< June 6 June 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adrenaline Vault[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Adrenaline Vault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

AfD closed with no consensus to delete in December, in the six months since that time it has had a primary sources tag, and the article has not improved. There is no evidence that the article satisfied WP:WEB or that the content is verifiable. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep, article should be deleted. RWR8189 23:45, 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. Sr13 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Speculative Dinosaur Project[edit]

The Speculative Dinosaur Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable project speculating what the earth might maybe be like if dinosaurs had not died off BassoProfundo 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its notability and suitability for Wikipedia are directly dependent on those of the Speculative Dinosaur Project article. Any other articles on hypothetical dinosaurs should be added to this list if found (also note that the first comment below from User:Javit was made before the additional nomination was made).:

Smilotyrannus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating another two related articles (added after comments by Javit, Horologium, Someguy1221, and Adrian M.H.) for the same reasons (also note many redirects have been created pointing at all these articles):

Drak (Speculative Dinosaur Project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gihugrongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: At issue here is not the accuracy of the subject, but its notability. BassoProfundo 22:18, 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. Sr13 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal DeMaria[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines ponyo 23:04, 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 delete. Sr13 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations by State for Tanning Salons[edit]

Regulations by State for Tanning Salons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Em, "WP:NOT something or other" -Docg 22:30, 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 wasclosed as possible hoax. I am not opposed to re-creation should sources be found. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melano Supriatna[edit]

The article seems to be hoax or a bad conflict of interest. It was originally a redirect to the user page of a problem user User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga created by the user himself. Later it was developed into the article. No google hits outside wikipedia and its clones. The paper references exist but appear dubious. In the image the author claimed to be a sailorman who shoot the image himself? User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga was a subject of a recent sock puppeting investigation and appear to be a college student - not an old sailor or a dead Indonesian revolutionary Alex Bakharev 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe article history suggests a hoax, the main contributor is being very evasive on how he developed the article. Such hoaxes are very damaging to wikipedia and should be dealt with very strictly.--Merbabu 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - I've borrowed the Cribb reference from the library - as I expected, not a mention. SatuSuro has already given good reasons why he thinks the anderson reference is also false. Plus, check user suggests all contributors are the one person and this likely sockpuppetry case has been issue recently. Thus, should be removed and editor's other articles examined for truthfulness. Such hoaxes bring wikipedia into disrepute. Merbabu 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support Suggestion - SatuSuro 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. --Javit 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andersons - Biographical Appendix pp.411-458 has no mention - all of the 135+ persons mentioned in that appendix have birth place and date (although about 4 have contradictory birth dats and annotated info about that) - I can assure you that there are some particularly obscure characters mentioned. Also in my slow plodding through Javanese names for a number of different off-wikipedia projects I have never found a javanese with the name melano (or melana) SatuSuro 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on, we have between us in front of us, at least five of the most reliable scholarly books on this 45-50 period that mention dozens, even hundreds of people - not one mentions this character - and we've shown that the editor has falsely added such references. Furthermore, the whole article smells of hoax; overly general, weird name and nonsensical interpretation of his name ('lucky'). The editor first claims he is an expert on the topic, then within minutes, says that he can't remember if it is even accurate. Reliable sources or delete. As for this apparent hoax Ocking Jayat Mayaj from the same bunch of editors who, according to check user, are one. The whole Jakarta harbour thing stinks of hoax. I wrote Indonesian National Revolution and i all the sources, there wasn't a mention. Wikipedia is not based on vague memories of a sailor in a bar in the 1960s (which is what the editor is claiming), but based on WP:RS. Merbabu 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes SS, Chris' offer to provide further verification either way will help. Let's give it a few more days for O-W to find his sources. Merbabu 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Indonesian National Revolution; it was just one of the many rebels from that era. I think, perhaps their a small section can be added about him (really small), and the rest merged. So not deleing, just redirecting it. And than, I think the issue is sttled for now; the article isn't fit for wikipedia. The man might have been just legend, and I might have accidently made a mistake between several dfferent people. Sorry, my fault. Is that a satishfieng solution? -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is disturbing that the major editor should claim that the article should remain when no WP:V or WP:N has been forthcoming. Too much patience and good faith is being allowed on a fruadulent hoax article. What a waste of time. SatuSuro 10:54, 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 speedy keep. Procedural close. This is a reopened old AFD, I will revert to the previous dif which was a request to blank the AFD page per a ticket. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dekker Dreyer[edit]

Dekker Dreyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All secondary sources in this article are trivial and all non-trivial sources are primary sources. Fails all notability standards. Speedy delete Devlindetails (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laher[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, non-notable family. Name of article is the same as the user who created it, and there are no sources referenced. JoeyETS 22:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Fury[edit]

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

Youth/amateur basketball club. We don't generally consider those to be notable. Author has reposted (after two speedies) and attempted to assert notability, so bringing here for definitive decision. NawlinWiki 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Come to think of it, I can't find any coverage of club sports teams in the Minnesota Sun -- at least in the suburbs I checked. They only cover high school sports teams and the occasional disc golf tournament. So much for eliteness, I guess. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country Club of Troy[edit]

Country Club of Troy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable country club, with no claims of notability to make this any more than any other country club. Corvus cornix 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom and talk - notability is very poor. --Sigma 7 05:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as not sufficiently notable. Having your golf course designed by a reputed expert in the field (so to speak) is not really enough, even though the designer has his own article. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 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 delete. Some serious sockpuppetry going around... Sr13 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chessckers[edit]

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

Contested prod. No references for this game at all on Yahoo or Google. Blueboy96 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can IPs make an entry here?
I suggest you get a grasp of policies that could be used in AfD debates before anything else. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, demonstrate to us how this qualifies. I'm very curious. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 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 (hoax). Peacent 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race: MK[edit]

The Amazing Race: MK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax. CrazyLegsKC 20:52, 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. Sr13 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Real Estate[edit]

Dallas Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally, I pondered putting a speedy delete tag on this, but there was a lot of demographic information about the Dallas area, so I left it. Another user and I discussed it and felt that unsourced and wikify would work. But now the demographic information has been removed, leaving us with just some vague statements with nothing to substantiate them. I really don't see how this stub can be expanded without turning it into an ad. Corvus cornix 20:43, 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. Sr13 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawloop[edit]

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

Contested prod, apparently company-produced PR. Assertions of notability are made, but I don't believe this meets the threshold for WP:CORP, especially since references given are mainly self-published (i.e. blogs). RJASE1 Talk 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danyadi[edit]

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

Article is about a surname, which as the article states, is not very common. Although well-formed, it was not categorized correctly, without stub tag, and originally a dead-end. There are no Wikipedia links to it, nor an article on someone with the name. There are thousand of surnames out there, and not all are notable enough for Wikipedia. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:39, 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. David Eppstein 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detleff Neumann-Neurode[edit]

Detleff Neumann-Neurode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject may seem notable, but contrary to to the POV "work of Detleff Neumann-Neurode is known the world over," he has few Google hits. Only one contributer, and the article is wildly unwikified. Sources are two small things he wrote, and are not in-line. It is possibly a copyvio. Also has no links to it. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:31, 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 without predjudice for or against a merge which can be carried out without an AfD. Eluchil404 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chariot of Wisdom and Love[edit]

The Chariot of Wisdom and Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed as a speedy, but I'm really not convinced it meets the letter or spirit of A7. On one hand, a good deal of research suggests that there's not much else regarding this specific publication, but Jeremiah Hacker, the publisher, is certainly important, and a number of sources about him could probably flesh this out, too. I couldn't in good faith leave the speedy up, but I can't comfortably let this sit without better discussion, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Extremely Wicked-Strong Keep There's nothing wrong to the article that meets the eye...JONJONBTTalk to me! 20:19, 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 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Essner Mathematics Competition[edit]

David Essner Mathematics Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability; a local math contest, named after a local who died in a motorcycle accident. Wikipedia is not a memorial service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 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 keep. W.marsh 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Marketing[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Search Engine Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Propose Deletion. This article is not Noteworthy. It is an overlapping topic. Same author wrote (Search Engine Land also not noteworthy) It is an overlapping (subset of Search Engine Optimazation). Search Engine Marketing belongs as a subtopic of Search Engine Optimazition, as it is currently written.

The article is poorly written, even after it was reverted. SEM is a subset of SEO work, as such, it belongs in the SEO article.

Any SEO company will do SEM work. It is a subset of the topic and should just have a redirect to that article. --Akc9000 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, marketing isn't a weasel word. It has a very precise meaning. Please do read the article. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think search engine advertising would be more accurate. Whatever, why don't we merge it though? It's not worthy of its own article. W1k13rh3nry 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your own opinion, what evidence or argument can you present? The simple fact is that this thing is called Search engine marketing and I've presented rock solid evidence that it's a US$9 billion per year industry. On what basis can you possibly argue to delete this. My belief, at this point in time, is that this may be a bad faith nomination meant to troll and disrupt. If I attempted to delete the article on Uganda, which has a GDP of about US$8.7 billion, I suspect the result would be a speedy keep, and I'd get some kind of stern warning. Jehochman Talk 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently those seven sources I cited don't count? All of which are either from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Rockstar (T/C) 00:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you say you disagree, Jehochman, SEO first of all does not only deal with free listings and the optimization of a site. Here is an example of an SEO company, http://www.submitexpress.com/ have a look. All companies that do SEO work also do SEM making SEM a subset of SEO. You optimize a site so you can market it. You do not market a site that is not fit to be marketed. SEM needs to be mentioned but not how this article is written. It need to be a section on the SEO article only and not a section of its own. If this was a very comprehensive article I would say that it would / should be its own article but not currently. As it is written, it is more like a footnote for the SEO article. Sorry, Search Engine Advertising is not the proper term or nomenclature, the proper term is Search Engine Marketing, as I stated, this article needs to be deleted or merged with the SEO article. --Akc9000 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually do research before you say keep this article? You are citing references from 2005 ! http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/search-marketing/34955.html for example. Do you think the information from 2005 is correct today? Do you read these things or do you just post them as cites to try to prove your point? Just because it is written, does not make the author correct. He tries to say that SEM picks landing pages and SEO does not. What a bunch of rubbish. I can do SEO on a site and get the search engine to land on a page. It is called "doorway" or "gateway" pages. Also, in the same way you changed this articles intro to make it look like SEO is a part of SEM you should have done the reverse. All SEM must starts out as a part of SEO, its just common sense and if you did that and merged these to articles we would not be having this discussion.
This is a very, very poor argument and a further testament to your misunderstanding of the industry. A citation that is two years old does not mean that it has become irrelevant or any less fact today than it was two years ago. Quit being a troll!! Jasonmurphy 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore look at PPC for example, just one year ago you bid to a position. This is no longer true, you still pay-per-click but the actual position is based on a number of factors, 1 is the amount you are willing to pay per click and 2, is the quality of the ad. The quality of the ad is SEO not SEM therefore SEM is a part of SEO. Do any of you have PPC accounts and do SEO/SEM work? --Akc9000 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to merge this into it's parent article, Internet marketing, until we have time to expand it into a proper, separate article. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internet marketing would be more appropriate than merging with SEO, though it will become its own article once I find some time to properly reference it. And for the record, I do work both with SEM and SEO, and trust me, they're not the same thing. Rockstar (T/C) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right; they are not. Even those of us who do both services entirely in-house as "just another part of the process" are aware of the distinction. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bill Slawski's expansion is sufficiently detailed that there is no longer any reason to merge this. We just need to keep working on it and add more references. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of opinion. To me, as someone who practices both industries, the two are as different as magazines and books. Sure the printing press is required for both, but the motivation, funding/costs, editorial process, production timelines, content, revenue streams, delivery logistics and release schedules vary widely. Both SEO and SEM involve search engines, but there are two many distinct differences beyond that to brush it off as a matter of philosophy. The actions involved vary a great deal. Jasonmurphy 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Some use the term SEM or Search Engine Marketing for Pay per click advertising, which will probably be understood in the right context. Some also prefer Search Marketing over Search "Engine" Marketing. There are valid arguments for that. As Bill Slawski already stated, Search Engine Marketing is used today as term for a broader industry, which continues to broaden. Things like Social Media Optimization emerged less than 2 years ago, Pay per click 10 years ago, SEO since over 14 years (with different names used for it at the beginning) and before that inclusion into directories. ODP is the only notable left that is free, the rest are fee based, hence the name "paid inclusion", which was extended to incorporate also the payment of a fee to ensure that crawler based search engines include paid for pages in their index. Who knows, but local search and mobile search will probably become so big to be noteworthy on their own merits as part of SEM.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd comment. While it was possible in the past for one company to offer all kind of search engine marketing services, did the landscape became much more complicated and competitive over time. The trend of the industry is towards specialization on one aspect of search engine marketing. Even within the indivdual sub sections of SEM, such as SEO, is a trend to even further specialization within a sub section noticable. It is not as comon anymore that one company offers pay per click advertising services in addition to SEO services, even SEO shops do not necessarily offer all kind of SEO services anymore (in depth), but specialize in one or two aspects of it instead, such as Link building and viral marketing (linkbaiting) etc. These trends will continue, because search is going to become a larger market within the next few years and at the same time also much more competitive. The complexity of the new market if much too great for an individual to handle and deliver quaality results in all areas. The size of the companies in this space is still relatively small. Large companies that will be able to provide the whole spectrum of services across search marketing and beyond might emerge, if massive consolidation in the space will take place. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:25, 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; with no prejudice against recreation in the event that the band becomes notable. Sr13 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masque:rade[edit]

Masque:rade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability (speedy was contested), but I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. ` NawlinWiki 19:46, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Abro[edit]

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

Unreferenced autobiography; notability doesn't meet threshold of WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears then that you are proposing a change in policy and not arguing about the merits of this particular article. I suggest you make this proposal at the talk pages of WP:CSD, WP:DEL, the village pump, or a similar forum. That way more people could sound off about it, since it would be a pretty big change from how speedy deletions are now usually handled. nadav (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was trying to propose that we follow policies and guidelines. The WP:DEL policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". What we are doing here is prejudging that this page cannot be improved. Following the spirit of WP:DBN and WP:AGF, it seems reasonable to give the author a chance to respond to the tags. Why do we even bother tagging a page if we don't intend to let the author respond to the tags? Capmango 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the whole point of an AfD discussion: it allows everyone to make their case. Five days is enough time to offer evidence that there exist secondary sources about him. And when I expressed my opinion that the person is non-notable, I had already checked for English language sources. I didn't find anything longer than a few words about him. Now, there may very well be more info out there, but I think 5 days is enough time to wait for an answer to that question. Also problematic is that if we editors don't have access to the sources, then there will be nothing to include in the article (since it is undesirable that Mr. Abro write the article about himself). nadav (talk) 03:14, 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 Snow delete. Peacent 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods with strong odor[edit]

List of foods with strong odor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subjective. What I think is a strong odor is not what you think is a strong odor. People perceive it differently. In addition, there are too few sources cited per WP:RS for this not to be subjective. Crystallina 19:03, 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. JoshuaZ 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingham County League[edit]

Ingham County League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. The organization has now folded. When it was around it was only a bunch of high schools competing against each other. Clerks. 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. Peacent 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humber students' federation[edit]

Humber students' federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable student union organization -- there's some group like this on every college campus in the world. NawlinWiki 18:53, 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...this is the english *language* wikipedia... --Stephanie talk 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican voice actors[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this site is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia, where this information is better suited. If we have lists like this for all languages, what's the point in having different language Wikipedias? To my knowledge, the video game and manga/anime Wikiprojects have agreed that articles should list the voice actors for English and the native language if it is not English. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


((He's trying to scare Spanish-speakers on this Wikipedia, and he's definitely trying to spark hatred against the Spanish Wikipedia! I will not stand for this any longer! If this keeps up, I'm going to have to report him on the grounds of prejudice! In fact, I can only hope the admins order him to pack his bags for this fiasco! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Biggs[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:36, 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 as an attack -Docg 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Gipson[edit]

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

Hapless criminal. Falls into category of people known only for being in the news once. NawlinWiki 18:02, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amira belly dancer[edit]

Amira belly dancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sign of any notability for this person Lurker 17:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Fernández[edit]

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

Non-Notable. Stellatomailing 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the article does not comply with the rules below.

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities: 

  * With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Stellatomailing 20:12, 28 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, Sr13 03:11, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was under the impression she met none. I was just trying to demonstrate that her film credits are not notable.Stellatomailing 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying she met any; if I was I would have voted keep. I just got that idea from the way you cited specific lines of WP:BIO she didn't meet. Morgan Wick 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I just did not want to repost the entire WP:BIO article. Stellatomailing 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is definitely going to be kept, but she did not have a significant role in the movie. It was just added by the creator of her article. [18] He created "advert" articles before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everest_Capital. Stellatomailing 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her own web site includes a listing of her film and TV projects. It states that she had a principal role in Mi nombre es sombra and in the TV show Menudo es mi padre. Her other roles were secondary, according to this list. I was thinking of updating the article accordingly, but it's not too far off the way it is stated now. Though the case for a 'Keep' has been weakened, the large variety of her projects, and a speaking part in Butterfly, seem to justify keeping the article IMHO. To go for delete you'd have to argue that Mi nombre es sombra was insignificant. EdJohnston 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mi nombre es sombra" fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). She worked (judging from apparently her own contributions to YouTube - there is a madridchico in the Everest Capital discussion), she worked around 7 minutes in the ...Sombra movie (note how she is not cited [19],[20]) and has a speaking & Beyond role in Butterfly (the video is here, her participation is about two minutes, starting at 4:34 in the clip. (not sure how long it will stay there, since it is NSFW). I admit this may not represent her entire participation in the movies, although it is likely. Stellatomailing 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to deletion debates that get down to this fine a level of detail. In a sense, this is beneficial, because we get to understand the sources better. (I also hope someone will go ahead and add some of this info to the article, if it turns out to be Kept). My comment on your first links above is the following: The todocine link only includes *four* cast members, so she would not have been mentioned if she weren't in the top four. You are not insisting on that as a criterion for film notability, are you? She was also featured in a rather intense two-minute romantic scene that you included in the Youtube clip. Though that was only two minutes, don't you think she gets some credit from the fact that Butterfly was a big critical success? Also I'd like to hear more about why Mi nombre es sombra was not notable, in your view. EdJohnston 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, I just try to show the "why" in detail. In some AfDs this makes more sense, in others it goes uncontested. What I was trying to show using the todocine link (one of the few that mention the movie) is just that she did not have a major participation. My point on the Butterfly is that if she actually added to the success of Butterfly critically, she would have been mentioned by name in at least one review, and she was not. About "Sombra", the movie does not comply with any guidelines for notability - I am not sure how can I prove you the movie do not comply, since there are no "negative proof" that I can show. Stellatomailing 19:14, 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. Waltontalk 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Sperman[edit]

James W. Sperman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article, notability doesn't meet level of WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

research, and all references to Sperman's restaurant have already, appropriately, been removed from Pink Taco. Pan Dan 14:09, 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. Sr13 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Nelson (Police officer)[edit]

James Nelson (Police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NYPD officer and 9/11 victim. Not notable for anything else, and WP:NOT a memorial. NawlinWiki 17:13, 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. The keepers have established notability (multiple national titles, international representation) and scope for expansion (notable Grandmasters playing for the Clubs) but OTOH the deleters make the equally good point that there needs to be more secondary sources. TerriersFan 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunds ASK[edit]

I don't see this club meeting the standards of WP:ORG as there are no third-party sources that I could find about it. There may be more in Swedish, but the only claim to notability made in the previous deletion discussion was winning some championships. But what is important about these championships? They aren't even named in the article, and while they may be named here [21], I don't speak Swedish, so I can't tell. And why is this the only team that has won them with an article? What about SK Rockaden which has won far more of these championships? It might be reasonable to mention this team in an article on chess in Sweden overall, but it would still need to be sourced to something besides the organization itself. Also see related AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Chess ClubWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Hill Chess ClubWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearsden Chess Club FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced. Who has noticed these unspecified national championships? Where can I even find information about them other than one bare list? Also, I don't believe that one individual's membership in a club automatically makes the club notable. Is there any support for that method of notability assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can mention that Bergen's Chess Club, (which does not have an article, and since I am a member of the said club, I won't write one due to WP:COI), has an article in Bergen Byleksikon a "city encyclopedia" for Bergen. That article makes a point of having Ivar Bern as a member... and at the time of writing he was not World Champion of Correspondence Chess yet. The reason I point this out is that a strong individual's membership of a club can contribute to the club's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One would expect a reference work intended to cover a local city to include almost any club from the city. Sorry, but that's not actually good evidence on its own. It's no more an indication of notability than a Who's Who entry. In any case, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia? Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club? FrozenPurpleCube 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, even the city encyclopedia doesn't bother to cover the chess clubs Nordnes, Fana, and SK96, nor the former clubs of Fyllingsdalen and Åsane, all of which are within Bergen. In terms of membership, Nordnes is about as big as Bergens. The authors of the city encyclopedia have almost certainly chosen to make a distinction based on the clubs' merits of achievement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "almost any club" . But wait, we're not even talking about Lunds ASK, but a second club, not even in the same country. So, exactly why is arguing for the existence of this one club indicative of the notability another club that isn't related to it at all? It's not. Maybe you should try to find out if there's any kind of actual coverage of Lunds ASK that is significant as opposed to using the existence of a local "city encyclopedia" that mentions another club. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion started because of your claim that a strong player being a member does not make a club notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I asked, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia? Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club? I don't think I've seen it, but if you have, you can point it out. The practices, however, of a reference work of dubious status are not convincing. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's important about this national championship? Where is the article on it? Or even these European championships? Who has written on them and where? One website that only recounts the results of it, along with numerous other results? That's not significant coverage at all. Sorry, but while I suppose including this information in an article on Chess in Sweden might be viable, I don't see the case for this individual club or its own. Sorry, but all I'm seeing it WP:ILIKEIT. FrozenPurpleCube 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why, and show it with sources. See WP:N. So far, nobody has done that. I'm sorry, but a simple listing that this club has won a championship isn't significant coverage on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." The scope of this chess club is plainly national, playing in the national premier league and the reference in the article verifies the championships. BlueValour 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this club is not national (let alone international) in scope or scale. It's a local club, whose team has simply taken part in what seems to be a national competition of unspecified character. Chess in Sweden does have a national organization, but Lunds ASK is not it. This [23] is the FIDE member for Sweden. See the difference? Besides, even if you weren't mistaken in your interpretation, you need to read the whole section, not just pick out one portion of a sentence to justify your views. There's a reason why it says and information can be verified. Then read a little further and you'll see this: "In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." But wait, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the primary criterion above has been met. Unless you can tell me what about the sources you've provided meet "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." So far, I'm not seeing it. Sorry, but your attempts to justify the existence of this article have continually failed to meet that standard, or any at all. FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain what you find persuasive or unpersuasive? Simply saying "Me-too" isn't very constructive to a discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add that to this discussion since I suspect you only created it because of this discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not assuming good faith, but I find it hard to believe you created the article for any other reason. Still, I'm sorry for being suspicious, but perhaps you should consider whether that action of yours was appropriate. If you don't see how the action could be negatively interpreted, I'm afraid you may need to take a bit more time and think about your actions. Besides, you'll note that I've applied the same arguments for the initial nomination to this other club as well. The references you have are nothing in the way of significant content. They are nothing more than statistical listings, one is just a directory. Sorry. Not significant coverage. I'm sure you believe that a team that wins the top division of its national league is plainly notable, but I don't, since I know there are many competitions going on every year. None of them are notable without sources. If you truly believe that the problem is foreign language sources, then perhaps you might wish to create these articles on sv.wikipedia.org instead? I don't see a Lunds ASK on the Swedish Wikipedia, or even one on the actual Swedish national chess organization, so perhaps you would care to contribute there. It is even possible that you could develop an article that could be translated over. In any case, WP:HARMLESS is not a valid reason to keep an article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Where can I find mention of this notability standard? It's not in WP:ORG. What non-trivial sources offer significant coverage of these teams? Where can we even find coverage of this national league or the club cub? If all the sources you have are the same ones as above, perhaps you might want to consider looking for better ones. If you can't find any, consider whether or not this club warrants an article. Not every club and organization needs to have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you have made a statement in this thread. If you feel a need to expand on your comments, it would be preferred if you simply replied to them. Or to the question I asked of you earlier. In addition, I see by your edit summary you still seem to believe that AFDs are votes. But as I explained to you on your talk page, they aren't. This is a discussion based on the weight of your arguments, not the number of people. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, where are your sources covering this team? You haven't even confirmed your statements, just asserted them. Why is it notable? A local team that has won a national championship doesn't automatically meet notability standards. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't think a club that has won the national chess league is notable then I guess we disagree on this. / Fred-J 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there are no sources providing significant coverage and it's but one of many many teams and national leagues. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of such competitions in many sporting and gaming endeavors. (In fact, there are currently several AFDs for various beauty pageant contestants). Not all competitions are sufficiently notable to have articles. Perhaps one day that will change, and Wikipedia will cover everything under the sun, but that day isn't today. Now if you want to make an article on the FIDE-affiliate in Sweden, that'll probably be more feasible. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Jreferee. -- Fred-J 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources for the article that are in the Sweedish language, they still count (in my book) so long as an editor vouches for their content. Have you looked at their website for publications about Lunds ASK? If you (or someone) locates them before the close of this AfD, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my positon. -- Jreferee 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I myself would be willing to give any sources you can provide as much examination as I can. I'm not nominating this article because I have some particular bias against Sweden or Chess Clubs, I merely note that it lacks the kinds of notability that the subject of an article should have. Of course, you might have a stronger case if you get a well-developed article on this club on the Swedish Wikipedia instead, since it would be hoped that with more eyes looking at it, there would be a better article. FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote. The closing admin will not take numbers into account, but rather the substance of the arguments as based upon existing policy and guidelines. If you're just commenting here because you like chess, then perhaps you might wish to read the list of arguments to avoid. That said, you certainly have a worthy idea in that Chess in Sweden would be a reasonably valid article, if appropriately sourced, though given that most of the sources would be in Swedish, I might suggest working on it on the Swedish Wikipedia instead. Which doesn't even have an article on the Sveriges Schackförbund. FrozenPurpleCube 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting *is* the point here, the 'vote' is simply a shorthand so that the closing admin may have a quick overall impression of the comments, and serves to unambiguously clarify it, since sometimes very similar arguments are used for and against deletion. That I am honest enough to let clear any bias I may have is no reason to attack me. If you want to talk policy, fine. I point you that many of your reasons to delete are not based on any policy: that you do not understand swedish in order to confirm the article source's is not a reason to delete; that it is the first of its kind is not a reason to delete. On the other hand, winning "just a few" *national* championshipsin a notable sport, like chess, and even being part of international competitions, all of which you admit to be true, typically are reasons enough to inclusion. Finally I did not say it should be included because "I like it", I say it is borderline notable given the titles and the existence verifiable given the references at FIDE and TWIC, and thus it should be kept. - Nabla 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I've attacked you simply by saying that you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote, or referring you to WP:ATA. You yourself described your comments as a weak vote, and that you were potentially biased based on liking chess. I replied with a statement that you shouldn't take your comments as a vote, and that you might want to look at WP:ATA. That's not an attack, that's responding to your own comments. My comments were polite, and not personal attacks, as I offered no commentary on you at all, merely on the substance of your words. If you don't like that, perhaps you might have considered writing your comments a bit differently. But to accuse me of attacking you? I don't see how I have attacked you. Could you be specific in explaining what you found to be an attack? If it's simply because I responded to your comments in a fashion that you found to be critical, I'm sorry if you've taken it as hostile, but that's not an attack on my part. Yes, I know it can be irritating for someone to tell you something you already know, and I apologize if you felt it was irritating, but please don't accuse me of attacking you just because you find something I said to you irritating. FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I suggested the Swedish Wikipedia as a place to go because I feel it would simply offer the most access to people who can review the existing sources and thus produce the best possible article. Once that's been done, I would have no objection to translating a good article over to English. It may be unfortunate, but the fact is, transparent access to all sources in all languages isn't possible at this time. It may lead to some systemic bias, but that doesn't mean the solution is to just accept any claim of "But it's important over here" as valid. If it is, and all the sources are available over there, then the smart thing to do is work on it there. Then you can bring a solid, well-done article into other Wikipedias. Is there something objectionable to that? Am I wrong to say that foreign-language sources are difficult for people who don't speak the language to examine? It doesn't represent a bias against them, I merely acknowledge that it is a problem. Whether or not this should be a policy, I don't know, but recognizing it is something I think important. Especially since in this particular case, the coverage of Chess in the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't even include the main FIDE affiliate having an article. Pardon me for thinking that might be something worth changing. And no, I don't consider simply winning a national championship inherently notable. There are many national and even international championships in numerous competitive endeavors. Not all of them warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, let alone the individual competitors within it. That would potentially create thousands of articles with no more sources beyond lists of winners and the occasional use of the organization's own website. That's not an idea I can support at this time. Thus I stand by using the standard policy at WP:ORG which requires significant coverage in third-party sources. You haven't offered any sources otherwise, nor has anybody else so far. All I've seen are some directories and trivial coverage in winner's lists. If you, or anybody else wants to try it at sv:Lunds ASK, go ahead, you might have more luck convincing folks or just an easier time finding better sources. Of course, given that this is but one team among many that have won national chess championships, I don't think it'd be doing much to address the overall issue. That would be something worth thinking about on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies accepted. Moving on... The notability guideline says that if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources than it is presumed to be notable. It does not say that if failing one of the above then non notability is to be assumed. This subject fails one of the above: non-triviality. Yet, I am confident enough that a club existing for 101 years now (confirmed by FIDE's site), does have those somewhere, so the criteria will be fully filled sometime, so let's let the wiki process carry on. Although, I repeat, I think this is only borderline notable. - Nabla 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question of what to do in cases of borderline notability remains ongoing. Perhaps it will be addressed in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I don't think we can say anything is confirmed by the FIDE site. All directory entries on it are user-submitted, and I can't see any evidence of fact-checking on it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability is mostly discussed right here. And it's fine for us to disagree, that's why it is called 'borderline'. Thanks for the FIDE's site info, I didn't knew and I'll try to remember that, still you are not claiming this to be an hoax, right? - Nabla 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether it's a hoax or not, lacking sources to show otherwise. If I did believe it was a hoax, I'd have used CSD instead, but even if it is true, it's still a question of sources and notability. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TWIC's scores report span over several years. Certainly not an hoax. - Nabla 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I suggested, perhaps using the Swedish Wikipedia for that improvement might be a better idea. That way it's more likely folks with greater access to the sources can use them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 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. James086Talk | Email 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Brown (Writer)[edit]

Wes Brown (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

21 year old writer, seems to have very little published (article says he has appeared in numerous magazines and journals, but fails to give any evidence of this). Speedy deletion notice removed despite total lack of any verifable evidence of notability. Lurker 16:47, 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. Sr13 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Cole Miller[edit]

Taylor Cole Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This is a self-written article by a 21-year-old University of Kansas undergraduate student who has a few photographs published in popular magazines. It's nothing but shameless self-promotion and should be deleted. StudierMalMarburg 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentA search of the Popular Photography website, which is linked on the page, reveals no photographers named Taylor Cole Miller. StudierMalMarburg 18:10, 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. Sr13 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common in terms of style, genre or theme. The only thing they have in common is a coincidence of naming. Otto4711 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia:No one really cares which is not a policy, but illustrates my point. W1k13rh3nry 22:06, 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 Delete. Waltontalk 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with the same name as song artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs with the same name as song artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of titling. They are not otherwise associated or associatable by style or theme. Otto4711 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the first AFD closed 31 December 2005. I think there's been long enough between the two AFDs that it's reasonable to reconsider. Otto4711 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Here's [24] the diff showing the changes to the page since it last survived an AfD. The growth itself is interesting! Maybe the page needs more expansion on the eponymus idea. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the standalone list guideline is a guideline. Conforming to a guideline does not excuse violations pf policy. Otto4711 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the policy you're citing is the WP:NOT#DIR part, I think that's meant more in terms of associations that don't have any real meaning. I can't see where WP:NOT#INFO would apply here. Certainly its open to interpretation, but I think the subject can possibly serve some genuine purpose if altered to a category-type layout, with an article entry about eponymous songs. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that these songs have a similarity of title has no real meaning. Otto4711 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. -- nae'blis 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudev R D Ranade[edit]

Gurudev R D Ranade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article about a subject on whom Google finds precious few references, and a quick sample of those found none which are independent and usable. Guy

(Help!) 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 15:29, 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 Keep. — Scientizzle 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Bures[edit]

Richard de Bures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete I'm currently expanding all the stubs on the Grand Masters into articles and I'm afraid Richard de Bures was not one of them. From www.templiers.org, the official translations of Templar records, i quote, "Armand de Périgord, master from 1232 to 1247" and "Guillaume de Sonnac, master from 1247 to 1250". Richard de Bures tenure did not exist and information stating otherwise is likely poorly translated or just incorrect. I need to get rid of this page so the time-line can be spot on and I can get this part of the Crusades area up to scratch. Thanks Tefalstar 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data[edit]

What www.templiers.org actually says is that "Some historians mention that Armand de Perigord was killed in the course of the battle of La Forbie, like the Master of the Hospitallers. Others imply that he was captured, and died in captivity in 1247." Please look further than a website list. (And, of course, it's not official, in any sense; they go out of their way to deny that they are a resurgence or neo-Templars. )Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point about being in captivity is exactly my point friend, Odo de St Amand was in captivity for years but never replaced as Master. So if Perigord does die in '47, then Sonnac was the next Master.
But if he died in 1244, he would have been replaced, and the site tells us that Sonnac was not elected until 1247. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response I never said they were an official Templar site, just that the information on th site is from official translations, first from Latin, later from French. I certainly wouldn't trust a Neo-Templar site as far as i could throw them! :P --Tefalstar 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]
Good.;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Lozowick[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO. It does not establish his notability as a teacher or author. Several books are mentioned, but not named, so it's difficult to establish the notability of the books. Mr. Lozowick seems to have been the subject of only 1 interview instead of multiple interviews from different sources. The details of his life are also hard to verify as the article supplies no inline citations.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:12, 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 delete. Sr13 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous elements in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

List of miscellaneous elements in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a mish-mash list of articles that are already in the HHGTTG navtemplate and/or category, or are sections of such articles, or which have little or no connection to HHGTTG beyond being mentioned in the course of a joke sequence. Redundant, crufty and unnecessary. Otto4711 14:10, 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 Sr13 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie O'Brian[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod originally stated 'Does not satisfy WP:BIO'. Although she is a media personality, I would contend that she lacks sufficient notability to warrant an article. CIreland 14:05, 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. Sr13 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Carroll[edit]

Anne Marie Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who has done nothing else notable. The only google [26] mentions are related to the election. Valenciano 14:01, 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 Speedy deleted by User:MZMcBride per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin close. Sigma 7 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/The Great War[edit]

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/The Great War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page serves no purpose as it is a repetition of the WW1 section on the main Royal Gloucestershire Hussars page. There is no additional information and they did nothing outside the scope of normal service of any other regiment. No other British regiment has any such similar set-up either. --hydeblake 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There might be a purpose if the main article Royal Gloucestershire Hussars was very long, and the subsidiary article Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/The Great War served the purpose of shortening it by exporting information. However this is not the case here. The subsidiary article has no substantive incoming links and in fact is shorter than the corresponding section in the main article! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:30, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Furner[edit]

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

This may be a controversial case, but in my point of view this person fails WP:BIO. Secondary sources given are limited to coverage in a local Australian newspaper, The Manly Daily. While this might formally pass WP:BIO, I feel that coverage in such newspaper of only local or regional importance cannot constitute "substantial" coverage. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 99% of stuff on Wikipedia is of only 'regional' importance. Does someone in Surinam care who the junior senator for Kansas is? If she formally passes WP:BIO then she formally passes WP:BIO otherwise you're just saying your personal opinion trumps Wikipedia policy and every article here is up for grabs. Nick mallory 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Maybe you misunderstood me: My concern is not that every topic should be of "global" importance. But it's a matter of how large the region is. There are so many local newspapers in the world (and have been more in the past) that being covered there does not mean much. I do not consider myself as notable for a Wikipedia article (by far not); but with a bit of work I could certainly show that I have been mentioned in the local newspaper 3-4 times (in the context of a sports event, a local competition, a school theatre play, ...). The same would apply to almost everybody in my family, and possibly to everyone in the village (haven't verified that, of course). And all of them are really not notable for an encyclopedia. I don't know much about Australian geography, but "the local government areas of Manly, Pittwater and Warringah" seems to be rather the lowest category to me. --B. Wolterding 14:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm English but, god help me, I live in Sydney, Australia at the moment and Manly, Pittwater and Warringah are all well known Sydney suburbs. It's a big city. I guess you'd rule out the 'Village Voice' as a source then in future? Nick mallory 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure regarding the Village Voice. But for the Manly Daily: It's distributed in 90.000 copies (today), not very impressive; covers local events and sports, among general news, as far as I can see. There's nothing wrong about that. But would everybody covered in that newspaper be automatically notable? Like, for example, Georgia Bainbridge? By the letters of the guidelines, the answer may be yes. By the spirit of the guidelines - no, I honestly don't think so. --B. Wolterding 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "unsourced" tag has been on the article since October 06. --B. Wolterding 16:30, 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 speedy close as obvious disruption. From xyr contributions, it is clear that Merrick3x (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is acting in bad faith here. This is a bad faith nomination that is attempting to make some sort of point about the actions of Musical Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), by first removing all URLs from citations in the article and then nominating the article for deletion. This is an abuse of AFD, not a genuine attempt to discuss the deletion of the article. Uncle G 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BADSITES/Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Wikitruth has alleged transexualism, sexual practices, real names, and other information on real people here. We can't link to this. It outs and hurts people here. Per IAR, DENY, DIGNITY, and the Foundation privacy policy, delete. Also, per this, we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per this:

I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per administrators, we will remove this article. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they 'out' users here. Merrick3x 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they google the name, or we endorse it, they will find attacking information. Merrick3x 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesnt exist on Wikipedia, it doesnt exist ? Wikipedia does not endorse the subjects of its articles. Grow up. John Vandenberg 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Cowardice -- we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now a talk page of a policy page is a citeable policy? *Dan T.* 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPA has no statute of limitations. Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to argue with every poster on here? Nick mallory 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, after all. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin block this sock please; WP:POINT seems appropriate. John Vandenberg 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that would endanger the well being and personal safety of editors. Merrick3x 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody said in the last AfD for this, "It doesn't look good to keep trying to delete something critical of Wikipedia." That holds for all applications of the "no attack site links" policy. *Dan T.* 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. They are 'outing' and posting personal information on Wikipedians. That makes them an attack site! Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a website, not a carrier battlegroup. Nick mallory 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, consensus CANNOT trump policy. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, how is WP:NPOV as a policy? Also remember that policy is descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive. (H) 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can't allow for POV. If 100 Christian Fundamentalists edit warred to say Dinosaurs were made by God on the 6th day, with ID sourcing, we would revert it out as trash. And descriptive per admins is we remove this trash. Merrick3x 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that deleting the article would be pushing a POV, not keeping it. (H) 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal privacy is a right, not a POV! Merrick3x 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call a lawyer. (H) 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You understand. Speedy is now invalidated. Merrick3x 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hurry, I don't think this was going to be speedied anyways. (H) 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a sockpuppet troll making a WP:POINT who started this AfD (which certainly seems likely), you seem to be taking the bait anyway... I guess you have no choice, since if you voted to keep this while continuing to campaign against linking to other allegedly "BADSITES", it would seem hypocritical. *Dan T.* 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd...my vote to delete seems to have no mention of anything other than it's lack of notability. I looked over that website and what I saw were a number of egregious attacks, but NOT the kind of ongoing persistant efforts to try and figure out the real life identities of our contributors as is done on WR. Can someone PLEASE explain to Mr. Dtobias that the issue is websites that actively try to "out" our editors...not ones that are simply mirroring content from other places and adding stupid nonsense. WikiTruth is an obvious parody site (and not notable to boot)...WR makes no such distinction.--MONGO 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I campaigned for no such thing. I am assuming good faith with the nom, so I don't think I am taking any bait. (H) 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to MONGO, not you... I apologize if it was unclear. *Dan T.* 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, my mistake. (H) 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised about there leaking of private ICQ# - but I cant see how anything else they have leaked is concern. The Internet has been active 15 years and the waybackwhen machine document most of them, everything they say they have discovered was in the public domain anyway. but not the ICQ# that is probably a legal matter. Mike33 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs titled as acronyms or initialisms[edit]

List of songs titled as acronyms or initialisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with many other "list of songs titled..." lists, this is a collection of loosely-associated items. The songs on this list have nothing in common beyond a coincidence of naming. They are not similar in style or theme. Otto4711 13:24, 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 of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

This is already linked in the relevant articles and does not warrent it's own. Alexa 300,000+ ∴ here…♠ 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

obviously i was wrong. feel free to close unanimous keep. i agree -- i expect people to know it, probably some repressed shame from ishkur's pictures of my raver days. keep it up. ∴ here…♠ 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Classic[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR, WP:RS --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should be searching for Zelda Classic within quotes (112,000) results, without the quotes pages calling Zelda a classic would appear. More importantly the article doesn't have any references (3 external links don't really count), people who patrol AFDs do check the article and simply stating it has references won't work. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also, google show IGN article as result of "Zelda Classic" which is not related to this article. Please reveiw your position. Carlosguitar 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eccpasian[edit]

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

A constructed language with allegedly 10 speakers that makes no attempt to assert notability. No references of any kind. Were this a corp or person, it would be clear CSD A7. Only three ghits [29], all of them WP mirrors. Contested prod. Delete Aagtbdfoua 12:33, 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. WjBscribe 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Nasir Rehman[edit]

Sardar Nasir Rehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing to show this person's notability; the article has been tagged with unsourced and NPOV since January and about the only thing that has happened to it at all is somebody from the same IP coming in to remove the tags at regular intervals. I am as eager as anybody else to include more non-US people in Wikipedia, but unless some real claims to notability (not just creating the Karlal Wikipedia page) and sources appear, I think it needs to be deleted. Bonadea 12:22, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie[edit]

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

Non-notable musician that doesn't quite satisfy WP:CSD#A7 CIreland 12:14, 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. Sr13 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Bold Leap Forward[edit]

A Bold Leap Forward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Show has been "in development" for five years. No indication that it will be moving forward any time soon. Article is "sourced" by a blog interview from someone the article says is no longer connected to the hypothetical project and a petition site. Should the show actually go into production, no prejudice to the article's being recreated. Otto4711 12:11, 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 delete. Sr13 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters frozen in cryogenic freeze[edit]

Trivia, grouping of unrelated characters, common trope in science fiction, WP:NOT indiscriminate. >Radiant< 11:57, 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. W.marsh 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murloc[edit]

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

Keep A fine article that is not nonsense. If that's nonsense, then pikachu's nonsense too! (It kinda is) no offense. RuneWiki777 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You are correct in that the article is not nonsense - it was disingenuous of me to state as much. It's relatively well written fancruft with a complete lack of real world attribution or context, and no ex-universe references or mention - Tiswas(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, I must have missed something because I see plenty of references to the games themselves and to the Blizzard website. Maybe now that I've pared it down a bit, you'll have an easier time finding them? - User:Awakeandalive1
  • Those are all in-universe mentions. Linking to the game manual itself would not add any real world attribution - Tiswas(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The gnews hits are trivial mentions of a related topic. They are not mentions of the subject. "Murloc suit" would not warrant an article on the strength of the news hits, and neither should its derivative (or precursor). - Tiswas(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, and I did note that. None of them on their own are enough to carry an article, but they do show that the murlocs are an iconic element of the game with some amount of media recognition. The real sourcing for this should come from the World of Warcraft guides, of which there are quite a few, including a half-dozen or so from BradyGames alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the essence of fancruft - There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the article - The dispute is whether there is any notability to of the subject matter - Is there any attribution of this notability outside of the WoW universe - Tiswas(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Want to read a very interesting AfD directly related to this one? check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. This AfD a)had no consensus and b) doesn't necessarily apply here because of the fact that that it covered multiple articles including but not limited to the Murlocs one. However, it does provide a lot of insight into why the article exists and the response it's likely to generate if it's deleted. Also, were major contributors or the Wikiproject notified of the AfD? (see The AfD Guidelines).
CredoFromStart talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Entirely my mistake. I've been through the non-spa, non-anon editors and notified them. Hopefuly, that will reduce the number of I like it votes and generaly Fanwankery, and allow at least a chance for consensus - Tiswas(t) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As such, I have retracted the terms. They are not the reason for the nomination, but a summary of the reasons - that is, non-notability, no real world context, and a lack o attribution and not encyclopaedic - Tiswas(t) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would say that the article holds up well enough when looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline. It takes an out-of-universe perspective (for the most part, it could be cleaned up a little), it is well-written, it cites its sources, and is notable within the work of fiction it comes from. I see nothing stating that every minor character article must have multiple sources, in fact the Noonien Soong article being shown as a "high quality" example has only one reference aside from the Star Trek Wiki link. This article does not deserve deletion, and is long enough to warrant a seperate article from World of Warcraft. - Atamasama 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep this one article. The reference to the blizzard site doesn't confer any value, except that of accuracy. I agree that a redirect to a meta article would be a good compromise, rather than a delete.- Tiswas(t) 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "other stuff existing" point is more of a statement. The choice of this article simply seems arbitrary. I hope that you'll direct the same attention to the other related articles if you're going to lobby so hard for this one to be removed. Awakeandalive1, 14:28, 11 June 2007 (EST)
I'm not so much lobbying to see it removed, but to see that reasons given in this AfD are robust. The choice is neither arbitrary nor calculated - I can across the article in isolation, and am giving it the dues considereation that any article deserves. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm confused - what makes them notable?- Tiswas(t) 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - By that logic, the login sequence for WoW would be considered notable, in that every player knows about it. Possibly more so than Murlocs. - Tiswas(t) 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Murlocs are notable for a variety of reasons. They are fairly ubiquitous within the game world; I doubt that any player can advance very far without encountering them, they seem to be just about everywhere. They are very distinctive, in that they look, sound, move, and act in a unique way unlike other species of monster. They also have distinctive dwellings where ever they appear, special primitive huts and tents unique to them at their spawn points (you can always tell murlocs are nearby when you see their villages). Even Blizzard has considered them notable, offering a murloc pet as a special reward for Blizzcon attendees one year, and a different pet for European customers who purchased the collector's edition of the Burning Crusade expansion. They have as solid a presence in the game as any of the playable races. -Atamasama 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world? Are there multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions of murlocs from third party reliable sources? Are there any press articles, news stories, or published research for example? What makes this article more than gamecruft? - Tiswas(t) 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a requirement for an article's existence. The fact that this is a notable topic in the largest MMORPG in existence is enough. Again, you continue to use pejorative terms, it seems as if your reason for deletion is simply "I don't like it". Notability is a subjective term. -Atamasama 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is indeed subjective, but it does have some fairly basic, minimal requirements - that of multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions from independent, third party, reliable sources. A good example would be a news article (even a byline in a niche publication), possibly title "Murlocs, the Scource of Azeroth". Not a fansite, or game community article that mentions Murlocs in passing. I neither like it or dislike it - I'm focusing on the quality of the article, the notability of the subject matter, and established Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and have stated as much as to back of my nomination for deletion (or, rather, merge and redirect). Continuing to focus on the inferential pejorative nature of the cruft suffix is counterproductive. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could just refer to the game manual instead. If you have to keep the article for reference, it means that the article contains original research. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The pokemon precedent is an essay, and not a valid test. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fr0 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Tauren Shaman main char might disagree with you on that. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 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. Sr13 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran[edit]

2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tittle is bias, unencyclopedic, information is relevant but needs to be integrated as part of another article dealing with the Iran crisis Doge120 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, deletion seems to be the best option. Doge120 12:10, 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. Sr13 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oink.me.uk[edit]

Oink.me.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Rationale: "Fails WP:WEB; no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. May qualify for speedy per CSD A7 - unremarkable web content." The article has been cleaned up and expanded, but the sources are all self-published (blog posts and forum posts). --Muchness 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm afraid I can't do any better with the references than I already have. I spent a over an hour googling and despite hundreds of thousands of hits, there's nothing more reliable than blogs, message boards and that zeropaid.com site. I did a few LexisNexis searches just in case, and of course got no results. I imagine the OiNK phenomenon will see some real press eventually, but it seems not yet. It would be a shame for the article to get canned considering the (paradoxically concurrent) noteriety of OiNK and difficulty of getting info about it, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:WEB --Smtomak 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Demonoid isn't private (weekly open sign-ups), and unless you have a source for your other statement ("more seeders"), then I'm just going to laugh. -Paine 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Also Alternate Previously Deleted, bringing total times previously deleted to 3 (this being the nom for a 4th). I recommend delete and protect both articles from recreation. -Paine 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely don't protect from creating. Re-deleting the page every six months isn't a big deal, if it comes to that. Even if OiNK is deemed not notable today, there's no saying it won't get mentioned by a reputable source in the near future. --Smtomak 06:24, 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. Sr13 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog cop episodes[edit]

List of dog cop episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unverifiable TV show. Was prodded as being a possible hoax (could find no evidence of its existence). The author has since removed the prod tag and explained the show has not been offered to any TV networks, so it likely fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:CRYSTAL. ~Matticus TC 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magical items and weapons in Power Rangers[edit]

Magical items and weapons in Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another extremely crufty page that I was unfortunate to deal with. There's nothing in here that cannot be covered by other articles (character or series articles) or does not really need to be covered at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is kinda stupid, but it should still be kept. The article is kinda like an article listing the places in a show/cartoon. RuneWiki777 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at least the article is noteable

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no sources, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frisvee[edit]

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

Seems to be a newly-invented sport with no references to verify it. Was originally prod tagged as WP:NFT material, and while the article has been improved upon since then it remains unreferenced. A Google search for "Frisvee" returns just 53 unique results, the vast majority of which appear to be typos for "Frisbee". The only source I could find was a blog post at http://frisvee.com/?q=node/1 which was created by a user with the same handle as the creator of the article here on Wikipedia, so it's neither independent nor reliable. As much as I like the sound of it (it does seem like fun!), sadly I can't see it satisfying WP:V. ~Matticus TC 09:41, 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 13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pig[edit]

Blue_Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I would actually be in favour of keeping this article, as I would Cross Keys (Killingholme). However, since that article has also been nominated for deletion, this one must also be removed if the former is. Either that or the category of 'Public houses in Lincolnshire' must be deleted. TomGreen 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 indication of notability), g1 (nonsense), no sources. NawlinWiki 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollock conkers[edit]

Bollock_conkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion by 212.85.19.16 (talk · contribs), who gave no rationale, and the nomination completed by a 'bot. Uncle G 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that this actually exists, beyond the above unsigned comment that it was witnessed by one of the authors - ie original research. Versions of this have been written up and speedied or AfD'd before, I believe. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do It[edit]

Do_It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

In God's Hands was just announced. Of course, Do It is uncomfirmed. Because neither Nelly nor her label has been quoted as saying this. This is graffiti, albeit, benevolent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insaneace1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Jonwood2 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. Sr13 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Lab[edit]

E-Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This appears to be a pre-production company who has come to wikipedia to help establish a name for itself. Good luck to their efforts, but it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability, at least as written. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 00:50, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. I've been advised not to do this, but the addition of references by User:Alansohn with the help of User:Uncle G justifies this article's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. YechielMan 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark holiday[edit]

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

Article cannot ever be more than a dicdef and maybe a highly subjective list of holidays that would probably just be OR. In fact, that's all it's been since the article's creation. Colindownes 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the concept is subjective does not make it undocumentable. A dicdef would likely not include an examination of which holidays are considered HH and why. -- Akb4 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP but reduce to a stub so that it may be rewritten in the future. Herostratus 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Valley English[edit]

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

There is no evidence this region has an accent specific to it. Obviously all people have accents, but whether these people are a subset of another kind of accent, an accent in themselves (as this article claims), or there are many accents in this reason needs to be proven. Having been born in and spent most of my life in this region, I can testify everything in the article is false. Шизомби 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An anonymously written article? No thanks. It also doesn't even make it clear whether it's the whole Hudson river valley for which this suspicious claim is being advanced or just part of it. Шизомби 03:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could almost be an argument for "keep". The link to the dialect map says that the Hudson accent is similar to the NYC accent because of the Dutch influence. But, we all know the NYC accent is heavily influenced by Irish, Italian, and Yiddish, where the capital area's accent wouldn't be. The other link that says "below Albany", they probably still mean upstate, not the NYC metro area. So, the article seems to be describing something that exists in the world; if we feel parts of it are WP:OR, we can put up a pastel box for that. Squidfryerchef 12:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost" "probably" "seems" "if"? You made your argument for delete. Here's one of the other problems: the accent, whatever it might be called, whatever regions it might include, is not similar to NYC at all. Somebody is going to have to do some real research on this at some point. This article by its name and content points people in the wrong direction from the get-go. Шизомби 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made an argument for "Keep". Now I don't understand why the "Hudson Valley" accent being different from the NYC accent is problematic. Are you arguing that the name "Hudson Valley" is wrong because NYC is, at least geologically, part of the Hudson Valley? Squidfryerchef 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one to Talk:Upstate New York as well. Let's let the hive brain sort this out. Squidfryerchef 15:49, 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 speedy delete. Asserts no notability. Sr13 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I_Want_that_Toy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I_Want_that_Toy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable Fictional Entity — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeCollege (talk • contribs) 2007/06/06 16:38:49

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Cultural Oaxaca[edit]

Instituto Cultural Oaxaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

blatant commercial advertising Adam5532 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I am associated with another Spanish school, and certainly I would love the exposure of Wikipedia, but feel that an article like this is blatant advertising, and none of us should do it. There are about 60 schools in Guatemala and many in Mexico with similar programs. An article on Spanish study abroad, with school links might be appropriate, but a page promoting one school in the guise of an objective article I believe is inappropriate and doesn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Adam5532 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no attempt to meet WP:N Lyrl Talk C 01:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of notability, as said above. ♠Tom@sBat 21:00, 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. Herostratus 12:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lear[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Lear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. Limited objective evidence of claims. Bregence 15:07, 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. This was a biography of a living person that cited a web log as its purported source. The web log in turn cited a prior Wikipedia article as its source. The biography made borderline contentious claims about the professionalism of the subject, and I was almost at the point of speedily deleting it on that ground alone. Then I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis. The parade of sock-puppets there matches the parade of sock-puppets commenting on the web log. This is just a re-hash of content that we've deleted several times before, and just plain hoax vandalism that is obviously coming from a single person. Let's not waste time on this. Uncle G 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis (broadcaster)[edit]

Steve Willis (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is simply non-notable. The current content of the page provides no information to support notability beyond a few jobs the subject has held in notable establishments. The article even notes that the subject has apparently "dropped off the radar". I have nominated this for an AfD as the subject was previously the subject of an article that was deleted (for non-notability). In that AfD there was strong evidence that the subject himself was interfering in the AfD process through sockpuppets. Plumbago 08:52, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen[edit]

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

Yehuda HaKohen is described in the article as a political activist. He is not a noteworthy activist, he has not even been mentioned by the media (except for the fringe news website of Arutz Sheva, which mentioned his name a couple of times). His Google presence is almost exclusively due to Wikipedia and its forks (note that there are other unrelated people with the same name that appear in the Google search). Naturally, this article does not reference any reliable sources. Its only references are to the said Arutz Sheva website, most of which don't even mention HaKohen, and to his movement's website. See also Elie Yossef below. Doron 09:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to remind you all that Arutz Sheva was a pirate radio and ten of its operators were convicted. Besides that, no prominent Israeli journalist is associated with Arutz Sheva. Essentially, despite what Amoruso writes above, the Arutz Sheva website has no credentials whatsoever. And this is an article about a political activist who hasn't been mentioned by any news agency except for Arutz Sheva, so how can he be notable enough to warrant an article?--Doron 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credentials ? Please don't insert your political opinions about Arutz Sheva into the discussion. The fact that Arutz Sheva belongs to the right wing sector, and religious sector of society doesn't make it illegal. As far as for piracy, this was a complex legal issue concerning Tender Law and Frequency allocation. Many of Israel's parliament and legal advisors were against closing it down at the time. Freedom of speech is one of the most important pillars of democracies and of Israel in specific, and this station serves hundreds of thoudsands of people. It has a legitimate base, it has very prominent broadcasters and public figures, which Doron might not be aware with his own original experience, and the fact this person is notable related as explained above of course makes void this request for delete. Amoruso 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an article about a leftist political activist who's only mentioned in Indymedia, I'd think the same thing. I know several leftist political activists who had much more exposure on mainstream Israeli media and still I don't think they deserve an article. There's nothing about this person that makes him noteworthy, activists like him are a dozen a dime.--Doron 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is well known in colleges in the USA, it should be written in the article and sourced... Alithien 10:22, 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 a weakish keep. Daniel 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Yossef[edit]

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

Elie Yossef is described in the article as a political activist. He is not a noteworthy activist, he has not even been mentioned by the media (except for the fringe news website of Arutz Sheva, which mentioned his name a couple of times). His Google presence is almost exclusively due to Wikipedia and its forks. Naturally, this article does not reference any reliable sources. Its only references are to the said Arutz Sheva website and to a real estate agency owned by the subject of the article. Doron 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep: Article seems to be very well written, refernced and edited. Arutz Sheva is of course not a fringe website like mistakingly claimed by Doron, but actually a large news station serving a large % of people in Israel, mainly the religious population which is relatively very large. Since the article is full of references and seems well written, and since there is an article on Magshimey Herut and of course Arutz Sheva which this person seems to be a leader and spokesperson, then there are no grounds for deletion. Amoruso 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Just to remind you all that Arutz Sheva was a pirate radio and ten of its operators were convicted. Besides that, no prominent Israeli journalist is associated with Arutz Sheva. Essentially, despite what Amoruso writes above, the Arutz Sheva website has no credentials whatsoever. And this is an article about a political activist who hasn't been mentioned by any news agency except for Arutz Sheva, so how can he be notable enough to warrant an article?--Doron 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note2:Credentials ? Please don't insert your political opinions about Arutz Sheva into the discussion. The fact that Arutz Sheva belongs to the right wing sector, and religious sector of society doesn't make it illegal. As far as for piracy, this was a complex legal issue concerning Tender Law and Frequency allocation. Many of Israel's parliament and legal advisors were against closing it down at the time. Freedom of speech is one of the most important pillars of democracies and of Israel in specific, and this station serves hundreds of thoudsands of people. It has a legitimate base, it has very prominent broadcasters and public figures, which Doron might not be aware with his own original experience, and the fact this person is notable related as explained above of course makes void this request for delete. Amoruso 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an article about a leftist political activist who's only mentioned in Indymedia, I'd think the same thing. I know several leftist political activists who had much more exposure on mainstream Israeli media and still I don't think they deserve an article. There's nothing about this person that makes him noteworthy, activists like him are a dozen a dime.--Doron 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have proof of this from a reliable source, add it to the article and I'll vote "keep" myself, otherwise what you are saying is original research and has no weight.--Doron 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? For what party ? If you are right, it would already written in the article he is member of a party, no ? Alithien 21:10, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Westra[edit]

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

There are no non-trivial WP:ATT sources, fails notability requirements, totally fails verifiability. Tmtoulouse 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really don't know what to do. I tried to create an article as a new user and have been shut down, so I tried to argue my position and have been shut down for arguing. This is my first time trying to really add something to wikipedia and some people don't even want to give me a chance. I'm just afraid this article will be deleted before there is any opportunity for others and myself to improve it.Jellybean333 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a Chance

I'm not asking for a lot, but if anyone reads this, please help me keep this article alive. If you can add to the article and also vote for it to stay for alive that would be great. I am a new user to wikipedia and have just created this article in the last few days. I want an opportunity to improve the article and allow others to as well, but for some reason some people just want the page deleted- who knows! I've promised to edit and research, and I know with some time others will add to the page as well, but the article is not getting the opportunity! Thanks for any help (especially sources and research).Jellybean333 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

Let's all play nice!! 128.187.0.164 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 566 G-hits. Jelly should determine whether the subject of the article meets WP:BIO. We don't mean to bite, but we're always suspicious of people who come in and immediately create glowing new articles on less-than-marginally important people or companies that often read as though they were written by their subject. Morgan Wick 18:50, 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. Any possible merge proposal should be done editorially. Daniel 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrosmog[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. AFD tag was placed on article by User:82.10.214.10 with the edit summary: "This is a very poor excuse for an article. If this term deserves any recognition, it should be in the wikitionary. also WP:NOR etc" Personally, I'm going for keep unless someone gives me a more compelling reason, the article seems to be well cited. Someguy1221 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as far as I can see, there is nothing bollocks about the term "Electrosmog". It is merely a word used to define Electromagnetic Radiation -- However, the association with ES is tenious at best, and this should be reflected as necessary. Topazg 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make it clearer then that it quackary that is ruining the lives of sufferers, who should have their symptoms properly diagnosed, and is making large amounts of money for the greedy and rich woo industry? Right at the top I think :) It's also an horrible word, I hope it never gets into the OED

82.10.214.10 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article already makes clear that the scientific consensus is that all alleged health effects are placebo or completely unfounded. If you can find a reliable source describing the negative health effects of believing in this junk instead of seeing a doctor, then we can work that in. Someguy1221 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - Actually, as Electrosmog appears to be nothing other than a buzzword to Electromagnetic Radiation, perhaps it should just be a redirect to Electromagnetic_radiation?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This doesn't rule out a merge but consensus is unclear from this AFD. W.marsh 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless electronic devices and health[edit]

Wireless electronic devices and health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am completing a nomination begun by an anonymous user. I have no opinion. Someguy1221 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the AfD directly above this one on 'Electrosmog'. It's exactly the same thing. My point was that 'electrosmog' was a more likely search term as it's the name given to it by the loonies who believe in it. Nick mallory 10:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia that contains truth, and whether you define truth as facts or "by consensus" then this article fails. If we have all this stuff in one place it's easier to keep an eye on it. Also see WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WPNPOV etc 128.243.220.21 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You agree it should contain truth though, and state when articles aren't true or are faith/belief? :) This article is covered perfectly well elsewhere. Redirect to electrosensitivity, or delete
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Of course we should have the truth, but we shouldn't have everything that's true, or we'd have an article about me. (I'm mostly talking about the IP above tho.) Morgan Wick 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that things in an encyclopaedia should be true. My vote is delete the lot, or at least collect all the rubbish into one place. 82.10.214.10 23:10, 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 JoshuaZ 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meshel, Ash and Kip with Luttsy[edit]

Meshel, Ash and Kip with Luttsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable radio show. A PROD tag was contested with no reason provided. The station is clearly notable but this does not necessarily cascade down to the programs. The article is written in the form of a promotional piece and is unsourced. Mattinbgn/ talk 08:16, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipsed by Sanity[edit]

Eclipsed by Sanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another one of those myspace bands looking for a wikipedia article. A quick google search provided no sources apart from myspace and youtube. Article does not assert how they are notable, fails WP:BAND RazorICE 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of Notability, no reliable sources. Cricket02 16:58, 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 and redirect to book. —Ocatecir Talk 04:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Valone[edit]

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

Non-notable person; president of a non-notable society, and author of a number of non/borderline notable books and articles JulesH 07:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my reasoning above:

In short, I don't think this person is actually important. I think this is mostly the self promotion of a fringe scientist whose views are not widely supported by mainstream science. JulesH 07:29, 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. —Ocatecir Talk 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lint[edit]

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

"Jeff Lint" doesn't exist; he's a creation of Steve Aylett, but the article is written as if he were real. He was also listed in the trivia of the film article for Patton as having written a script, which is how I stumbled upon "him". My first inclination was to speedy it, but now I think it's better to delete it as nn. Clarityfiend 07:17, 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 JoshuaZ 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis (personal trainer)[edit]

Steve Willis (personal trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly a procedural listing. 82.37.177.149 (talk · contribs) started and concluded the Afd process, but skipped step two. A narrow Google News Archive search turns up zip. John Vandenberg 16:48, 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 speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Christidis[edit]

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

BLP nightmare. Punkmorten 07:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme some time I will add the sources. user:Panosfidis

OK here you go. If you search for "Vasilis Christidis" in Greek you get 15.200 results. [[34]] If you search for "Vasilis Christidis prison " in Greek you get 15.200 results. If you search for "Vasilis Christidis prison" in Greek you get another 91 results [[35]]. Are they relisable? Yes. Most of them are pages of big TV channels like Antenna and big newspapers like kathimerini also the Greek radio and many Greek blogs where the name "television-croock" is dominant. OK maybe it needs a bit of cleanup but it certainly NOT for deletion. user:Panosfidis

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tabla musicians[edit]

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

Despite the intro's claim that it's a list of notable tabla musicians, this page looks like a list mainly of non-notable musicians, plus some vandals' and random people's names. Even if the page did follow WP:OR and WP:RS, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic, since it's just a list of people's names. If any of the people in question have Wikipedia articles, they can be added to a Category:Tabla musicians. This list is just begging for vandal/vanity edits and should be deleted. Quuxplusone 07:10, 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 JoshuaZ 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generations Linux[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Probably dead. The idea seems to have been to do a live CD...too bad that they did it more than 2 years too late; obviously going nowhere. Chealer 06:45, 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 both a7, no assertion of notability for either, no sources. NawlinWiki 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE Why We Exist...[edit]

LIFE Why We Exist... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page apparently created by author; the other major contributor has written about little else. Does not seem notable; a search for the book did not turn up much. I am also nominating this page about the author, created by the co-author of the above article: Martin_G._Walker. Nath 05:58, 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. —Ocatecir Talk 04:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composer: Editor for NCL Documents[edit]

Composer: Editor for NCL Documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity page for a non-notable master's degree project Steve (Stephen) talk 04:36, 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, csd a7. No assertion of notability. - Bobet 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Blonde (band)[edit]

Suicide Blonde (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted Frog47 04:24, 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. Tyrenius 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Yeung[edit]

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

Non-notable biography - does not meet the requirements for WP:Notability. No major award or press coverage - article fails to assert notability. Ozgod 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to note that I have no doubt that Ms. Yeung is a legitimate artist. She's just not notable yet. Freshacconci 02:24, 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. Peacent 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Kwai Yeung[edit]

Cheung Kwai Yeung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography - WP:COI - originator of article is Kycheung. Article does not assert importance or notable - does not meet requirements for WP:Notability. Ozgod 04:05, 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 Because 1) Policy always matters more than process. 2) BLP policy concerns trump DRV votes and opinions. When DRV consensus determines that BLP "concerns were justified" - that's fine, the correct course of action is then clear. Per that non-negotiable policy, the BLP offending material gets immediately removed NOT ever restored. Consensus cannot decide to keep violating material, and what some people 'want' here is wholly irrelevant. This relisting violates policy, and is quite unacceptable. Feel free to create a redirect.-Docg 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB - I undeleted to allow a merge/redirect which meets the BLP concerns and seems to be an effective compromise. --Docg 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Kach[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tanya Kach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person is a criminal victim, the subject of substantial press coverage, originally speedy deleted under BLP. DRV determined that, while BLP concerns were justified, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Some commenters wish the outright deletion of this content, some would prefer to see a merging and redirection to a new article on the event of the crime, and some believe the biography, as long as it is rigorously-sourced, should remain. My preference is weakly for deletion, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:52, 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 This list as it stands is unsourced original research. This deletion occurs with no prejudice against sourced recreation. A category may also make sense. JoshuaZ 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous streets[edit]

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

WP:NOR; Highly subjective title and list. Original Research needs to be used to decide when a street considered famous enough to be added to this list. The list includes "major city streets that have some celebrity or historic value". Every major city street in the world has some degree of historic value, unless it was recently built, so more original research needs to be used to decide if a street has enough historic value for this list.Masaruemoto 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion back to keep, after seeing geography argument. The streets should also be put in a category, but the geographical organization would be lost in a category, and its useful for an encyclopedia to have a geographically-organized list. But remove the streets that don't have entries. Capmango 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that already exists! I suppose it can be deleted then. Reywas92TalkReview me 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some that might be limited in their celebrity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — It may be more appropriate to have this discussion on a relevant talk page to come to a consensus on the existence of each list and the information that should populate each page. WP:EPISODE gives some good examples... — Scientizzle 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 1 episodes[edit]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 1 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is merely a duplication of material that already exists in List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. Having duplicate articles will cause them to diverge as different editors edit each one. This article seems to exist only to justify the existence of a template. -- Elaich talk 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons.:

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 2 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 3 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 4 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 5 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 6 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy seasonal episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment We should keep one or the other, not both. I made the comment on the original article's talk page that the tables were the problem. I resisted the tables long ago, but others insisted, so I recanted. Wikitables do not lend themselves well to this kind of page. The only problem with the articles for each season is that it adds one more click to see the article one wishes to see. If the Wikitable was gone and the original article reduced to summary form, it would be much shorter. If the Wikitables remain, then the season by season is the way to go. My concern is that these articles will begin to diverge as time passes. It is still up in the air as to how many new episodes will air, but we must plan for it. -- Elaich talk 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no right or wrong answer to this; it's a judgment call. The trade-off is, for people like me, whose browsers have no trouble downloading long pages, it's more convenient to keep everything on a single page. For people who use dial-up, a split format will be more user-friendly. YechielMan 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the original article remains, it must be trimmed somehow. Wick'd was right in stating it's too long. It's hard to find what you are looking for. -- Elaich talk 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as repeat information. Useight 06:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is these tables are pretty cluttered. The images do not help. Look at the List of Frasier episodes, they fit 11 seasons into very attractive tables and only 21K for the whole thing. Go back to one article with simpler tables and no images. Capmango 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Frasier episodes is clean because there are separate articles for each episode, which are linked to.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir Talk 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Goodwin[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, seems to be just another small town mayor, even if he served a long time (and the article doesn't say whether he did or not) that alone isn't reason enough for an article. The article doesn't imply he was the longest serving Illinois mayor and if I remember correctly from recent Chicago Tribune articles the longest serving Illinois mayor just died. OK, the AP will do, even if it is via FOX News: [40] Also, Rootsweb.com doesn't strike me as a reliable source anyway. All in all this subject does not merit encyclopedic inclusion. IvoShandor 02:52, 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 per Crotalus WP:BLP -Docg 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drug smugglers[edit]

List has been in cleanup state and without sources for two years. POV magnet and unmainatable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 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. As often happens for block nominations some made arguments to keep some but not others or delete some but not others. This makes a determination of consensus more difficult. For at least two of the lists (the Jewish list and the Christian list) strong arguments were made for keeping. However, I recommend that anyone in favor of keeping any of these lists helps clean them up and give them better sourcing so that we do not need to go back to AfD again. JoshuaZ 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanist Nobel laureates[edit]

List of Humanist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the prize, and not for their religious or political beliefs and not for their ethnicity unless, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize or Literature Prize, the people reflect their religious/political beliefs/ethnicity in the works that won them the prize. However, this applies to only a handful of winners, and certainly not to the ones included in this scope. Most importantly, the only sub-division of Nobel Prize winners actually supported by the Swedes has been the division by nationality. Bulldog123 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons outlined above:

List of Christian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Hindu Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Muslim Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You're proposing a List of Nobel laureates by era, not a list of Nobel laureates by religion, etc. So I don't know for certain what you mean by these lists are being overlooked. "Oh, if you think politics doesn't impact science and religion doesn't impact politics, well ...." That's an extreme overextension. Just because politics might impact science and religion might impact politics, doesn't mean either religion or politics impacted every single one of these men in respect to their sciences. And besides, I don't know why we're talking about politics. Humanism has nothing to do with that. I was just using an example. Sorry, got signed out there for a second. Signing comment. Bulldog123 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not proposing a list of laureates by era, I'm proposing that these lists reflect the fact that the Nobel Prize is political in nature, and the 20th century was an age defined by its intermingling of religion and politics. I'm proposing we stop pretending that religion doesn't matter or didn't matter. Humanism has tons to do with politics--wow! KP Botany 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but your argument is definitely out of the scope of this article, and feels like it is more for the Village Pump discussions than here. You know, a call to "stop pretending like religion doesn't matter" really doesn't help assess these lists speficially. Bulldog123 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists have three main purposes:
  • Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
  • Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
  • Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.
All of these lists meet the three criteria of this guideline for existance. They should therefore be kept.--Alabamaboy 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Wikistalking? I have a strong interest in deleting articles (having personally deleted a couple of thousand of them) and I keep track of AfDs. I rarely comment b/c I usually don't disagree with the reasons for deleting articles and have little desire to pile onto a deletion discussion. The problem is that you have brought up several AfDs (and one large group of CfDs) which are of interest to me and, I believe, were attempting to be deleted for invalid reasons. Lists like these around the Nobel Prizes are valid. I should also note that the consensus on the AfDs I joined the discussion on was to Keep. If you bring up AfDs on articles and lists needing to be deleted, I have no disagreement (such as List of Hindu mathematicians, which I see from your contributions you placed a prod template on; I agree with this b/c the list isn't notable and isn't much of a list). But do not accuse me of Wikistalking when I simply disagree with your rationale for an AfD.--Alabamaboy 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that these lists are fine because of....Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people....whatever that's supposed to me, but agree that a list of mathematicians listed arbitrarily for their religion somehow isn't fine really doesn't make any sense, but ok. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a coincidence that you and Bama show up on this AfD to pick fights and not on the dozens of others that are nominated for the same reason. But I'll drop it if you drop it. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscopic-aether[edit]

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

Neologism apparently from 1980, never came into popular use; definition from Merriam-Webster Open Dictionary (? copyvio). Originally created by an editor with the same name as the person who is reported to have coined the term. Risker 02:17, 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. 
It would appear that the parties who are providing their sarcastic review of the meaning of "Gyroscopic aether,"

are not in truth providing any scientific support to their apparently un-researched criticism.

Gyroscopic aether is simply a means of describing the reality of what actually is a verified scientific understanding that has not been or that has been withheld from conventional scientific focus, and establishment directed thinking and disciplines. In order to explain this sector of scientific understanding, the term, "Gyroscopic aether," is a means for simply interpreting this sector of physical reality and how the laws of nature actually enact our physical world as an interpretive expression for identifying this scientific understanding that has not recognized up until this term was created by Will P. Wilson. For example, consider the reference: "Anti-gravity," and that this term has now become a conventional term of reference for types of technology for example: "UFO," that is not a normally identifiable or understood phenomena by normal aeronautical perspective. But in order to explain how a person might actually explain the interpretation of these little understood technologies that are not comprehended by normal conventional science.

So thereof, it was important to realize that another term that may better explain or provide a more clear understanding of this technology had to be transcended and established in order to more respectively understand how this technology actually works due to the term anti-gravity not explaining anything rather then it being a term that only describes the result of interpreting the technology by generalized observations.

For example, anti-gravity does not explain a means of truly understanding what a UFO technological event might incur such as when someone views a UFO for example, but anti-gravity does not explain how the UFO is actually manifesting itself in a world where the common public have a very limited means of understanding what they are viewing or interpreting. Gyroscopic Aether does provide a better explanation and or more clear interpretation thus providing a better means for understanding how for example a UFO technology may actually operate as, or how other scientific interpretations where the observer under conventionalized understanding does not have a clear understanding of what they are viewing. Gyroscopic aether is simply providing a more simple means for more accurately identifying and a more clearly understanding how a UFO technology might actually operate as, and perform aeronautical maneuvering without having the means of what the common person would think of as being winged aircraft based on venturi atmospheric physics. A term was needed to better interpret and to better explain how to interpret and communicate this mostly still little understood scientific sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will P. Wilson willpwilson@gmail.com, producer of the All Day Live weekly television program from 2002 to now, from www.scantv.org and now broadcasting on local Northwest cable TV and on-line from SCCTV in Seattle starting on August 1, 2011. 24.19.133.11 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While the keep votes were very passioned, in the end the delete votes were more in line with Wikipedia policy. —Ocatecir Talk 04:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowban[edit]

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

A neologism that has arisen out of bans imposed on Fark.com users who have then migrated to a spin off site to vent their frustration Steve (Stephen) talk 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides factual, verifiable evidence of activities on Fark.com and should not be considered for deletion. Marking this article for deletion should be considered vandalism and is being reported as such.Faethe 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding statement is wrong, just in case any newbies are reading. Please ignore it- marking articles for deeltion is not vandalism. Attempting to stop deletion nominations by false claims of vandalism, on the other hand, is reprehensible behaviour Lurker 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but it appears the removals from Fark were for the same reason this is being nominated for deletion - namely, verifiability concerns. And your link doesn't work. --Haemo 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Link now fixed. Atario 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea that nothing should be on Wikipedia unless and until an exposé has been written about it in Time magazine? You'll have to delete half the content of the place if that's anywhere near the intent... Atario 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - it only has to be covered by reliable sources. Content which is not attributable to such sources should be deleted, per guidelines. --Haemo 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that she made a vote above... AleBrewer 00:35, 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. —Ocatecir Talk 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gagliarchives Radio Program[edit]

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

Non-notable radio program, with apparent WP:COI issues based on authorship. The author redirects his/her user page to this article. RJASE1 Talk 01:40, 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. There is already a category for structures; use that instead. Sr13 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous sites[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Little connection between lists of "mosques", "waterfalls", "United States military bases", "walls", "zoos", etc. WP:NOT#IINFO as well as these lists could include anything from a house up to the Grand Canyon. Masaruemoto 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never mind about the "can't be sure though"... Category:Lists of buildings and structures as Elkman said.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and keep William Dunlap. Address William Dunlap (artist) and Bill Dunlap (illustrator) when and if the need arises. Tyrenius 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dunlap[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the 3rd guy was the original subject of Bill Dunlap, an anon IP replaced the original content with a bio of the 2nd guy, and then the Bill Dunlap user pulled the original content from history, pasted it into the top and started asking more experienced editors to "fix" things with disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Entry:_Bill_Dunlap if you're curious). I defer to more experienced editors about what exactly should be done from here. Studerby 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Nobility and WP:COI because it is quite clear (looking at the history) that its an autobio. W1k13rh3nry 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>Sorry, there's no such thing as "Nobility" on Wikipedia! </joke> YechielMan 02:45, 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 speedy keep (requested in IRC by Stephanie), non-admin closure. Whsitchy 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pants[edit]

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

All the information within the article that is not already in Wiktionary is uncited and irrelevant. Candent shlimazel 00:58, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bantilan entertainment[edit]

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

Per WP:Notability and WP:SPAM .Creator removes ((db-spam)) Javit 00:16, 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 as repost of John Harley --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John harley[edit]

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

Repost of deleted content Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Harley. Assuming contested, since anon IP removed db-repost, so switching to afd. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 00:08, 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 Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Dicks[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) easily. No significant press, no hits, etc. The article also screams hoax - stuff about them not playing near nuclear reactors and the portion about the guy who committed suicide fail the BS test. And the part about Bob Dylan's son actually uses a spoof site as a reference. Maybe this band existed, but most of the article appears to be unsourced and false. Rhobite 03:13, 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. Sr13 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NES Game Inserts[edit]

List of NES Game Inserts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of items, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:39, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liakopoulos and the Russians[edit]

Liakopoulos and the Russians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page exists for more than a year, but I found it by accident while checking what links to Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus. It's hard to see in what way the subject is notable to English Wikipedia. It is either original research or self-promotion. I urge other pages about this personality to be investigated. Delete. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for deletion. There are articles about many prominent idiots in Wikipedia (do you want me to call their names?)Biophys 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I can provide sources user:Panosfidis

comment providing sources isn't going to help. The article is just not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be published somewhere else. Capmango 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK here are the sources. First of all his own bookstore

LOOK MEN obviously there is an obvious majority of 7 people against 3 who want this article to be deleted but there were over a dozen people (including me) who have been editing this article for over a year. You cannot spit on all their faces even AFTER presented with the sources that prove that the contents are real. user:Panosfidis

  • Panosfidis, it's clear that you care very much for the article and feel very strongly about it. However using language like this is not going to improve your case. Applying Wikipedia criteria to an article does not amount to spitting on anyone. The sources you have presented are all primary: in other words they are this man talking about himself and his views. No secondary sources means no notability. There is no argument that the content is real. You don't need to prove that. The problem is that it is not notable. Sorry. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OF COURSE there are secondary sources. These claims are the ones that made him famous and popular. Gimme some time user:Panosfidis

OK there you go. First there is an entire internet community dedicated to analysing these claims and prophecies. [49] if you search for these prophecies in google you get more than 500 results [50] if you search about his relation with putin you get 1030 results [51] are they notable? Not all of them but some of them are really important. Like this one [52] edited by Ioannis Fourakis. Even in Athensnews.gr you can find two entries [53]. So YES these claims are notable. user:Panosfidis

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves.[edit]

We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited OR ("appears to be...") with no notability. --EEMeltonIV 11:49, 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 no consensus. —Ocatecir Talk 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Against Censorship[edit]

People Against Censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied twice by me as lacking a claim of notability (and blatant self-promotion), but undeletion requested. The group was set up by two people, one of whom reposted the article after the first speedy, to campaign against the sacking of Don Imus. Virtually all edits are by single-purpose accounts. Don't be misled by the title, this is not a group against censorship, it's the Dan Imus fan club. They got an interview or two, but then I've been interviewed on national radio several times and I know it means nothing. In the end this article is astroturfing, it was created by the subjects in order to promote their cause, there is no credible evidence of significance and no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage either. The group's website is 404, which may explain why they suddenly and urgently need their Wikipedia article back. Oh, and the group should realy be called "people against the sacking of bigots". Guy (Help!) 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, my mistake. It's not the fact of the group's existence that is the issue. But two independent media outlets have found it sufficiently notable to report on its existence, and these reports establish (however marginally) the notability.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Corvus cornix 17:08, 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 Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen of the College, The[edit]

Gentlemen of the College, The (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A college a capella group. Most American colleges seem to have them. The claim to notability seems to be that they are the oldest such group in the college - which is not actually a claim to notability. Possibl;e merge to a lost of groups and societies at the College of William & Mary. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 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 by some admin, non admin closure. Whsitchy 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Festival[edit]

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

This article seems like nothing but an advertisement for a non-encyclopedic local festival. SmartGuy 14:50, 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 JoshuaZ 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jacobs[edit]

This article was previously listed for deletion on December 11, 2005, a few days after it was created. Two people commented and said "keep", and cleanup was suggested. Well it's been tagged for cleanup ever since, and four months ago someone added a "Notability" tag. It remains an orphan.

If it hadn't been listed for deletion before I would have simply slapped a proposed deletion (PROD) tag on it and forgotten about it. But it has, so here we are. I suggest that we delete this poorly written, poorly sourced orphan biography of a living person. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 1 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, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about that, which is why I mentioned it; however, being editor in chief of a reputable academic (or other) journal has usually amounted to notability, and this is one factor. Whether the journal is important enough is not obvious--if it's in a major index like Scopus, it has some degree of respectability. It's in Ulrich's also, it's print as well as online, been published since 1966, & is primarily devoted to Holocaust and genocide studies. [http/www.ideajournal.com/] He is not the major contributor. I frankly don't know how to evaluate people who have a little bit of notability in several dimensions, none of them sufficient in themselves. DGG 05:21, 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. —Ocatecir Talk 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oana Frigescu[edit]

Oana Frigescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Romanian page on her seems to have little content as well, but I can't translate those sources. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:07, 26 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, Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 1 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, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 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 and redirect to Shade (mythology). Daniel 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shade (Undead)[edit]

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

Page seems unsure of what it is about, whether it is fact or fiction. Originally, the references were listed as "Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos", "Eragon book", and "A survey on what people define a shade as". Tags and a prod were added by myself and User:The Kinslayer, though they were all removed two days later, by an anonymous IP. Article lists Durza as a shade, but the Durza article links to Shade (Inheritance), which in turn redirects to Magic (Inheritance), which gives a different description of Shades. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:35, 1 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, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 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.
More