmm. Looks like he is the same as this guy.Stellatomailing 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdeck de Almeida, still open. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO; please note that I created a proper English-language entry for Valdeck de Almeida, which is also being considered for deletion, unfortunately. He does exist and is a published author. jrk3150 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 20:30, 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. --Core desat 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Ken[edit]

Previously speedy deleted per A7, the article has been recreated. While the radio station is indeed notable, notability does not necessarily flow down to programs on that station. While the article makes claims of notability, these are unsourced. Mattinbgn/^talk 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, a fair call on cascading notability not applying here. No establishment of notability for the individual show, no reliable sources to back up claims, I could go on but i'll label it WP:VSCA and be done. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with all points made so far. On top of that, I haven't been able to find any RS and, frankly, didn't expect to find any. The hosts wouldn't have passed WP:NOTRSH (which is defunct) and don't seem to pass WP:BIO. I'd say that if they make it big, they certainly should have their own article but, at this point in time, I believe their Myspace page and the station's website to be a more appropriate venue. So, yeah, delete. --Seed 2.0 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - Should be a paragraph or sentence under the relevant radio station's page, not an article. Orderinchaos 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no RS turned up in search. John Vandenberg 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS.Garrie 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you can provide RS for their being finalists you will probably find sufficient sources for each presenter to pass WP:BIO. Unless of course, nominations are based on "your own station nominates every show for every eligible award"Ga rr ie 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Thewinchester above. Lankiveil 13:07, 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 Speedy deleted G1 by NawlinWiki. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure).[reply]

Irish Brotherhood[edit]

Reason ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This article was completely made up by one author. There is no such author who made those books. A quick Google search for "john o'shea" "saints and sinners" "all saints' day" turned up nothing except this article. Most of the data is about Rainbow from Rainbow Six, but some of the names changed, most of the time not though. It's obvious that this content was invented by one person. By the way, this articles is almost identical to The Saints (special forces), written by the same author. ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, since the vast majority of the the article is copied from Rainbow Six, as noted. Propaniac 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Delete Well done by nominator for detecting the hoaxJdeJ 18:35, 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 all g1, patent nonsense/hoax cut & paste. NawlinWiki 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Saints (special forces)[edit]

Reason ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This article was completely made up by one author. There is no such author who made those books. A quick Google search for "john o'shea" "saints and sinners" "all saints' day" turned up nothing except this article. Most of the data is about Rainbow from Rainbow Six, but some of the names changed, most of the time not though. It's obvious that this content was invented by one person. ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are characters in these imaginary novels:[reply]

ColdFusion650 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, since the vast majority of the the article is copied from Rainbow Six, as noted. Propaniac 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as hoax material. 68.186.51.190 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious! Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well done by nominator for detecting the hoaxJdeJ 18:34, 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 as blatant spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Scrapbooker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Professional Scrapbooker

This topic does not deserve its own article. The creator made it to highlight one website listed in the links section. This topic can be covered sufficiently in a subsection of the Scrapbooking article, and that is where it belongs. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article can't stand the way it is now, but it can be improved so its not constantly in 2nd person and a "How to" guide. I think that an article can only be deleted per WP:Nobility; otherwise it can be improved, as is the case here. W1k13rh3nry 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article does not seem to have significant content; as a second choice, whatever content is considered useful can be merged into Scrapbooking. --Metropolitan90 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is a personal essay about why this article should exist. Without sources I see no reason to keep, as this information would be appropriate for inclusion on the Scrapbooking page.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to notability issues, this article appears to be entirely original research, per WP:OR. -Chunky Rice 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article will be improved, I promise. -User:Yummytork
- You created this article as spam "on behalf of your clients." That's not what Wikipedia is for. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:36, 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. --Core desat 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota E153 transaxle[edit]

The article is about a specific car part. I can't see how a specific implementation of a car part can be notable. The article does not establish any notability, is unreferenced, unwikified and appears to be information out of a manual. Harryboyles 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:Nobility. As google says: "251 for Toyota E153 transaxle". Not enough results to show nobility, and plus it sounds like it came straight out of a manual. W1k13rh3nry 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, although I should caution against arguing that there are "not enough Google hits to establish notability." (See WP:GOOGLE#Validity_of_the_Google_test and WP:GOOGLEHITS.) --Hnsampat 12:52, 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. --Core desat 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staffroom monlogues[edit]

Article about a TV competition of apparently low notability, and appears to be a conflict of interest and faintly spammy (article creator is User:Teacherstv. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable programme on non-notable channel. Unencyclopedic tone. And spam too. BTLizard 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the channel is notable, this isn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. JMalky 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing. --Evb-wiki 14:32, 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. --Core desat 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Whelan[edit]

Another murder victim. Newsworthy - yes. Encyclopedic - no. We seem to have had quite a lot of these all seeming to highlight alleged evidence of race-crime in the Britain. Please delete this per the others. -Doc^g 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad to say, murder is far too common to confer notability on its victims. BTLizard 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a memorial or a newspaper, this is a news story not a biography. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Guy. By the own description of the story the news remained completely local. Maybe if it recieved wider coverage there might be an argument for keeping it, but being a murder victime is almost by defintion 15 minutes of fame unless the person is killed by a celebrity or the person's death starts a riot or something similar. JoshuaZ 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Also it has weakly supported, seemingly politically motivated undertones. --Evb-wiki 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The accusations of racial bias this story promoted are vaguely notable. Perhaps a better venue would be an article on racial bias in the British media, however. JulesH 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy, we really don't want articles on every single crime, leave that for WikiNews. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is not a news site Lurker 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, newsworthy information is not necessarily the same thing as encyclopedic information. Has no notability beyond showing up in a few crime-report bits. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, better off with Wikinews not here. Burntsauce 17:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not Crimopedia or a memorial or a newspaper. Delete per WP:NOT miscellaneous information. See essay WP:NOTNEWS. Could be put in Wikinews. Edison 20:29, 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 KEEP Help 'ma boab. Well you could say at this point snow stops play -Doc^g 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Cup 2004-05[edit]

Pages like this covering the cup back to the 1940s. Info better suited to a sports guide? JMalky 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can only assume this nomination is a joke. How about deleting all the stuff about the English F.A. cup next? Or the Stanley Cup? Or the Ashes? At least the nominator gave the writers of the article a full seven minutes between posting a notability tag and putting it up for AfD. Nick mallory 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Plus there is already a precedent for such articles on domestic cup competitions - equivalent articles exist for FA Cup, German Cup, Danish Cup, Italian Cup, Norwegian Cup, Spanish Cup etc etc. With regard to articles dating back to the 1940s, the FA Cup follows along similar lines in that there is an article for each final. This is just the same thing, only the final has been incorporated with the full results for each round. Forbsey 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definetley notable. Mattythewhite 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept. definately notable. My reasons are also the reasons stated in the above Keeps. - Jackm (Talk - Contributions) 10:31, 6 June 2007
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the preceding comments. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Notable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well given the amazing outcry above it looks like it's going to stay. But whichever way you look at it, the article and it's siblings are essentially a long list of statistics. Notability of the Scottish Cup isn't in question by the way. But info who won the semi final in 1952 certainly is. Seriously guys, this is meant to be an encyclopedia. Not a football annual. JMalky 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the default action for notable articles which look like lists of statistics should be to introduce prose in between the statistical tables, expanding on what is contained therein. We should never just throw it in the bin without trying. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very useful, notable, verifiable, valid historical information. Certainly more worthy of its place in any encyclopedia than every single episode of a TV series for example. - fchd 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who are you kidding? W1k13rh3nry 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me it all looks like a bad faith nomination. --Angelo 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shocker of a nomination! WikiGull 13:50, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)[edit]

That is not such point to create this page while there is no reliable source to tell about the list of team, again this consider crystal ball. Aleen f1 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason as above:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic sports-guide cruft. JMalky 10:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no point in having these now. Punkmorten 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~still 3 years away, maybe needed in 3 years, but now now.~~ Ok, the qualifying starts alot sooner. Maybe merge? redirect? Jackrm 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk — Contributions)[reply]

Actually, when it says "2010 qualification" it means the qualification rounds for the 2010 event, which start next year I believe. The qualification isn't three years away. Still too early for any concrete info, though.... ChrisTheDude 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Qualification for the 2010 FIFA World Cup starts August 2007 in some regions, and early 2008 for the others, so I dont see the point in deleting these right now given they'll be back for good in less than six months time. Article does little harm where it is, needs fleshing out & referencing though. Qwghlm 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly (as I nominated this for deletion) I agree with this. The preliminary qualifying round draws for a number of confederations are likely sooner rather than later (OFC on 12 June is the first - the others were actually scheduled for May but will probably occur in June too) and therefore information will need to be placed somewhere. Eventually these articles will be too big to merge (so that seems pointless). It doesn't help that the person who recreated the article appears to be a moron (sorry POV) but there seems no point in deleting. But some changes will be required. --Jlsa 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned for making personal attacks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an empty article would explain it better. Consider also a redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification. --Angelo 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article holds no useful information yet, and won't until the time of the draw for the qualification groups. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a considerable amount of information already available about these qualifying tournaments that should be added to these pages (e.g., here). Deleting them would not be a good move, since they would need to be recreated pretty soon anyway - qualification for the 2010 World cup starts in only two months time. This is clearly a case of cleanup, not delete. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until there's any real information about the teams entering qualification. As it stands now, this is just a list of countries in the regions linked to their national teams - some of which (Djibouti is a classic example and I'm sure there are others) haven't even entered the qualification tournaments for recent World Cups. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if deleted now, it would have to be restored not so long from now when the schedules are available. The article is useful where it is now, as it shows the teams who have entered. And I found the article simply by typing in the title. It told me what I wanted to know. Deleting would be just plain silly, compared to the retention of many, many articles about detailed aspects of various fantasy worlds that Wikipedia has! Nfitz 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't like citing standards but you might want to look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. On anther note, nobody has mentioned the possibility of merging this information with another article. Might that be an option? JMalky 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I wasn't trying to say other crap exists. I was trying to say that crap exists, so why worry about the non-crap! But that aside - yes I can see an argument to merge; except that we all know that within a few weeks these articles will be necessary. So while I don't think I'd have bothered to create them at this stage, I don't see any point going to all the trouble and energy of deleting them. Now if someone creates an article for the 2014 qualifiers, then I can see deletion. Nfitz 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're very, very right about there being a lot of crap around. But one man's crap is another man's... not crap. It's actually with that in mind that I change my vote to Merge with 2010 FIFA World Cup. JMalky 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a quick point, there's nothing I can find source-wise which says that any of the countries involved have actually entered anything yet. Most of them will, I'm sure, but none of them appear to have done so just at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        FIFA have released the list of entries, or at least the fact that all members apart from Bhutan, Philippines, Brunei Darussalam and Laos have entered - see here - fchd 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm genuinely surprised, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I suppose this is not technically crystal ball material, there is no actual concrete information yet about the qualification groups, etc. - and so the article is completely pointless. Wait until there's something to be written about. Robotforaday 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pretty small in detail but perhaps it can be expanded? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just needs to be expanded. Manic Hispanic 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpublished facts WP:OR. Item 8 of Reasons for deletion.--ClaudioMB 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that information from FIFA's own website counts as "unpublished facts". "Facts from the horse's mouth", perhaps. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source reference in the article. If the information was already published, please add a link into the article. What I know is that almost sure all members of a confederation will compete in its own qualification, but that is not guaranteed. A member could be sacked by its confederation or FIFA. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.--ClaudioMB 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if deletead,the article may need to be re-written again.This still carrys some info about the qualifacation.

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 and redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). The redirect will be protected for a month to discourage recreation. --Core desat 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000 (number)[edit]

This article keeps on coming back. See the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number). I still believe this article should not exist. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the result of the discussion at DRV was to relist (although the closer said that redirects are not open for discussion there), I've reopened this AfD and reverted my earlier redirect decision. Please let the discussion run for five days. Thanks. Sr 13 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When people are reviewing the page, please look at the page as it stood at the beginning of this discussion (that in history : 09:54, 6 June 2007 by Sr13), rather than the one that has been substantially changed by another user, with, IMO, nonsense sentences on 'it is quite a large number', etc. Looking at the original page hopefully provides the best context and consistency for this discussion. The Yeti 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Its just a load of rubbish. — Taggard (Complain) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would we need this? JJL 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Delete, protect if necessary. Jmlk 1 7 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can somebody pass the salt?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well put comment above. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever salvageable and redirect to the existing Tera article. The latter would be an adequate indirect method of salting. Other than that, I guess it qualifies as a... WP:POVFORK! NikoSilver 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAFT per above Whs itc hy 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) like its brethren, and then protect. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and salt. Edison 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan is a preferable solution. The Orders of magnitude (numbers) page does a decent job of covering 10¹². Possibly the three Fibonacci numbers could be merged. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete as per most others. Dalejenkins 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) per above. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, guys, in case you didn't notice my message above, there is an existing sub-article of Orders of magnitude (numbers), which directly relates to the specific number. It's called Tera, and it is consistent with Kilo, Mega, pico, nano etc. Give it a look please; I think we should redirect there. NikoSilver 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan, merging any content not already covered in Orders of magnitude (numbers). This number is only semi-interesting because of the scourge of creeping decimalism, which must be resisted in whatever form it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, that's one of the most inspired arguments I've ever read here! I doubt most readers will know what we're talking about though... NikoSilver 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not the number article in itself, but what links to it - the point is that when billion/trillion is typed into Wikipedia, it brings up a disambiguation page for these terms (try them & see). The disambiguation page has come about because there are two different numerical numbers for billion/trillion (see long and short scale). To keep the disambiguation pages 'clean' and to avoid arguments and edit wars on the billion/trillion pages, it is simplest to link through to the actual number (1000000000000). I dont care about 10^11 or 10^13, but 10^12 does have its uses ! In fact, according to WP:NUM#How far to go?, powers of ten upto 10^11 are considered OK to exist. Why is 10^12 deemed one too far, particular when it has the billion/trillion ambiguity and then also has standard word name(s) and an si term ? With regards to the previous nomination, the billion and trillion pages have gone through large changes since then. At the very least it should be a Redirect to ~~the sub-article of Orders of Magnitude~~ Tera. The Yeti 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:NUM#How far to go? says "... Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10^11, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property." Since 10^12 does have a standard SI prefix for SI units, and also has not just one but two different standard word names, having an article on it would clearly be okay according to that even without the special need for disambiguation which "trillion" presents. Cardamon 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect, then protect. There are infinitely many numbers of the form 10^X, and WP cannot have articles on each of these. The redirect is appropriate, but deleting the content before redirecting discourages the creation of similar articles. Xoloz 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tera, not order of magitude (numbers). Astroguy2 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I have encountered the problem that User:RJHall described in the original June 2006 AFD discussion, many times -- namely, some well-meaning wikipedian, who, counting on their fund of general knowledge, "corrected" something, so that it was actually no longer correct. It is maddening. And, sometimes avoidable. In this case, it is avoidable. So, let's keep the article and avoid the problems RJHall described.
- Hut 8.5 wrote:"we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't." —— I agree, only that we don't need articles about every number. But, there are a bunch of numbers that are special, and should have articles about them. Not just zero and pi, but dozens or hundreds of others. I believe a strong case has been made that this is one of them.
- I do not agree that a redirection to Tera would best serve the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage delete fans to apply a what links here -- sanity check. Over one hundred articles use a link, or a piped link to 1000000000000 (number). The links I have looked at from the "what links here" list are all nouns. Tera is not a noun. It is either an adjective, or just a word fragment, a prefix. That would be inherently confusing to readers.
  - Does it really make sense for someone who clicks on trillion in an article on the Federal Reserve System, or the Weimar Republic, to find themselves at Tera? I don't think so. We might all be numerate. Everyone here in this discussion might be comfortable with number, not suffer from discalculi. But that doesn't mean we should make the wikipedia less accessible to those who aren't numerate, who do suffer from discalculi. I question whether any article that deals with 1000000000000 in a monetary context should link to tera.
  - Consider One trillion (basketball) -- does it make sense for a click here to send the reader to tera?
  - Consider standard cubic foot, does a link to tera really make sense.
  - I wish those making nominations for deletion, or endorsing deletion, would make the effort to check the "what links here" list first, and think about how the deletion they favour affects the articles that link to the article they want to get rid of.
  - Cheers! Geo Swan 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just... stupid... If this lives, I'm going to find a way to justify making my phone number an article... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and unlink the references to it (and trillion) in other articles. Same arguments as the last AfD are coming out again - no surprise there. - fchd 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So that people can continue to wikilink to it to when they use the word "trillion" so as to make it clear what they mean. Cardamon 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to a deletion and then a redirect to Tera. To address Geo Swan's concerns, I'd propose the compromise solution of redirecting to the subsection of Orders of magnitude (numbers) which discusses the particular number: Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 (only it doesn't look nice since "12" is not ^superscript. Coming to think of it, shouldn't there be a centralized discussion for all these numbers somewhere? I'd hate it if (a supposed) 1 000 000 000 was redirected to giga rather than the subsection of "Orders of..." if we decide differently here... NikoSilver 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tera is only for SI units. It is not really correct for a quantity that is a pure number, or for non-SI units. Using Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 risks someone only noticing what article they were sent to and not realizing that the section of the article to which they were sent was meant as a disambiguation. Actually, for the very fastest disambiguation, I would prefer to rename the article to 1,000,000,000,000, which is currently a redirect to Names of large numbers. Then the main point of the article would be apparent just by mousing over trillion, and would also be the first, and largest font-size, part of the article to hit the eye of those who clicked through. Cardamon 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I've been wondering what number follows 999,999,999,999 and precedes 1,000,000,000,001. But now I've found out, just Delete it. Masaruemoto 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numbers should be considered notable when there is something noteworthy to say, adnd for this number there is, and the above discussion has proved it. if it were, say, one higher or lower, we would have deleted it without discussion.DGG 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). Alone, this article is totally pointless. Useight 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect some place useful, and protect. >Radiant< 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trillion. I find it difficult to understand how I am the first to suggest this when it seems so obvious, or am I missing something? LittleOldMe 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something, and that is that not everyone calls this number a trillion. Clarifying that is the main purpose of the article IMO. --Itub 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This number is notable precisely because of the ambiguity of its name. At the very least it should stay as a disambiguation page. A redirect to tera is not appropriate, because tera is an SI prefix, not a number. --Itub 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that could apply to any number over 1,000,000,000. As an aside, what do all the "other 13 digit numbers" listed on the page add to the article? - fchd 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the naming problem applies to any numbers greater than or equal to 10^9, and I would certainly not advocate creating an article for numbers such as 10^360. However, I think 10^12 is notable because it is the first or second smallest number suffering from such ambiguity (depending on how you count), and it is possibly the largest order of magnitude that people actually bother spelling out, or even writing as a number without scientific notation or other type of abbreviation. People talk about billions and trillions frequently. The same is not the case for octodecillions, for example. --Itub 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus! We definitely need a centralized discussion for all these! We have two English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales), we have scientific names (kilo, mega, tera etc), we have the numbers themselves (1,000,000; 1,000,000,000 etc), and we have an article containing all of them (Orders of magnitude (numbers)). Now multiply this times all notable numbers; and you will see how many different results may be decided in separate AfD's!! Is there a Wikiproject or something discussing these? NikoSilver 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So there seems to be as many people for delete as redirect in this discussion, and the keeps are also closing in. Of the redirects, there's confusion on whether Orders of magnitude (numbers) or Tera is better. Is there really a desperate need to delete this one article from Wikipedia, given there seems little consensus on what to do, and all the ambiguities? The Yeti 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [edit conflict] Personally I doubt this is controversial or anything. We just need to get our thoughts together. Strike redir to Tera, and make it to Orders etc; not an issue by me as I'm mostly convinced. What I'm concerned about is consistency with the rest. I think we need to discuss the following agenda:
  - Confirm that the main article for all will be Orders of magnitude (numbers).
  - Address which numbers will be dealt with in there (up and down limits).
  - Clarify how the information will be separated between:
    - Main article (Orders...)
    - Numbers as such (1 000 000, 1 000 000 000, etc): separate articles? / redirected to Orders? / deleted completely?
    - English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales): redirected and merged to Orders? / piled together?
      - Trillion/billion x 2 scales - God no! We're trying clarify things, not make it worse!
    - SI terms (kilo, mega, giga, tera etc): separate articles? redirected and merged to Orders?
- I think this agenda should be discussed (or if it is already discussed pls point me to the discussion); and then we will be all happy. We can always salt everything outside the conversation to be safe, and we will point links to this centralized discussion in all relative talkpages. Then we're done. NikoSilver 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete), because the nominated article has no information besides what is in Orders of magnitude (numbers). Sentences like "1000000000000 is the number between 999999999999 and 1000000000001" are not useful information. I really doubt we could write more than a couple of sentences about 10^12, and articles that are necessarily so short are routinely merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the same format layout as that for 1000000 (number), 10000000 (number), 100000000 (number), and 1000000000 (number). (ie) 'consistency witht the rest' The Yeti 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I got this the first time. I agreed before, I agree even more now: redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and protect if necessary. NikoSilver 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete) Per User:Jitse Niesen. The last AfD, from June 2006, also ended with a verdict of 'Redirect and delete'. Since the editors who re-created an actual article (without any intervening DRV) were overriding the decision of the AfD, I believe that this time the creation of a protected redirect is justified. The present article has little informational value for our readers, while Orders of magnitude is quite well written and can answer some of the same questions. EdJohnston 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per trillion/billion linkage cleanliness and to allow discussion about possible redirect as mentioned by The Yeti and Niko (and others) to occur in a cleaner environment than AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as billion/trillion ambiguity provides sufficient encyclopedic content, particularly for linking those words. After keeping it, consider renaming to 1,000,000,000,000 (but not immediately because that needs broader discussion about naming principles for articles about large numbers). The silly sentences about 999999999999 and 1000000000001, as well as the various multiples of 1111111111111 in the table may well be purged from the article without deleting it completely. –Henning Makholm 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (alrady voted delete...) I would think that "this article provides a place for people to link to" is a poor justification. There's no really useful comment in the article that's particular this number other than adding a few more digits than in 100. We judge article based on what they contain, not how many times we can link to something that doesn't really say much but has pretty boxes. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity to be particular to this number? Strange. –Henning Makholm 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it's little more than a dictionary defintion issue, not the basis for an encyclopaedic article. - fchd 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the complaints about possibly losing a link to the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity - how does wikilinking to this page help the user determine which one is being used? Not much. Articles for the words "billion" and "trillion" already exist and already document this ambiguity, a seperate article for the number does nothing to help inform. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are two more reasons for keeping this page. This shows that at least one non-native speaker of English recently searched for 1000000000000 in order to find the English word for it. So the page can be useful to non-native speakers of English. Also, the content, while admittedly far beneath the notice of professional mathematicians, could possibly be useful to, say, middle school students. Please consider that an encyclopedia is written for its readers, and that Wikipedia has a lot of readers and potential readers in the categories I have mentioned. Cardamon 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All this can be achieved by redirecting to order of magnitude. My point is that the only thing that the page should say is that the number is usually called trillion in English, but sometimes billion. An encyclopaedia does not consist of loose facts, it consists of articles which collect facts together. Thus, one fact does not make an article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would prefer to see the article title with commas "1,000,000,000,000", if it is kept. The string of zeros is difficult to take in. However, what is perhaps needed is substantive, rather than disambiguation articles on billion, trillion, and quadrillion, in which case this article could be retained as a disambiguation page. The present articleis certainly stuffed with the inconsequential, but the solution to that is to delete, not AFD. Peterkingiron 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this page be a disambiguation page? The number 1,000,000,000,000 is not ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me spell this out. As you yourself mention above, the English words billion and trillion are ambiguous. You can use 1000000000000 (number) as a disambiguation page as follows: To disambiguate trillion, if 1000000000000 (number) is the number meant, type [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] into the edit box rather than just typing trillion. That disambiguates the trillion by pointing the reader to the actual number that is meant. ~~Or, if you had an old quote which used the word billion to mean 1000000000000 (number), you could replace the word billion with [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion ]] , thus disambiguating it.~~ Cardamon 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm sorry, I think that is the least user-friendly of all the suggestions so far. - fchd 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ???? How are wikilinks like trillion "the least user-frendly solution so far"? Granted, moving the article to "1,000,000,000,000" would be better than keeping it where it is.Cardamon 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd expect that if the word trillion is linked, it goes to the article [[trillion]] . That's what links usual do. If you're concerned that the reader may misunderstand trillion, then you should explain it in the article (see also Septentrionalis below). It's not user-friendly to expect the reader to realize that the link [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] is an atypical link put there to explain the use of the word trillion and to click on the link. That's bad practice and thus not a good reason to keep the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 1,000,000,000,000 (number). This number is notable in being the largest number that is generally talked about outside of scientific usage. Voortle 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hurts my eyes, and it is pointless. There should at least be commas, or title it "One million million". Oh, just delete it.
Keep. As Cardamon points out, the terms billion and trillion are ambiguous. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a good idea to end the confusion about "Is that a million million, or a thousand million"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No additional information above Order of magnitude (numbers). The differences between US and Euro uses of number words is fully described in Long and short scales. -- MightyWarrior 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not keep an article around just to disambiguate trillion. As a financial term, trillion is in practice unambiguous, unless someone can come up with a genuine citation for £10¹⁸. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article that uses billion to mean 10^12 in a financial context, and uses the page you want to delete to disambiguate it. Is that close enough for you? Cardamon 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I grant that billion is ambiguous. But (precisely for that reason) the article should say "one hundred million million (10¹⁴)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is about German banknotes which used the German "billion" for 10¹² during hyperinflation. Here is an example which both says "Fünf billionen" and "5000 milliarden" (milliard = 10⁹). Others at [33] only said billion. PrimeHunter 01:45, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of message forwarding in Objective-C[edit]

Not appropriate for an encyclopedia Jibjibjib 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:NOT#INFO. Placeholder account 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but investigate the possibility of 'transwiki. Wikibooks may have a use for this sort of material. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest shortening and merging into Objective-C, but it already has such an example. Digwuren 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Capmango 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing encyclopedic about it. Per above. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Pankratov 00:12, 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 Deleted by Exploding Boy with a reason of (Original research already removed several times from another article. No possibility of ever becoming an article. Content already covered on Romanization. Clear case of POV pushing). --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maccha or Matcha Spelling Perspectives[edit]

Original research article, states things that the "International Standards Organization" recognises a spelling (spelling of languages is not in their remit) and seems to be a spill off from another user trying to edit the Matcha article and being reverted by consensus of other users. This user has only ever edited two articles and seems to be trying to push an WP:OR WP:POINT. Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this underinformed essay (by a user with remarkably similar minority interests [powdered tea and the romanization of Japanese] to those of User:Newshinjitsu). -- Hoary 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Hoary 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
d̪ēḸêŤę Topic is not encyclopedic Fg2 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrelevantly specific. A section within a larger article, describing the debate of "tc" vs "cc" to represent 「っち」might be worthwhile, but its not a problem relevant solely to tea, nor a large enough, notable enough one to warrant an entire article. LordAmeth 12:35, 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 Deleted by David.Monniaux with a reason of (CSD:A7 + complaint on m:OTRS). --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Darkhorse[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that this person satisfies WP:N or WP:BIO. He has published a collection of poetry [34], but I don't see any independent, reliable sources that discuss the work or the author. There is also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by Donniedarkhorse (talk · contribs). -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:12, 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 CSD A7. soum (0_o) 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Andrew[edit]

Deleteunsourced (to any outside references), non-notable, little information, vanity page Smerus 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per no assertion of notability (A7), so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:02, 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 and redirect to The American President (film). --Core desat 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shepherd[edit]

Delete. non-notable, unsourced, apparent vanity page Smerus 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, no sources confirm notability or even existence. Filled with speculation. Once deleted, redirect to The American President (film) as this is the name of the fictional president from that movie. Otto4711 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Otto4611. Propaniac 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect apparent hoax: I don't believe 50,000 copies of a record could be sold without google having a single non-wikipedia hit on its title. JulesH 15:41, 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 no consensus to do anything, from the below. Pursuing an editoral-based merge may be good, though. Daniel 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary-size comparison[edit]

This article appears to have no clear purpose. The text reads like a school essay. The way, the truth, and the light 07:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What's the rationale for deletion here? I don't see the reasoning behind saying it has 'no clear purpose' and though the nom may think it reads like a school essay it's certainly not original research. Nick mallory 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It's all encyclopedic content. More sources would be nice, but this shouldn't be deleted. Useight 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a decent scientific information page that may be useful. Perhaps it could do with a descriptive intro paragraph and maybe even a rename, but the content seems fine. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Showing the relative sizes is useful and the data on the sizes is provided. It could be merged with the List of solar system objects by radius but make sure the table and the gallery are kept. I don't see why this should be deleted.
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collector of information. The diameters can be obtained from other lists and tables, and table of the ratios of each object's diameter to each other's is bith confusing and trivial. (If someone wants to know the ratio and the diameters of Jupiter and Pluto, they are much more likely to use a calculator than to go off looking for this article, assuming that they even know it exists.) --EMS | Talk 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information is redundant - planetary statistics are available in multiple other articles, including (but likely not limited to) the individual planet articles, Planet, Solar System, List of solar system objects by radius, Dwarf planet, Natural satellite .. need I go on? I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but repeating the same information again and again - and in this instance with no additional context - seems silly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius. No need to repeat stats, as Arkyan says. The table should be either be deleted (my preference), or at least have a title or explanation. But definitely keep the gallery somewhere. Clarityfiend 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius...wasn't aware of that one. This is double information coverage to be sure. My previous keep is striken. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above two comments Alex Pankratov 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to merge, redundant with List of solar system objects by radius and others. The way, the truth, and the light 01:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a re-expression by the nominator of his desire to delete the article. Spacepotato 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's all encyclopedic content. --YoavD 10:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius. The size-comparison illustrations should be kept, as they're useful—especially Image:NewSolarSystem2.jpg, Image:Gas giants and the Sun (1 px = 1000 km).jpg and Image:Terrestrial planet size comparisons.jpg. Spacepotato 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interlang transwiki to the Simple English Wikipedia? 132.205.93.83 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Silly, waste of space, need I go on? All of this belongs in the planet's article. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Present article has a title that nobody is likely to search for.--Mike18xx 09:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius, all info's there. --Tone 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recaptured literature[edit]

This article has no sources, and I can find no evidence that this term is used by academics, reviewers, or anyone at all. Every Google hit is a reference to this article—there are no other online references to this term anywhere. When the article first appeared, I asked the originating editor to provide print references for this term. No such references have been produced. ShelfSkewed Talk 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. If anyone adds sources to the article, I'll reconsider. Deor 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation, unless some kind of reliable sources are found. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After twenty minutes of fruitless searching, I've found that this movement is either in the beginning stages and has yet to receive mainstream acceptance or just doesn't exist. ShelfSkewed is correct that most Google hits (there are only twenty-two for the exact phrase, by the way) are Wikipedia mirror sites, and I highly doubt reliable sources are available after looking through a few Lit journals at my disposal. WP:V and WP:NOT. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:59, 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. W.marsh 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter 2[edit]

Non-notable freeware game. The article author claims it's one of the most popular freeware games ever, but I haven't had any luck finding any references backing up that claim, and there are none in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced unnotable game per WP:SOFTWARE. It has seven other-language wiki articles, which is about seven more than I expected, but none of them have obviously independent sources either.--Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I was inclined to agree, but according to Download.com the game has been downloaded from them nearly four million times. Granted big numbers aren't everything, but that's still an indicator that the game is notable. The only question now is whether sources can be found for verification. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to Delete. I still haven't found anything, and I don't think the Freeloader article is enough. I thought there'd be more, but I suppose not. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to ask how that number compares to other software downloads from Download.com. Without context, I have no idea how popular or unpopular that makes this piece of software. Chunky Rice 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BIGNUMBER, but the Doom 3 demo only managed to score a little over 600,000 downloads on the same site. The Half-Life 2 demo sits at just under 300,000. I imagine that the demos' sizes and system requirements, being larger and higher than Little Fighter 2's, were a factor but... Yeah. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also checked, and we might want to use the Starcraft demo as a better metric, as it's been on the site a similar length of time. That's still sitting under the one million download mark by over 100,000 downloads. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment ... how should download figures note into noteworthiness? I don't know if downloading something (which has a name rather close to Street Fighter II) neccessarily means the downloader is aware of the actual contents or not. IL-Kuma 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not sure how we're going to write an article based on a number of downloads, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was primarily an indication that the game is fairly popular, and nearly four million downloads (from just one source, where multiple sources exist) indicates that the subject is not, as pointed out in the nomination, non-notable. Unable to be verified by reliable secondary sources is a very different story, but still a condition for exclusion from the 'pedia. If I can't find anything and nobody produces anything else within the next couple of days, I'll switch my Weak Keep to a Delete. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notable means not covered in reliable secondary sources. It has nothing to do with popularity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. A quick search turned up this Freeloader feature on 1UP.com. Given that the game is, at present, approaching eight years old it might be more difficult than expected to find more sources. I'll add it to the article for now so that it can be used later. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This game is notable in Asia. Vitruelugia 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence for that? --Scottie_theNerd 09:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 09:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; the Freeloader feature looks fine, but ideally we should have multiple sources. I've had a good search; IGN has an entry but with no real information. Even searcing for '"Little Fighter 2" -download' doesn't come up with any reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources. I have no doubts that it is popular, but that's not enough. Will keep looking though. Marasmusine 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I moved the info to a gaming wiki it can be found here. So it can be deleted --Cs california 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have at least one secondary source for verifiability, and the download count for notability. Most coverage of a game is going to happen when the game first comes out. If that was eight years ago, then searching now isn't going to help. On the other hand, a freeware game that's still going strong after 8 years seems notable to me. Capmango 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above, the number of downloads from a site is not an indicator of notability, and many non-notable freeware programs can continue for years without ever becoming notable. If the game had little to no coverage when it came out, it brings into question if it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Scottie_theNerd 08:49, 12 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 WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. Sarah 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur cloning[edit]

I'm a member of Wikiproject Dinosaurs & have written a few Featured dinosaur articles. I've also seen quite a few short dinosaur article on dubious specimens and some which may never be expanded due to lack of information. And then there's this article - it screams NN, OR & its subject matter is ripped from the Jurassic Park movies. It has no references, yet refers to "research" & says babble like "Many scientific controversies could be resolved by watching live dinosaurs interact with each other in nature parks" among other stuff. It is made by a user who apparently has created some other speedily deleted stuff also. I'd nominate for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure how to right now (will investigate), but be my guest if you want to for me (copy & paste?). It is obvious this article will never be encylopedic material. Leaving this sort of article makes new editors think that it's okay to add all the trivia from Jurassic park to actual dinosaur articles & makes a hard job harder for the Wikiproject Dinosaur team. Anyway, Delete or Speedy delete as patent nonsense -- Spawn Man 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It may not be patent nonsense (unintelligible gibberish), but it is nonsense and original research for sure. Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources for this notion, I'd say it was extinct before it began. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... never knew this would be a pun AFD... :) Spawn Man

Delete. I considered the possibility this could be a halfway decent article about the obviously popular idea, but there's nothing there but the tar pit of WP:OR. No incoming links save a variety of creative alternate names. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 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, BLP violation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling[edit]

Original research / essay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR --RaiderAspect 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be entirely original research. --Haemo 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the comment that this page can be covered if appropriately sourced on J. K. Rowling and if it grows enough, spun-off. I don't see that as necessary right now though. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Bigdaddy1981 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a little worthwhile information there (that actually is cited), and it should be merged into the main article (which I see already has such a section, but I'm not sure if all the usable text is there). However, most of it cannot possible be attributed to a reliable source, so the article should go. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - OOR (Obvious OR). Spawn Man 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - original research essays trying to reconstruct the subject's views and philosophy are clearly unacceptable. Violates the spirit if not the letter of BLP.--Doc^g 10:27, 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. --Core desat 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Pike (musician)[edit]

notability-drummer of year old band, information duplicated in band article Chris 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls just short of a speedy A7 because the antecedent band is barely notable. As to the fact that he died, R.I.P., but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Placeholder account 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Capmango 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with the others. --RandomOrca2 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned in mainstream media/news, eg. [35] Madder 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable drummer from a non-notable band. Being mentioned in the mainstream doesn't mean a lot, anymore. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article say that the band has one self-released EP. Hardly notable by WP standard. The drummer's strange/newsworthy death does not render him nor the the band notable. Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Ra Riot - Nabla 02:09, 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 delete, no redirect. --Core desat 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Allen and the Broken String[edit]

This article has absolutely no content at all except for a vacant infobox and headers. I'm merely completing a malformed nom here, so I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy A7 because the reference given as a link is to an unreliable blog. Placeholder account 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bishop Allen unless some actual information is added. According to WP:MUSIC, "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." However, the article provides absolutely no context other than the infobox, so it should really just redirect to the band's article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Haemo 07:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't that fall under A1 or A3? Whs itc hy 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep geez, the article was only created today. Presumably more information will be added soon. If the article stays empty for a month, then delete. Capmango 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A3 Delete unless notable content is added by the end of this AfD. A1octopus 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need a redirect, as the article title is an odd concatenation of group name and album name. According to the band's label, the album won't be released until next month. I'm guessing (and willing to be corrected) that the article was created and then abandoned? At any rate, assuming that if the album becomes notable, it should be listed under it's title, no? Not speaking to notability here of the group or album at all.... 216.201.119.71 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as information-free (inc. notability, sources. tomasz. 10:41, 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 REDIRECT (merging not needed and anyway, the content will be available at the article's histories) - Nabla 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Reptizar (Shadow Raiders)[edit]

A group of articles about planets in an animated series that ran from 1998 to 1999. None of these are notable enough to have their own articles. I have no objection to these being redirected to List of Shadow Raiders planets if people think that there's a possibility that someone might search for "Planet Reptizar (Shadow Raiders)". Either way, no merging is necessary as List of Shadow Raiders planets appears to already contain the same information as all the seperate articles.

Masaruemoto 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into one article, may be a good idea. List of Shadow Raiders planets could be a good place to merge to, but make sure that the individual articles are integrated. GrooveDog 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I already mentioned, the list contains the same information as all the seperate articles, so there's nothing to integrate. Masaruemoto 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to stick with Delete here. The list o' planets is apparently tagged for a WP:DRV, but that they were all split out into their own articles doesn't make much sense. It makes more sense to me to keep the main article and just live with that at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect everything. The series didn't last very long, but it does exist, and the planets were reasonably important in it, so some coverage is appropriate. Whether it's to the main page on the series or the list, I don't know. I think the DRV is bound to be closed by now, it's at least a month old. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even see it on the DRV page. I'll get rid of the banner. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Groovedog - Integrate all the articles into the List of Shadow Raiders planets, but if that cannot be done, delete. Spawn Man 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is anyone actually reading my comments? For the third time; Merge is not an option here. Not because I'm against it, but because it's physically impossible - there's nothing to merge that isn't already in the main list. Uhh. Masaruemoto 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the articles on their own completely lack context anyway, but someone might search for them so don't delete. Capmango 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect 132.205.93.83 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Yasinsac[edit]

Subject does meet the WP:Notability requirements. No major awards, press coverage or any other notable achievement in career that are noted. Only references are subject's sole publication. 60 hits on Google. Ozgod 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject does not meet notability guidelines (just a little stub) GrooveDog 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds rather promotional. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:Notability Bigdaddy1981 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:00, 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. --Core desat 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaverton 911 truth[edit]

Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy group. Contested speedy deletion, and with comment left by one of the admins, I felt it may be better to bring to AfD. No reliable sources can be found to verify any notability. Wildthing61476 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be reporting these people to my contacts within the secret labs. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or move to PROD. Non-notable, no sources, and article contradicts itself in talking about the founding of the group. GrooveDog 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I placed the speedy tag based on WP:ORG. --Evb-wiki 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karl Rove and the baby eating neo-conservative cabal paid me a million dollars to say this group isn't sourced or notable. Nick mallory 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that's how much Nick needs to be bribed in order to vote "delete"...JUST KIDDING, please don't take offence...but yest, he's right. The group is not notable. Placeholder account 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice one Placeholder Nick mallory 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable conspiracy theory mentalists Bigdaddy1981 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local schism of loosely-defined conspiracy theory "movement" Eggishorn 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like one of the group's goals: "Educate the public to the existence of groups such as the Skull and Bones, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Committee of 300, and the true beliefs behind the Freemasonry." That almost makes the article worth saving for entertainment value, but since we're an encyclopedia, we can't really do that. So, delete this article and send a shipment of tinfoil hats to Beaverton, Oregon. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we might be able to. The term BJAODN comes to mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom of WP:NOTE. Darn Tinfoilhatters don't even have a website for my personal amusement. Lipsticked Pig 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another non-notable 9/11 "Truth" group. Not notable enough to be merged into 9/11 Truth Movement. (Also, not that this is an argument for deletion, but it's one of the most POV 'articles' I've come across recently -- "Group goal: [to] expose the fact that rogue elements of the U.S. Government orchestrated the events of 9/11", indeed!) -- simxp (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another group of people creating conspiracy rumours. Skullblade 00:11, 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 delete. Daniel 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locopops[edit]

Organizations that are local in scope are not usually notable per WP:ORG, I do not think that this article has sufficiently established notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. Local company, not notable. Reads like advert.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but correct a couple NPOV problems. GrooveDog 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, this article has neutrality problems, but it satisfies the primary WP:ORG criterion of being the subject of secondary sources. Hut 8.5 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a total advert written by the owners themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.67.11 (talk • contribs)
Keep. The article could use a rewrite, but the sources are a good indicator that the subject is notable enough. RFerreira 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage appears to be essentially trivial restauront reviews of the kind rutinely carried in newspapers and thus does not establish encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local business that has only been in existence for 2 years. Article primarily written by two SPA's, parts read live an advert ("Locopops does cater and can also be reached by email at locopopsdurham@yahoo.com"). Fails WP:CORP. Caknuck 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CORP doesn't list who created the article or the current tone as criteria... it just calls for existence of non-trivial sources. And they seem to exist here. See also [36] --W.marsh 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam--Mike18xx 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Favorable restaurant reviews don't establish encyclopedic notability. — Scientizzle 00:17, 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 Keep as disambiguation page. utcursch | talk 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán[edit]

I certainly would agree that Stefán is a nice name, but honestly, is it worth having a wp article on the 9th most popular male name in Iceland, which is nothing more than the Icelandic variant of Stephen or Stephanos? The debate is open. Stefán 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it, we also have an article on Jón, which is very similar to the one on Stefán. Stefán 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stephen and John (name). FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per FrozenPurpleCube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a possibility to merge but what should be merged. Take a look at Stephen, there is no reasonable place in that article for the information that Stefán is the ninth most common male name in Iceland. Surely we are not intending to put the graph showing the distribution of people named Stefán in Iceland according to which year they were born. Then we only have the list of people left. If you take a look at the list of people mentioned in the Stephan article we have a subsection each for saints, royalty and church figures. Finally there is an "Other" subsection with five names, does anybody think it would be a good idea to throw these five or six Icelandic people into that section? Stefán 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the variant of the name with the statistic can be merged. Beyond that... well, ain't nothing. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Change~~ Leave as a disambiguation page Note that Stephen is already disambiguation page serving the same function, but already combining too many variations of the name such as Stevenson. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there something to disambiguate? --Dennis The Tiger(Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. All the people listed in the article with that name. It already is a disambiguation page with a short history of the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen. JJL 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I am asking people to look at this article, perhaps people would comment on whether the graphic on the page is of any value. It shows the number of people named Stefán who were alive in the middle of 2005, distributed after the year of birth. It is thus a population pyramid with some random noise. You can sort of guess that the popularity of Stefán has gone down a little bit in the last decades. This falls under WP:NOT#INFO, right? Stefán 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I went ahead and removed the image. Stefán 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is a right step, as the statistics do inform the reader about the decreasing or increasing popularity of the name. I can't see a worthless information here and would be glad, if the image could be replaced in the article. Jón 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have written the article and think, although I am not a experienced user on the English WP, that this ambiguation page should stay as it is. Regard the article "John" and especially John (name) for example: There are many variants of names which have for good reason an own page. It should be done all the same with "Steven", as it is a not very convincing structure of the article. In icelandic wikipedia, each Icelandic name has an article similar to that I have written here (f.e. look at is:Jón). Although they are stubbs, I think, they are fine. You get all the interesting information with one look, and you don't get this in the article Stephen. Best regards, Jón 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3000 bot-generated name articles on the Icelandic Wikipedia are useless and I wish I had got a consensus to delete them. As to whether Jón or Stefán can stay as disambiguation pages I have no opinion. They are certainly better than is:Joshua or is:Gnurr. Haukur 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per similar decision in the past. Lists by the first names should be discouraged. Pavel Vozenilek 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Icelandic is somewhat unusual here in that there are no more last names than there are first names and the first name is the primary one. Thus you often only remember someone's first name when you want to look them up, rarely do you only remember their last name. Haukur 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exact the reason why the disambiguations should be left here and not included in the other names, IMHO. Jón 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hmm. If the page is ket this information should be visible in the text, to avoid people using the page as precedent to create huge lists by first name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I have edited the article to try and make this clear. Take a look. Stefán 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page. I started this discussion and I believe that after the changes made to the article and the point raised about Icelandic names that the article should be kept as a disambiguation page between those Icelandic people named Stefán. Stefán 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. - As Stefán already explained it. Jón 13:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Lewis[edit]

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Subject is a minor radio personality, but third-party published coverage is very limited, and coverage by reliable sources (not blogs, etc.) is non-existent. Just another talk show host working conspiracy themes. -- Donald Albury 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the government told me to argue for this article's deletion, on the grounds that he's not notable. Lankiveil 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He's kind of a fringe personality but there's enough to keep him around. First there are multiple sources and there seems to be some additional sources that could be added by someone knowledgeable. Whether the sources are WP:RS may be another matter. His movie roles should be considered too. JodyB_talk 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does he meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)? [[Where are the multiple reliable sources? His own website does not count. -- Donald Albury 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JodyB. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the article never got the ((afd1)) tag to direct editors here for discussion. I added it to the article, and I'm relisting it to June 5. KrakatoaKatie 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough in this bio to imply notability. —SlamDiego_←T 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone in the radio industry this long has been discussed by reliable sources many times. I'll add a couple of them in. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been listed among the likes of Long John Nebble and Ace Hayes as contributors to fringe topics. He has been seen on national shows as an expert of sorts. He is also the voice of the Toxic Avenger for Troma. He has a cult following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.169.34 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you should delete him. Clyde has appeared in various television programs. (Most recent being Pen and Teller's B.S.). He has had articles written about in multiple magazines and newspapers. (Including Rolling Stone and Talkers Magazine). His current status in radio not withstanding, his history within national talk radio warrants a listing in Wikipedia.Geekinthecity 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) ~~— Geekinthecity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [37][reply]

Keep. Mr. Lewis has a large cult following throughout the world. He has been nationally syndicated, and is considered by many to be the next Art Bell. He has been on several TV specials, including Penn & Teller's BS, and is currently filming a special with Lewis Black. Also his voice acting credits alone warrant an article. Read the article before making assumptions, all the relevant information is available there. TEG 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clyde is huge in the Portland Oregon area, and has a big national following. He is definitely worthy of being mentioned. Tony in the Couve 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Tony in the Couve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Several citations and links to outside sources have been added to satisfy requirements for notability. Mordant Kitten 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please, people, remember to sign your comments. I'm seeking a copy of the Rolling Stone issue so that I may cite it properly; if you have it, you can do so; please feel free to. It's the August 25th 2005 issue with White Stripes on the cover; I lack a page number.Mordant Kitten 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable fringe personality with more than sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:43, 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 delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of Eureka Seven[edit]

This article is just a copy of information that was formerly on the page it refers to. It's unneccesary, and the article can't hold its own Tempest115 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the correct course of action for universe sections that grow too large is to trim them down; the is very little here to sustain a full article on the subject (i.e. there's a coral, it makes trapar, mechs use it to surf). --Haemo 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there's nothing to merge as it is a copy of the main article. -- Whpq 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to merge and I doubt the title is a likely search term. --Farix (Talk) 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is only a copy from the main Eureka seven article. (Duane543 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per above. Placeholder account 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a literal copy of Eureka_Seven#Setting. No info no merge, no need for a redirect as nothing links to the page now, and doubtful anyone would search by this term/phrase. Tarc 14:46, 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. W.marsh 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redner's Warehouse Markets[edit]

Unreferenced spam article, a clear example of an "advertisement masquerading as an article". Looks like something I'd expect to find in one of their marketing brochures. Tagged for speedy as such, but the tag was removed. Suggest deletion as spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nom.(WP:CSD#G11) -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom says it was tagged as such and removed; for future reference, CSD tags are not PRODs. If there has been no improvement you can re-tag. (Or has that changed?) Morgan Wick 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a rule of thumb, if a CSD is disputed (other than by its original author) then it's best to take it to AfD to get a full discussion. I mentioned the CSD tag removal in the interest of disclosure (so that readers can see that at least someone felt it wasn't speedy-able). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:11, 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 technical knockout. --Core desat 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable boxing fans[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, and indiscriminate reason for a list. As pointless and unencyclopedic as a List of notable people who like the opera or List of notable people who like Italian food. Masaruemoto 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial intersection for a list criterion. --Haemo 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure unnecessary and unencyclopedic trivia list--JForget 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.O. (i.e. Delete) - Textbook case of a list of loosely connected things, in thise case a list of people who have no connections other than that they all have said they like boxing. --Hnsampat 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though as usual with these lists, it was fun to read! JJL 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia; smacks of OR Bigdaddy1981 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article had ANY sources (which it doesn't), it would fail WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, trivia, loose connections Hut 8.5 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being interesting and intriguing, it is pointless, unsourced and no one cares about it ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources, and will be extremely difficult to keep up with. The title is also to broad, making it difficult to include every notable boxing fan. --Nehrams2020 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all. Bulldog123 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unmaintainable, potentially unlimited, unsourced, original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:19, 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 DELETE (no sources about his work) - Nabla 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Rupley[edit]

The article contains two (possible) assertions of notability: a) The person is an editor for a major magazine; b) he is covered on CrankyGeeks. In my opinion, a) is not a secondary source and b) is not independent, with S.R. being something like a co-publisher. Thus the subject fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary coverage. Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand I've never seen, so far as I recall, an AFD nomination longer than its respective article. I did a search engine test and found more than 100,000 Google hits, and about 200 citations on Google scholar. I'm not willing to work on this further, but there might indeed be a case for notability. YechielMan 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since September 2006, no one else was in fact willing to work on this further (i.e. to add secondary sources), the notability warning has been on since then. Also, Google hits do not establish notability. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Those GS hits are interesting--some are his columns in PC--GS apparently includes that as a scholarly journal, which is news to me; the majority are citations to his patents, even mentioned in the article. DGG 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the Google scholar hits support notability. If S.R. were a scientist, and PC Magazine were a scholarly journal, then maybe 200 hits would show that he is "widely cited", and this is a criterion for notability by WP:BIO. (Still, just counting search engine hits is a dubious argument.) In this case, however, the hits just show that PC Magazine is popular and widely known. That makes the magazine notable, not its editors. As for the patents, what are "his" patents? I only found patents that cite an article of his. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Question Exactly where does it say only scientists who write in scholarly journals are considered noteworthy enough for articles on Wikipedia? Wow! This is entertaining. KP Botany 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not claim that "only scientists who write in scholarly journals are considered noteworthy enough [...]". I argued that citations to an article have a different meaning (towards notability of the author) when that article is published in a scholarly journal, vs. that article being published in a mainstream paper. --B. Wolterding 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" If S.R. were a scientist, and PC Magazine were a scholarly journal, then maybe 200 hits would show that he is "widely cited", and this is a criterion for notability by WP:BIO." Then why say, "if he were a scientist?" What precisely does that have to do with anything, that he isn't a scientist? Nothing, this is not scienapedia. And how do hits for this particular editor just show that the magazine is popular? The current editor of Vogue has her own page, and she's not a scientist, and Vogue isn't a scholarly journal. I'm trying to understand your arguments, and they don't really make sense, because they don't appear to have much to do with this article. Not being a scientist is not a criterion for dumping a biography in Wikipedia. KP Botany 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all I was saying with that statement is: Because he does not publish in scholarly journals, one should not judge his notability by his hit count on Google Scholar. We should just look for secondary sources as described in WP:BIO. (And no one came up with any of them, yet.) As for the Vogue editor, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --B. Wolterding 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except frankly, that's what everyone is basing their deletes upon, your assertion that he's not in Scholar. Why did you even bring this up? So, you're relying upon your initial assertion that his being an editor for a major magazine is not a secondary source as a reason for deletion? Well, Tony LaRussa's being the general manager of a baseball team is not a secondary source, either. What does that have to do with anything? Bats aren't tigers. Oranges aren't glaciars. I am really not following your nomination at all, and I don't think your replies are helping. None the less, your arguments that he's not in Scholar where you don't expect to find him seems to be carrying weight--good grief. KP Botany 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in Google Scholar supports real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Yes he writes articles, and article-writers quote him(Google news Google web). But these and Yechiel's Google scholar search turn up no reliable 3rd-party sources we can use to write an article about him (or his work). Pan Dan 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment' as I thought everyone knew by now, that is not the only way to attain notability not everything in the newspapers is notable, and vice versa. Notability is within a subject. applied computer people determine what counts for notability among among applied computer people, and so on. Articles citing a person are a secondary source, just as book reviews are. Since most people in science and applied science cite each other a good deal, we rightly require (and have here) more than the 2 or 3 citations that would be enough if they were book reviews. DGG 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a lack of newspaper coverage doesn't imply non-notability. Coverage in any kind of reliable source is enough to show notability. The problem here is that even the Google scholar hits (including articles written by applied computer people, which you emphasize) turn up nothing non-trivial about him or his work. A list of citations to his work doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that nobody has shown interest in improving the article since it was tagged as sadly needing improvement almost one year ago. That isn't an official criteria, but it should be.Garrie 06:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after 8 days at AfD, the article is still only one line plus two external links.Garrie 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is NO criterion that says short articles are deleted--what precise length do you think articles have to be? This is the one that gets the most comments on the list serve, all of the deletionists who cry out, "It's short--it must be deleted because it's short!" Where are these criteria coming from? What's the deal?KP Botany 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks this should be a criterion, then it should be proposed at the Village Pump--our rules are subject to change if there is consensus. About six months ago there in fact was an attempt to change in exactly this direction. The policy proposal was called speedy deletion for unsourced articles -- "speedy" being somewhat of a misnomer, because the proposal was that anyone could tag an article and there would be two weeks to find at least the minimal two sources. The proposal was soundly rejected, and the comments were that in practice it would destroy the encyclopedia. DGG 18:27, 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. --Core desat 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yudonia[edit]

Delete - difficult to tell from the article but it appears this is a fictional country mentioned in perhaps one episode of a television series. Most of the article is an original research attempt to locate the country (all of paragraph two and some of paragraph three) and there does not appear to be the sort of notability either within the show or in the real world which would warrant an article. I have no objection to a redirect to the relevant episode if one can be determined, but I can't determine one from the article. Otto4711 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and fix - The article is lacking any references but it is sufficiently notable. I propose proper sourcing and cleanup, rather than deletion. --Javit 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cool Blue and Sci girl --Javit 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. fails general notability guidelines, specifically: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Barsportsunlimited 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, delete - I've watched the series, and it is appeared in one country, and it is only mentioned. Not notable whatsoever. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Fictional sources from Yudonian writers? Clarityfiend 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fictional country is not notable. If you really wanted too it could be mentioned in the main show article but not an entirely separate article of its own. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some fictional countries are notable. This one does not appear to be. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge add a sentence to Josh Nichols and delete the rest of it. Sci girl 06:59, 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 keep. W.marsh 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil twin (wireless networks)[edit]

some journalist tries to create a "fancy" new name for Man-in-the-middle attack, probably hoping to follow in the footsteps Jesse James Garrett, and wikipedia automatically gets an article on it? this is vanity, plain and simple. Misterdiscreet 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Neologalism? --RaiderAspect 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe redirect to Man-in-the-middle attack? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term wasn't invented by a journalist, but by a UK security expert[38] some two years ago[39] and has some currency in the tech press. It is described as a variant of man-in-the-middle[40]. One problem with that article and a merge is that it's almost wholly about cryptography as opposed to the more general intrusion principle.--Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- cryptography was invented to "solve" the man-in-the-middle problem. sure, some cryptographic algorithms solve the problem better then others, but even an algorithm that's susceptible to replay attacks can still provide protection against "passive" eavesdropping. if the man-in-the-middle article doesn't make this clear, the solution doesn't seem to me to be to create a new article, but rather, to "improve" the existing article Misterdiscreet 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need not merge every single similar thing to its greatest abstraction. There appears to be sufficient material for an article on the particulars of this, if you will, specific type of man-in-the-middle attack. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man-in-the-middle attack -- it's a specific and now rather common example. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it has sourcing from 5 reliable sources. The term is used by the Illinois attorney general and various computer journals and newspapers. Disagree with merge to Man in the middle which is a cryptography article. This is about some crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room. Edison 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room is man in the middle. if that is not clear from reading the man in the middle article, the man in the article needs to be improved. one well written article is better then two badly written ones. for now, i suggest you read the Beyond cryptography section of the man-in-the-middle article. as i said, cryptography is, with varying degrees of effectiveness, the solution to the general problem. the solution and the problem should be discussed in the same article. or maybe you also think that XSS#Avoiding XSS vulnerabilities should to be split off to it's own article? i disagree with that and with this. in fact, i think your misunderstanding of man-in-the-middle reenforces the need for this article and man-in-the-middle to, at the very least, be merged. Misterdiscreet 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to sourcing by Edison. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but requires a fair amount of cleanup. Useight 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with man-in-the-middle attack. Neither article is particularly long, and evil twin seems to just be a specific variant of man-in-the-middle. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should make a reference to man-in-the-middle-attack, since that is what an evil twin is used for; it's not a specific case of it, though, it's a tool you can use for it. Capmango 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten and sourced, this is a subject we should be covering in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon (JavaScript)[edit]

Neologism. No citations. also, in all likelihood, wrong. this article describes a cross-site scripting virus, of which Samy, released in late 2005, is generally considered the first. Misterdiscreet 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know the technical details, but it's not attributed. Placeholder account 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. too small and unreferenced. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor technical detail, can change (or changed) overnight, WP is not computer virus database, content not useful for even virus writer, insufficient context what it talks about, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even news worthy. (Do they really give names to every IE bug?) John Vandenberg 19:10, 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. --Core desat 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-platform Application Interaction Manipulation[edit]

Neologism. Wikipedia is not here to boost Mr. Barneck's vanity. the article is a complete rip of XSS. i think this quote from this article says it best:

“

The most accurate acronym coined by Jared Barneck is Multi-platform Application Interaction Manipulation (MAIM). Verbalizing this into the term MAIMing makes the idea better understood than previously used acronyms.

”

Misterdiscreet 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's almost a word for word copy of the XSS article, and doesn't provide any sources for its claim that the term XSS is no longer used. Sci girl 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism wrapped in copy of an existing article. Remove it from Cross-site scripting too. Speedy delete, if possible, it is waste of VfD time. Pavel Vozenilek 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, term has been dreamed up. John Vandenberg 19:11, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka[edit]

Belongs in Wikinews. It's a breaking news story, not an encyclopaedia article. We need to wait some time before we have a historical perspective on whether this is considered independently significant. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Terence 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems unlike an ordinary crime case, in context of the larger conflict in Sri Lanka. It has multiple sources from far afield of the location of the crime, and is about the events and not biographies of the victims, criminals, or the like. I take issue with the "wait and see", isn't the purpose of Wikipedia where the wiki comes from the Hawaiian word for "quick" to put content quickly on-site. Should editors have held off on the Virginia Tech Massacre or any other "breaking news" story until the dust settled? No. The article will no doubt improve over time as new sources and perspective can be brought to bear, but that's no reason to delete a notable, sourced event. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not create an article everytime 2 more people are murdered in Baghdad or in Miami. Why should Sri Lanka be different? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and per WP:NOT we do not have to have an article about everything that has newspaper coverage. If it proves to have national or international implications, an article could be created then. Breaking news can go in Wikinews. Edison 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have WP:PAPER. Just because we don't have to have any article, doesn't mean we can delete it based on that premise. We don't have to have any of the 6,849,377 articles in Wikipedia. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take into account Edison's point, but since these workers were volunteer Red Cross workers, abducted whilst on their training program, it is quite a significant case. The fact that these people were aid workers is different, and even the President of Sri Lanka is getting personally involved with the case, and attended the funeral. Surely if the President of the country feels it is significant enough to attend, it is a notable event? It's not like Bush attends the funerals of every murder victim in the USA? Thanks. Thusiyan 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Ummm... I'd be a bit more compelled if there were some specific policies listed that constitute a violation. While I realize that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, it seems to read like an encyclopædia article, and we have plenty of 2007 _______________ incident articles. No doubt in my mind, keep. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. You demand policies, and then advocate speedy keep, which policy says cannot be applied in this case. So: policy is WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep cool, the question what is the policy violation that led to the nomination ? But no where in NOt did I see that a notable event that also happens to be a latest news cannot be an article ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Definitely not an encyclopaedic article.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a serious incident involving International aid workers in a War zone Harlowraman 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's a serious incident of killing their own people by the so called liberators of Tamil nation, to put the blame on the GoSL. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am some what persuaded by the nominators arguments about the timing but I still think if it had happened in the USA or the UK, the potential for AFD might have been much less. Just because Sri Lanka is an obscure third world country, does not mean that this notable incident written with reliable sources in a neutral tone does not belong in Wikipedia. In realilly it is a stub and as more information comes out we can improve this article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the status of Sri Lanka, it's a news story, Wikinews is thataway ---> Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a Notable event and wikinews that is notable ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Murder of a ICRC personnel is a NOTABLE issue and Encyclopediac. This is a significant case in the latest of HR violation in the Srilanka. Also as per Thusiyan Watchdogb 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If the United Nations, UK, US and many other countries think this is important enough to issue official condamnations of this event, i think it is important enough to be in an Encyclopedia.--12345ka 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Can somebody also add Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo to the list. Wikipedia is being reduced to a scoreboard to keep the latest scores in the conflict. Shameful really. Sarvagnya 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per CoolBlue. Praveen 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from the initial media coverage into the deaths, a week later there is almost no follow up coverage of the incident. That should pretty much illustrate the lack of notability of the murders. That aside, there is as yet no confirmation that these people were killed because they were red cross workers. Right now, all we know is two men were murdered. That in itself is not significant enough to warrant an article of Wikipedia. Their occupation could have absolutely nothing to do with their murders. As per Guy, unless there is any historical perspective of this incident, it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coverage of press releases, media statements etc should remain in Wikinews. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:31, 12 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dead Rising Endings[edit]

There was a prod on this for a few days (I placed the prod), but it was removed for absolutely no reason. Game guide/fancruft content, not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aim for the head - No need for a separate article; endings are not notable outside of the context of the game itself. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vaguely interesting, but not really all that notable. Might be good for a gaming wiki but not here. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Agree that the information is non-notable outside the context of the game itself, unless there's something truly historically significant about these endings. Someguy1221 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zahakiel. JJL 23:25, 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 delete. Moreschi ^Talk 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPV, Still Picture Video[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about the same topic:

These articles look rather spammy to me - either links to some actor's showreel or an unverified assertion that he invented the term. Canley 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jasonjjwillis (talk · contribs) has created a duplicate article, S.P.V., Still Picture Video, which I have redirected to this article (and added to the list of articles nominated for deletion). Neil916 (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. The article admits the term is new, "coined by Steward Clinton", a non-notable actor. Can't dig up anything about either the term or the actor. Neil916 (Talk) 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an advertisement and is full of original research. I remember tagging this as unreferenced when it was created and notice the tag has been removed and there are still no references; possibly because it is unverifiable, as Neil916 has suggested above. - Zeibura ^Talk 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The articles are about a non-notable neologism and read like advertisements. Would whoever closes this discussion also please handle the accounts involved? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moneyskillz (talk · contribs · logs) – created SPV, Still Picture Video
- Jasonjjwillis (talk · contribs · logs) – created S.P.V., Still Picture Video
- Stewardclinton (talk · contribs · logs) – created Still picture video, spv
- Janetpeterson12 (talk · contribs · logs) – created Talk:Still picture video, spv and Marketing tools (another advert)
- 168.28.200.38 (talk · contribs · logs) – edited Still picture video, spv and SPV, Still Picture Video

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 Nominator withdrew. John Vandenberg 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Openshaw[edit]

Withdraw/quit. Seems notable with new stuff now Cornea 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, seems pretty notable to me - the numerous sources and others such as this BBC story fulfill the primary criterion of WP:N, and as for BLP, well the story of Openshaw's "awkward statement" is verifiable and well-sourced. The article is not written as a smear either. --Canley 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ per CSD G10, article exists solely to propagate disparaging material about Mr. Openshaw. This is not a "biography" in any sense of the word - if incident is deemed encyclopedic, merge it somewhere else. We don't write single-incident-source biographies anymore. Period. FCYTravis 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it be a speedy delete instead. Please delete it. Cornea 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to speedy it and will let this AFD proceed as there's already one vote to keep. -- Netsnipe ► 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll tell Travis. Cornea 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley.--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important man. He is not just some country judge. Further the issue raised by his comment, 'There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it,' is also important. See "I don't really understand what a Web site is.". WAS 4.250 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biography. I've redirected to the statement. If we can have a verifiable article about the statement, that's one thing. We don't have enough to write a biography of him. FCYTravis 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you know we do not have enough--you mean the article at present does not have enough--there is no requirement that we complete all articles to keep them from deletion, as long as he subject is notable. DGG 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Openshaw didn't make the widespread belief comment, Ed Felten did.--SarekOfVulcan 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to sourced discussion of his statement. We don't need two separate pages saying the exact same things, and we should avoid pretending that this one incident is Mr. Openshaw's entire life. Thus, a page about the statement is a good choice. FCYTravis 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Openshaw Internet statements. Only notable for that. Cornea 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there's no reason to duplicate pages & content here & Openshaw Internet statements. — Scientizzle 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge. near as i can tell, Openshaw has two main claims to fame. (1) he was appointed to be a judge on the same day as his wife and (2) he said something about the internet that got a lot of attention. the BBC may think (1) is notable, however, i don't. and (2) is about as notable as

Vincent Ferrari, an article i think should be deleted (and will probably nominate at some point) Misterdiscreet 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and summarize the trivia about the web stuff. Wait until the AfD is completed before forking ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A seperate article covering the publicity around a single event is in accord with WP:BLP section "Articles about living people notable only for one event" where it says "Cover the event, not the person." Ifn fact this person is a notable judge and should have an article on him. But the coverage of this event in the article on him must not be givenundue weight. Having a seperate article on the statement, the media coverage of it, and the reason for the internet attention to the statement is not a POV fork, but is proper coverage of an issue. Blowjob is not a POV fork of Bill Clinton either. WAS 4.250 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and judge appears notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bio article and Deletearticle on statement. We are not Quotapedia, with an article for every stupid sounding statement made by every non-notable person, and we certainly do not need to create a biography for the unfortunate individual, even if it made a little splash in the papers or was a water-cooler story. Both articles could be deleted per WP:NOT as indiscriminate information. On the other hand, someday it might be as famous an incident as Senator Ted Stevens saying the internet is a Series of tubes. (Perhaps they should call each other for tech support). Edison 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the UK its is as important as Ted Stevens. People who try and delete articles because they never heard of the topic, or because they are from sources such as the BBC, the Guardian or Reuters, are just plain wrong. You showing regional bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I give here and here. But, some might think I'm biased, being the article creator; maybe, but I've actually read the reports and the following comments.- Peter Ellis - Talk 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is surely notable, the article is sourced and the tone of the article is not disparaging. Even without the Internet statements the subject would be notable by way of the positions he holds and has held. If an article was to be deleted then Openshaw Internet statements would be the better candidate, but I see no reason for deleting that either. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he would be notable as a high court judge even if he had not made that statement--but neither his career, nor the incident of the statement itself are adequately discussed. DGG 05:22, 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 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Vista game compatibility[edit]

Previous AfD reached no consensus two months ago; most keep votes were based on the article being well-sourced and in need of improvement. It's in much worse shape now, with a fair bit of blatant WP:OR. -/- Warren 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is next to impossible to maintain a high quality of such a list. This would become the crash database of every other Vista gamer. --soum ^talk 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not what Wikipedia is for, and would be difficult to maintain. --Nehrams2020 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Certainly is difficult to maintain and remove OR, and despite the likelihood of being a crash database; this list is and would be useful, and I consider that's what Wikipedia "is for." Yes there is original research there, but decent Lists aren't built in a few ~~weeks~~ months. *shrug* I don't even own Vista; I just know it would be relevant to people. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Disclaimer: I created the list as part of my incorporation of DirectX 9 EX into Wikipedia articles.[reply]
Delete Seems to violate WP:NOT as well. Whs itc hy 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Garrett^Talk 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt is very useful information, there's no denying that but it is very WP:NOT - X201 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a useful list. Shanekorte 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all "useful" things belong in an encyclopedia. Morgan Wick 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no other lists on the internet as comprehensive. Shanekorte 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had a look at what it was like 2 months ago, and although it's gotten worse in terms of sourcing, it's gotten better in terms of usefulness: back then it was mostly composed of games with no issues, which would (hopefully) be most of them and quickly become unmaintainable; at least now it's confined to games with known issues. -- simxp (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for one thing I don't like the way the list is specifically limited to "a list of older games designed for DirectX 9 (or earlier) that will install on Windows Vista and run (or almost run) on its DirectX 9 EX. Please list only games with known issues..." (the description itself seems rather contradictory IMO), which seems rather arbitary, as why only list games that use a certain API (rather than say OpenGL or indeed MS-DOS)? Plus without sources we can't be certain that entrys in the list aren't just a single editor's issues with their own systems configuration etc. Plus the theorectical issue that to be 100% accurate, we would need sources for every single game every to ever have used "DirectX 9 or earlier" (if that's the criteria) and it's compatability with Windows Vista to be sure the list is accurate. FredOrAlive 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensive application compatibility simply isn't encyclopaedic and would do better as a few specific examples in the Windows Vista and/or Criticism of Windows Vista articles. While this would make an interesting wiki project (Wikia hosts the similar Classic PC Games project), Wikipedia is simply not the place for it. Garrett^Talk 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It strikes me that such a list will tend to vary from system to system. There are some "issues" there which I simply don't experience on my own Vista system. It's going to be very hard to maintain accuracy, even if there are sources available. 80.193.211.68 15:32, 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 delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuyo (game)[edit]

Article does not explain why this game might be notable (WP:N / WP:ORG), and does not provide any independent references (WP:V). Marasmusine 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 22:03, 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 no consensus. Those who wanted merge should pursue it editorially; however, the discussion below yields no consensus to merge, nor to delete. Daniel 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayra[edit]

Various reasons. The article is mostly game guide material, it includes stats, strategy, and very in-depth, unnecessary details about the game. The character isn't really one of the mains in the game, and can even be skipped over entirely without adding much to the main story. No real world significance or coverage. Goes against the WP:FICT guidelines as far as I can tell. Voretus 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Unsure - according to WP:FICT minor character should be merged into the article which might be true in this case, but it also appears that this character is linked to a variety of other characters since there are several redirects to this page. Seems like the character might be of more importance than you think. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked from two other characters and a list of characters in the game. The other redirects are all only linked to from non-main namespaces. Voretus 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an unencyclopedic piece of cruft. The character described is a rather minor part of the game - at most, she deserves a mention on a list of Fire Emblem characters or so. In addition, it seems to be a pet article of User:Tedius Zanarukando, rather than a valid contribution to Wikipedia. Delete or merge to List of Fire Emblem characters. Moogy^(talk) 03:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There is already enough reliable information about Ayra to warrant an individual article. She is a popular character, and (contrary to what Voretus stated) she has enough real world significance (as I have seen throughout of my years of Fire Emblem fandom), and is more important than you think. The introduction of this article is not intended to be game-guide material. The only game-guide content is after the "Her Story" section. It contains biographical stuff about Ayra and what happened just prior to the events of the game and what happened in the meantime. There is enough real world coverage of the said character in Japanese sources. It is not intended to be unencyclopedic fancruft in any way. This article originally contained fancruft, but it was removed last year. I do not call this my pet article in any way. It is a valid contribution to Wikipedia. A pet article is an article that a particular user likes to edit for pleasure and for the sole purpose of catering to fans. I only edit the article when it is necessary. The main game article Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu may be considered my pet article, but not this character article. I always wander around just about any Fire Emblem related article, not just this article. I am in control of Fire Emblem related articles. There are other characters like Joshua that have individual articles, and they are also reliable. This article is also linked from a table of characters from the Fire Emblem series. The two characters this article is linked from are not the only characters that are associated with Ayra. Cuan is another one associated with her, and an article about him will be likely to this article. Ayra is notable (since Super Smash Bros. Melee) and information about her is too much to be merged into the List of Fire Emblem characters article series. Vorectus has misread the WP:FICT guidelines. The WP:FICT has mentioned an example in favor of this article, such as Star Trek character Noonien Soong. Therefore, like Noonien Soong, she has sufficient depth to sustain an individual article. One solution would be to remove some of the game-guide content. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Stats section has been removed from the article by me. This will turn the tide of the discussion to the Keep side of the argument. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Completely useless fancruft about a non-notable minor character from a game series and a waste of Wikipedia's bandwith. Besides, she's not even in Super Smash Bros. Brawl (lol). Lip could totally kick her ass. --71.98.100.124 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to deletion - I strongly object to the anonymous user's statements. That is a poor and false reason to delete the article, which was created three years ago. This article uses only a little of Wikipedia's bandwidth. This is no useless fancruft, and Ayra IS notable to Fire Emblem's English speaking audience. She is a historical character and the first Swordmaster of the series. She has become notable since Super Smash Bros. Melee, and she is still becoming more and more notable. I strongly want her in Super Smash Bros. Brawl as well. She will totally defeat not only Lip, but also the rest of the Nintendo cast. I also want Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu localized to the U.S. Virtual Console. I will very disappointed if this article about my favorite Nintendo character get deleted. If that happens, I will contest the deletion. If this article is deleted, but the said character does become playable in the Super Smash Bros. series, along with fellow Seisen no Keifu character Sigurd, the article will be automatically undeleted. It is very unreasonable to delete this article. This deletion will also inspire me to request the said character to be playable in a Super Smash Bros. game. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced information (or a small amount of it) to List of Fire Emblem characters. She does not appear to have independent notability. Eluchil404 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Ayra may appear to be non-notable to Fire Emblem fans who have little knowledge about her original game, but she actually does have indepenedent notability. Most of the information in the article is based on the game or the related book Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu: Treasure, which is written in Japanese. A translation is found at Fire Emblem Sanctuary of Strategy message board. Her role has been incorrectly measured by people do have a little or no knowledge about Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu. I do not want a substantial amount of information loss. I will not like it if this article is deleted. There is a strong chance that if Nintendo of America elects to localize Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu to North America, Ayra will be proven to have independently notability. George Harrison, a Nintendo of America executive, has said that there is a possibility that the game will be localized to the U.S. Virtual Console. Ayra will sure become notable by then. Her notability includes that she is the first Swordmaster. Many Nintendo gamers outside Japan do not realize her notability. She is especially notable in Japan, and she has a cult fanbase in the United States. If this article gets deleted and my deletion review fails, I will consider resignation from Wikipedia. I probably will quit reading the Fire Emblem related articles for good. The deletion will give me another reason to request Ayra to be playable in the Super Smash Bros. series. The reason that Voretus stated, "very in-depth, unnecessary details about the game", is an invalid reason to delete this article. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the fiction guidelines by a lot, and shows no chance of improvement. The only reason to keep seems to come from a major case of WP:ILIKEIT instead of any real reasons. TTN 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object This does not fail the fiction guidelines. It may appear to fail the fiction guidelines, but it is actually not the case. The article is difficult to source, but the statements ARE sourceable if you know Japanese. There is enough reliable information for the character to sustain an individual article, but that information is mostly in Japanese. Deleting this article is not right. Consider Lex (Fire Emblem) and Tiltyu (Fire Emblem). There is a chance of improvement. I improved the article some during the debate, by removing game guide content. I created the article for a real reason, not because I like the character. If this article gets deleted, I will have to discuss it with whoever deletes this article and contest it. The article is based on reliable sources, such as the game itself and the Japanese book Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu: TREASURE. The reliable sources for this article are usually in Japanese. You should learn Japanese before deciding the fate of the article. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction articles need out of universe information in order to exist. What went into creating Ayra? Why was she given her personality or looks? How did the critics find her? Is she exciting and fresh or boring and cliche? Has she had any impact upon the world? Has she influenced other characters or parodies? All of that needs to be backed by non-trivial source. That is unlikely for a character from a single game of a mildly popular series. TTN 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, the Fire Emblem series is more popular than the Legend of Zelda series. It is gaining a foothold in the United States and Europe. Ayra has influenced the popularity of later Fire Emblem characters, particularly Swordmasters. She is a top-tier member of Sigurd's party, and probably the most popular member. She is the first to use Ryuuseiken (Astra) skill, which is an excellent skill. I found her personality interesting and unique. She is shockingly beautiful, but I do not consider looks a major factor. Most non-trivial sources are written in Japanese. Therefore, this article is difficult to source unless you know Japanese. She is Fire Emblem's first Swordmaster. She has started the tradition of popular swordswoman, especially in Japan. Her original game Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu was the most successful game in the series, particularly in Japan. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That all has to do with only the series, not real world notability. You need real world information along with in-game information, or you end up with cruft. It is up to the person asserting notability to at least assure us that sources can be found and used. "There are Japanese sources" doesn't cut it unless you actually show something. TTN 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define as real-world information? The introduction of the article is considered a mix of real-world information and in-game information. You will have to see the Japanese sources for yourself. We should research for real-world information. All Fire Emblem character articles, even those of Lords, have hardly any of what you call real-world information. Some real-world information might include that Ayra is heavily featured in Japanese fanfics as well as some western fanfics. She cannot always be tied to her original game. There have been talks about her being playable in the Super Smash Bros. series in Nintendo related boards, but this may be speculation and Wikipedia might not want speculation content. Masahiro Sakurai is considering Fire Emblem non-Lords being in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I personally want Ayra playable in that game, although many disagree. Instead of deletion, you should research for any real-world information. Therefore, instead of Delete, Improve. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable character of a highly notable game. A game which, may I add, I don't particlarly like ;) - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - There's no real encyclopedic content in this article, and the only reason it seems to have not been deleted yet is because of User:Tedius Zanarukando's unhealthy obsession with the character. In general agreeance with delete or merge to List of Fire Emblem characters. (Anonymous) 4:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I object Ayra is my favorite Nintendo character, but I have no unhealthy obsession for her. It is online business, and I just want her to be playable in Super Smash Bros. Brawl because of Lip from Panel de Pon having a high chance of being playable in the game. I watch what is going on in any Fire Emblem related Wikipedia article. The article does have real encyclopedic content, not fancruft or game guide content. The content is actually documented in Fire Emblem related sites and GameFAQs, and in official Japanese sources (such as those published or licensed by Nintendo). This debate is nothing but political garbage. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: There are lots of Wikipedia articles for obscure anime characters. This place doesn't have to be boring political crap from one end to the other.--Mike18xx 09:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Keep over Merge. If this article is deleted or merge, I will suffer emotional distress. I am not obsessed with the character. Final Fantasy is my first love, not Fire Emblem. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 23:23, 14 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.