< June 8	June 10 >

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitheism[edit]

This article consists of detailed yet wholly unattributed speculation about a newly-termed religious belief. Searches of EBSCO, JSTOR and Google Books turned up just one publication which even includes the word "omnitheism" or "omnitheist": a 1999 book which says an omnitheist is "someone who believes that God is everywhere."^[1] That definition is completely unrelated to this article, which is a prime example of original research and has been prominently tagged as such since 2007-03-30. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be be a notable use of the term; total lack of sourcing, along with a variety of different uses implies to me that this is basically a niche neologism, used by different people in different ways. Does not appear to be notable enough to be encyclopedic. --Haemo 05:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and badly-defined neologism, not to mention WP:OR. Ford MF 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cant find any scholarly use of the term. John Vandenberg 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search engine didn't find many hits, so probably non-notable. Also has no references, so probably original research. *Cremepuff 222* 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pantheism for which this neologism is presumably a synonym. The new word is an illegitimate hybrid between Latin Omnis - all and Greek Theos God. Such hybrids are to be deplored. The creator needs to establish that his concept is somthing else. Peterkingiron 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The book mentioned above says an omnitheist is one who thinks God is everywhere, but this article (and the pages linked to in its External links section) give a very different definition. Neither equates "omnitheism" and pantheism, so I don't see a warrant for redirecting the former to the latter; such a redirect would be confusing for anyone who uses the term and useless for anyone who doesn't. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many academic and scientific coinages are mixtures of Greek and and latin roots -- indeed many later latin words are borrowings from the greek. There is nothing wrong with such a coinage. The problem is tha tthis is a coinage, with no apparent notability. If it had notability, the etyomology would not be a problem. as for "illegitimate hybrids", IMO there is no such thing in english: "The English language is the result of the attempts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results." -H. Beam Piper DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be cited that establish the widespread use of this term, and its consequent notability. As per Elembis, a redirect would not be helpful. A redirect could also be reverted to the current article at any time -- an afd cannot make a decision to redirect binding unless it is "delete and replace with a redirect to..." DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/soap boxing. DreamGuy 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezing a wasp[edit]

Contested Prod. Original Research/Hoax, supposedly a popular youtube trend/internet meme, a google search for "freezing a wasp" returns 8 hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia. Little context, no independent sources, very dubious notability. Creator of article said he would greatly expand the article within one week when he contested the Prod, it's now 7 days later and no improvements. Wingsandsword 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it's so popular, one would think there would be more out there discussing it. There doesn't seem to be. I did find a video in which someone froze a wasp and tied it onto a string, but it has a total of 969 views. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. -- Esurnir 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you've gotta be kidding me. The lack of GHits seems to speak volumes as to this being non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/hoax. Doczilla 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just something you do to wasps, when you're bored and have nothing better to do. Well, that and write articles about it. --Haemo 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per reasons above. Useight 05:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone before me. Nonsense. Ford MF 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete -makes no sense, has no sources, just some hoax. Tynedanu 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for SD This article is a joke, why waste time with an AFD? Have nominated under Criteria: A1. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed --h2g2bob (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very little content beyond ordinary dictionary definitions. NawlinWiki 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a misnomer anyway. More like inducing hypothermia in a wasp. ~ Infrangible 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while laughing, non-notable, original reasearch. *Cremepuff 222* 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator, I am sorry that I haven't had a chance yet to update it - but I have been very busy. Most of the confusion IMO is coming from the name of the article, which was a very poor choice - really I was trying to write a general article about stunning insects humanely. I *will* have time to write a better article this week. Best username yet 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to make fun, but it seems like what you are saying is, "aside from the title and the content, this is a good article". Seems harmless to delete this article, and let you write your better article with a better title when you have time, yeah? Capmango 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy may work also, provides little content, no citations--♫Twinkler4♫ 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. However, thsi is not a speedy. It is not Patent nonsense so A1 doesn't apply, not is it "empty", and there is context. The problems is the content, and that is for AfD, not speedy, since it is a judgement call. DES ^(talk) 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS Bigdaddy1981 06:11, 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 and redirect to White Fire. Sr 13 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefire[edit]

Unremarkable technology, may make a good redirect to White Fire. 650l2520 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google didn't turn up any coverage in secondary sources outside a bunch of specs mentioning the mere fact of the subject's existence. Non-notable. Lots of things are patented; doesn't mean they all deserve wiki articles. Ford MF 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, this will really be great for the 12 people in the US whose cars don't have speakers. ~ Infrangible 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (Infrangible, your humor is great), google search returned no independent sources so it's non-notable. *Cremepuff 222* 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. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outer[edit]

Non-helpfull dab page. As far as I can see all entries should be removed for the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB Taemyr 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Allpages search for outer gives this.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "non-helpfull" (correct term: "unhelpful") to who? Not me. It fits the definition of a DAB which is "solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term". Well, "outer" is the ambiguous term and can refer to numerous things. Also, the "See also" section fits many of these entries. If you're going to argue WP:MOSDAB (as you and others are on Talk:Mystery (disambiguation)), you better be prepared to delete 99% of the disambiguation pages on Wikipedia because every one I've seen contains links to articles that contain the word/phrase... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with entries that contain the phrase, I problems with entries included solely because they contain the phrase. Also, I do not suggest deletion because outer has links that should be deleted. I suggest deletion because outer has no links that should not be deleted. And yes, WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section can be interpreted in a way that contradicts WP:D#Lists, I hope this get fixed soon. Taemyr 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems legitimate to me; the term "outer" can be used in many different contexts. This articles helps a user choose the correct article based on which context they are in. --Haemo 05:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little broad, but otherwise seems on the up and up. Ford MF 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it appears useful but perhaps needs a reduction in the number of links.--Arthana 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the three editors above; See my reasons for nomination; if someone points out two entries that are reasonable targets for outer then I would withdraw my nomination. I don't think there are. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; dab page. John Vandenberg 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would anyone search for "outer" by itself? --Alvestrand 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a reason to delete. The issue is that we have no articles that fits as targets. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, Alvestrand, why would anyone search for any single term at all? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's quite a list of links on the page, so it's probably a legitimate use of a disambig. *Cremepuff 222* 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a useful disambiguation page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a disambiguation article because it isn't actually disambiguating anything. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dab page. ~~Convert to list~~ - I agree with Alvestrand, people looking for a particular article of information are unlikely to enter "Outer." One might, but most likely when just wandering through Wikipedia and not looking for a particular article. Its not useful as a standard dab article, but as a list it might make sense to keep it. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The belief that no-one would ever use this page is not a reason to delete it. It's too subjective and would set a bad precedent. Taemyr 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good argument not to have it as a dab page, which is my first choice. I don't exactly agree with your logic, however. Lack of usefulness seems a good reason to drop a page. I presume you proposed this for deletion to preserve it existence? I'm a bit confused there. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I want to get this article deleted. But not from for the reason that no users would type outer. Rather for the reason that there is no article on wikipedia that outer should lead to. And yes, I do see that these two arguments are connected. Taemyr 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who are looking for an article that begins with "outer" can use Special:Allpages; it's bound to be more current than this mess. And even if this so-called dab page is found useful by someone, it is a poster child for WP:D, which governs "different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". "Outer" is not the natural title for any of these entries. If this is allowed to stand, we might as well throw out the guidelines and say "Go ahead, put any entry on a dab page if it helps draw attention to an article you wrote, or if it brings readers to an article about someone or something you idolize, even if that's not what they were looking for." Chris the speller 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems unlikely that anyone would run into this page, but it would be useful to anyone who did get there, and it's clearly harmless to everyone who never does go there. Capmango 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it help me if I type in Outer to be pointed to Outer Hebrides? None of the articles listed is good targets for Outer. The article can cause harm because we will end up dealing with "other stuff exists" type of arguments. Taemyr 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is that harmful? It's called disambiguating--you know, making the ambiguous less ambiguous? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no actual ambiguity, between any of the things listed on the article, in the first place. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the terms are known only by the term "Outer". It is not a disambiguation page, merely a list of links that contain the word "outer". While it might perhaps be "harmless", it serves no useful function beyond what Special:Allpages can do better. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that special:allpages also lists redirects, which can make it very annoying when trying to find links to legitmate articles (aside from the fact that special:allpages isn't very accessible and a dab page is much more user-friendly). Also, many existing dab pages already include compound-word links (i.e. "outer space") so you'd have to remove a lot of links from dab pages, which I think is just lame. Oh and creating a List of outer-related articles is also lame (like I had to do with List of mystery-related television shows recently due to a silly dispute over 4 measly articles with "mysteries" in their titles)--ridiculous (and creating various lists of outer-related genre/platform-specific articles is stupid, too, when a single dab page would suffice). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, dab pages are more user-friendly. This is because we have standards for what should be included in them. Taemyr 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and those standards are for disambiguating, which is exactly what outer does. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not what disambiguation pages are for. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is what dab pages are for! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No articles fit as targets, as Taemyr has explained. --Paul Erik 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation isn't just about articles that fit the target of a vague term, however. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. That's exactly what disambiguation is about. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the places and things listed are actually known simply as "Outer". This is a puported disambiguation article with zero things that are actually ambiguous, and the very thing that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists cautions against. Delete. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per my comments on the Inner AFD. This is a list of articles containing the word "outer" it is not a disambiguation page. A Disambig page is not a search index. It should list "articles associated with the same title" (i.e. Mercury). But this is not a disambig page because there is no confusion between article names like outer space and outer ear.--Cailil ^talk 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. Deor 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What next after this and Inner. A disambig page for Upper? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think In between comes next?!—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good guesses, but Eep has instead tackled this one: Within --Paul Erik 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the argument that, contrary to the above claims, this is not a disambig page but rather amounts to a "List of articles with Outer in their name". None of these items are ambiguous and none of them referred to as "outer". Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defies any logical attempt at justification. If I ever find myself at Outer Ankara while trying to read about outer nuclear layers, I'll take it back. Propaniac 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep I have serious issues with Σɛ_Þ² because of his/her general complete lack of tact and civility. However, pages such as this increase the access and browsability of Wikipidia. There are major problems with searchability and navigation on Wikipedia. Pages like this open up whole new dimensions for the way that average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) interact with Wikipedia. I think that this is a way to vastly expand the search capacity of Wikipdia. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an illogical page. This reminds me a lot of List of things with "darker" in the title. Both contributed by the same user. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ***I'm staying out of this. There is some ambiguity here over where to set the limit on disambig pages. I find the incivility of editor Eep2 just so over the top however, that its really not worth trying to have the conversation. An editor who is under review on RfC and has been blocked recently would typically know that its time to stop attacking other editors, rolling their eyes, and hurling insults.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allpages search for outer give this, which is vastly superior than anything like this list/disambig page. So, delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Again, they don't have descriptions and include redirects. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unnecessary as a disambig page, leaving it an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridiculous the number of people who don't know how to (or simply can't) think relatively. Sad, really. Wikipedia's navigation system is crap and needs an overhaul--badly. The dab pages are a good place to start this overhaul since Special:AllPages is inept and inadequate, since it doesn't list by subject, has no categorization other than by namespace, lists redirects, and doesn't even give brief descriptions of each page anyway (usually obscured with wiki markup). Having a specific "related" dab page makes sense. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, on the other hand, maybe it really is illogical... Surely the majority can't be wrong? IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm really stoned--what, IPSOS? Hypocrite... I don't do drugs (not even caffeine), thank you very much. The majority can and most often is quite wrong, actually--the majority elected Bush--twice (or 3 times if you count his father), for example. Most people are lemmings... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And no matter how wrong the majority might have been this still mean that Bush ended up as president. It's the same with consensus. Taemyr 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless any of these entries are actually referred to as simply "outer", in which case just delete the ones that aren't referred to as "outer". This is not disambiguating a term, just a word, and we are also supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns. Dekimasu よ! 07:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to stand-alone list article. This is not a disambiguation page, regardless of usefulness. --Piet Delport 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this page does not actually disambiguate between a bunch of article that are all named "Outer" but rather is a hodge podge collection of things that happen to have "Outer" in the title somewhere. WP:DISAMBIG under "What not to include" explicitly excludes lists "of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title". -- Whpq 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate between articles that have the same name. None of the articles listed are called simply "Outer", so this is an unnecessary page. If you think the navigation system here needs changing, simply making pages like this without discussion is not the way to go about it. WarpstarRider 00:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC 7893 jet[edit]

A Lego airplane, honestly! I find it hard to belive that this specific Lego product or design is independantly notable, and the article is currently compeltely unsourced. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless clear evidence of indpendant notability is established via reliable sources showing that there is mainstream (not merely fan) comment and analysis or serious interest. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge this to Lego Town#Airport, though I can't find anything all that exciting about it, so a deletion might be in order. A single LEGO airplane isn't any more notable than their other sets. Besides, an airplane made out of LEGO bricks probably wouldn't have good aerodynamics, since the round knobs everywhere would really make the airflow turbulent. 17 passengers in a four-engine aircraft isn't very cost-efficient, either. But I digress. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, nn Lego product. Ford MF 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, it'd fall under describing an item in an in-universe way (referring to another Lego model as a competitor, for example). IL-Kuma 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh please... Trusilver 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's probably a first like that I've saw on Wikipedia, but quite frankly any models or stuff like that should only be mention on the Lego and probably only if it's a popular product--JForget 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge this to Lego Town#Airport, per Elkspeak. Is the runway long enough? I don't know, but I think we should be told. Johnbod 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fumadores[edit]

Prod. The article has been prodded and restored beforehand so I'm bringing it here. Personally, I think it fails to assert its significance. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable cruft. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, fine, fine. Go ahead and delete it, since everyone is determined this is crap. I give up. Have it your way. Glacierman 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Calmer response below.[reply]
Keep. Slim article so far, but doesn't appear more or less notable than any other cigar brand. Perhaps an ((expand)) template for now, but I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Ford MF 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ford MF. The article does need more to it, but this is a very new brand of cigar, of course the article will be in its infancy stages. It seems notable enough, so leave it. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a stub, but it seems to be notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blood pressure is down again *grin*. As has been noted above, it is a new brand. The notabililty is tied to the creator/maker, Pepin Garcia. When more is known, it will be added. Glacierman 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 A Day The Color Way[edit]

An article about a slogan for a organization which lacks an article itself. This seems to demonstrate a lack of notability for the slogan/programme itself. ♠P M C♠ 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the organization isn't notable, the slogan sure isn't. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has merit, if only because it represents the food "color code" of eating 5-10 differently colored foods per day, a valuable message in today's supersized society. Why not just alter the article title simply to Color Code and link it with pages where dietary guidance is provided?

Two relevant books: Joseph JA et al., The Color Code, Hyperion, NY, 2002. Heber H., What Color Is Your Diet?, HarperCollins, NY, 2001.--Paul144 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 times In Blue / Purple, Green, White, Yellow / Orange, and Red. No neutral third party sourcing available means its not notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a number of sources, including ones from major universities. - Richfife 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsatisfactorily sourced. Ford MF 06:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think advertising slogans are notable unless they are referred to outside of the ads--the ads just indicate that some interest group or company has tried to make them notable. As for the references: The Dole link goes to "Dole super Kids," their new name for "5 a day"--this particular slogan is not even mentioned; the Cal State link just go to "5 a day," again this slogan is not mentioned, the USC list is just posted at some indeterminate place on their site, the Sunkist site indicates that this has superseded "5 a Day" as their slogan in which case the article can be merged. & then we can discuss whether either form of the slogan should be kept. DGG 02:06, 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 no consensus. Sourceability is the issue, and this one is borderline. Some feel it's enough, others feel it's not, but there's no clear consensus about it. Mango juice^talk 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Jimmy Chow[edit]

Notability not asserted. It lacks reliable third-party references. It has four references, three from a blog and one from Ain't It Cool News, which is also nothing more a blog "dedicated to rumors and reviews". Its publisher, Heavy.com might be notable, but just like not every book ever published by a notable publishing house is notable, not everything ever posted on such a website is notable. bogdan 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The references are enough for me. Different strokes, I guess. - Richfife 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It's in the list of Wikipedia's newest articles on the Main Page, for crying out loud. -- 71.98.101.159 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? All articles created are on the list of newest articles. I could easily create a page called 2389450y23htawrhuioegop4eia;gjkl;rgpoagsda and it would appear on that list even if the page coonsisted entirely of me banging on the keyboard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see one ref, the AICN piece, and going through the under 600 Google results I get, I don't see any other outside coverage except for news releases. I don't think this meets notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please explain why not since I have explained below why it DOES meet the notability guidelines.GDallimore (Talk) 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't aware it was necessary for an article to "assert notability". It merely had to be notable, requiring (for example) two non-trivial references. The AICN source cannot be discounted for notability given the content of the article and interview. So we have one reliable source. The other reference are not really blogs but are announcements from the development house itself and while I doubt they help for notability as not being independent, they should not be passed over with "oh, they're just blogs". There are other sources, but I haven't added them because they don't contain useful information for making an article. If you go over some of the 600 google hits you find the following:

It was the last job that the animator of the pilot episode did before his animation house folded.
It is one of Heavy's prime shows. In online discussions of other heavy shows, Chow is mentioned among the list of great things they've done.

So I think we have multiple non-trivial references.

Given that this show has only been around since April, I think it's doing some pretty fine business in achieveing notoriety and notability on the net. GDallimore (Talk) 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blogs are not reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This delete vote is based on flawed information: The AICN article is not a blog. The blogs that are cited are not, as I have already pointed out, blogs by random people but are announcements by the production company and therefore meet the requirements for reliable sources that "the authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Francis. An article needs independent sources which I couldn't find on the web. *Cremepuff 222* 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This delete vote is based on flawed information: There's a reliable, independent source referenced in the article itself, the AICN article.GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just re-read WP:NOTE and the entire basis for deleting this article is flawed. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, contrary to my poor memory, "multiple sources are generally preferred", but are not obligatory.

The subject of this article has received significant coverage in an AICN article, this being a secondary source that is on a significant website, not just a blog as asserted by the nominator. Perhaps the nominator has a thing against AICN, but it's an important site for covering up the minute news on all forms of entertainment and cannot be dismissed as unreliable. Therefore this article clearly meets the requirements set out in WP:NOTE.GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the coverage on AICN is an interview and interviews are primary sources not secondary. bogdan 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. The information comes from the primary source, so it is reliable when it comes to the history of the show, but it is being published by someone independent of the primary source, who also comments on the show, so it is a secondary source. GDallimore (Talk) 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based exclusively on primary sources. That's it. :-) bogdan 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's based on reliable information published in a secondary source. In any event, even if you're right, articles can be based on primary sources so long as they are merely descriptive (see last paragraph of this. The current article is mostly a description of the history behind the show and the theme song. It does not include raving commentary about how good it is or extended criticism of how silly it is or any other evaluation, although AICN themselves (in what is clearly a secondary source critique of the show) said things like "Few online anime-take-off's have brought this much craft to their work" and so forth. I've chosen not to include such things in a "reception" section until such time as there are more reliable reviews of the series to make a balanced article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have edited the article to include a new section about the animation on the pilot being done by an experienced animator who had previously worked on Hollywood films, Kung_Fu_Jimmy_Chow#Animation. Does this help? GDallimore (Talk) 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being animated by a non-notable animator does not make it notable. It has to stand on its own! There are probably tens of thousands of "experienced animators" in the world... bogdan 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Perhaps notable in time through multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One AICN doesn't cut it, and blog coverage doesn't count. Once this is recognized more, an article then would be fine. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I had originally thought that, which was why I put the AICN in and did some hand-waving in relation to the other references. However, on re-reading WP:NOTE, it seems clear that one AICN is enough for notability, although more references would be preferred. GDallimore (Talk) 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE is guideline, not policy. If any guidelines should apply, it should be WP:WEB; This page does not fullfill this guideline for me. I still believe this should be deleted until more than one indepent source can be shown. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tony Fox. It doesn't meet WP:N --Squilibob 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HOLD THE PRESS http://www.appscout.com/2007/05/joost_to_offer_heavy_programmi.php Just found this article by AppScout (brought to you by the editors and analysts of PC Magazine and therefore reliable by any measure) mentioning that Kung Fu Jimmy Chow was to launch the new Heavy Animation channel on Joost. That's two reliable sources. It must meet notability requirements now! GDallimore (Talk) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per references cited, particularly recent addition of appscout.com reference. DES ^(talk) 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was red link. Krimpet (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White diet[edit]

I cannot find any reference of this, but it may be a valid topic if someone can verify and explain it. 650l2520 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete lacks context, unsourced. Although possibly true (AGF), not something that I learned in medical school. At best, this could be merged into the Autism article, but without sourcing, would probably get deleted there as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular Delete It's true that autistic people tend to do this, but I don't think the term in this form is all that commonly used. - Richfife 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gaff. --ROASTYTOAST 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gaff as well. Ford MF 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autism has its many varieties. You could argue a case for a red diet article, a blue diet article. Any colour. This one is un-sourced and irrelevant. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Gaff, but don't merge. I couldn't find any reliable sources on the internet, so the context that is present can't be verified. *Cremepuff 222* 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to diet (and mention on autism). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Autism therapies - The content is factual and encyclopedic but perhaps not enough to warrant an article. Or not unless someone writes a worthwhile article. Do a Google on "white diet" and "autism". --Richard 05:20, 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. Sr 13 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrational psychology[edit]

Self-admited neologism. Google hits all seems to commercial sites using this term to sell stuff without providing any real info. Two of the external links do not atcually mention "Vibrational psychology" and the third is selling a course on it which is supposed to be a "meeting of Ancient Mysticism and Quantum Physics". I am left with the impression that neologism is just a sales term with nothing encyclopedic to say on the subjectBirgitteSB 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of widespread use outside of the inventors. - Richfife 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, the stuff provided as external links is bunk. This article can go. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that anything which uses the words Ancient Mysticism and Quantum Physics in the same sentence is going to be non notable bilge.Nick mallory 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-admitted neologism, which does not appear to be notable. --Haemo 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some satisfactory sources can be dug up. I couldn't find any. Ford MF 08:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I looked for sources, but couldn't find any. This also suggests that it's non-notable. *Cremepuff 222* 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. JJL 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. JoshuaZ 02:45, 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. Sr 13 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodney Galloway[edit]

Article is a mishmash of information which fails to establish notability per WP:BLP policy. Aarktica 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sufficient claim for notability. The article is a disaster, which is besides the point: why is Orphanbot tagging articles with image deletion warnings rather than the usertalk pages?? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphanbot didn't tag an article. The creator originally generated the article on his talk page & then moved it. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't decide if there are 4 articles in there or none. I'm going with none - Richfife 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTE; searching for William Rodney Galloway returns pretty much only Google Groups hits. The article also seems to violate WP:SPAM regarding the "Marquis Who’s Who" directory Lipsticked Pig 23:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to notability is that Galloway is the "first junior enlisted serviceman to become an ALS Leadership Academy Instructor for the USAF". This does not seem to meet our notability requirements, but even more importantly, I can find no reliable, verifiable sources for this individual. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - no real indication of notability, no sources, no article. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but an in-domain (USAF) notability. Article's defense of Marquis Who's Who smacks of desperation; Marquis does have minimum standards, but they are far below that of Wikipedia notability, and individuals pay to have a complete listing unless they are exceptionally notable. Due to this conflict of interest, they cannot be considered an independent source for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, unsalvageable mess. Ford MF 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horrible mess, I'm not even going to look into notability. Even if this guy is notable, the article should still be deleted to make way for a better one for now, given that this article has no worth in an encyclopedia. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If "Who's Who"'s are going to be reasons for BLP's, then half of the western world merits one.Piperdown 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Articles formatting/quality notwithstanding, notability has not been established. — ERcheck (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ick, what a mess! No notability in the article as it stands, and I couldn't find any decent references. *Cremepuff 222* 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This page was speedily deleted not more than 2 weeks ago. The user requested a copy put on their user space, and then that user moved it directly back to the article mainspace. The user can be found here: User talk:Research2020. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I will not give my time any further to this entry, as well I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established. To whom much is given much is expected, to whom little is given little is expected. You established that little was given or expected. The damage of your words are permanent, and they will have an effect on the future.

Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions. Paying thousands of dollars for online access or printed editions is a waste of tax dollars and company money that belongs to investors. I'm sure their justification to spend your money has no merit based on your extensive knowledge of what and who is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.155.137.14 (talk • contribs).

same references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who%27s_Who

As I said, I'm a novice wikipedia user and made this entry into a free database of information. This was not done by a public relations writer. I gave first hand knowledge and asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards. All persons commenting have pointed out problems without proposing a solution.

You do not have to explain further, I know who and what all of you are. You are all examples of racist bigots that disrupt unity and work against mutual cooperation when asked for help. In no way was this constructive criticism, it was a blatant attack. I'm sorry that I do not meet those high standards of the trash you support.

Quote from Mr. Galloway The only autograph I'm asked for is my signature on a check. Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions. In life we all suffer, but some suffering can be avoided by better choices. People have to want to change before they can be helped. A hungry drug addict made a choice.

Notable or notorious? All of you commenting desire to hurt others not uplift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

A little more than a year ago, somebody approached Monica Lewinsky in an airport and asked for an autograph. Lewinsky declined to sign, explaining, "I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Research2020 (talk • contribs).

Reply:

"I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established." - Is that some sort of threat? I'm not following the logic here.
"Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions" - I agree, but I don't control purchasing policy for these institutions. Feel free to go ahead yourself, though. Most of the references in the Galloway article attempt to bolster the status of Marquis. That didn't strike you as odd? This article is kind of interesting (click past the ad page): [2].
"I gave first hand knowledge" - That may have seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source derived from secondary sources. First hand knowledge is also know as original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
"asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards" - Sorry, but Wikipedia is so large and the pool of experienced editors is so small, that we require that new editors familiarize themselves with the guidelines for editing themselves first, before contributing. Contributing and then expecting others to fix up any problems later is not the right approach. Also, one of the ways that things are fixed up later is by deleting them completely. Thus this page.
"You are all examples of racist bigots" - No one in this AFD has mentioned race. And even further: Nothing in the article mentions race. Even now I have no idea what race Galloway is. Is he Hispanic? Asian? Black? Native American? White? Mixed? Even if we knew, what basis do you have for this accusation? I can be grouchy and sarcastic all day long. That doesn't make me racist, sexist, classist, or anything except possibly misanthropic.
"Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions" - He's a conservative? We're all liberals? (OK, I am, but I'm guessing at least some of the AFD contributors are not). Again, I had no idea what Galloway's politics are and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Don't make assumptions about what this is about.
"I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for" - At least she's known. Galloway is not.

Thanks. - Richfife 14:57, 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. Now, let me explain.

I have evaluated all of the arguments carefully, and each side has raised some very valid points. Seth Finkelstein has been covered by the media in the past. The "delete" arguments said that a "mention" in the New York Times still does not make you notable. The "notability debate" ended with "no consensus". If this were not a living person, I would have closed it as such.

However, Mr. Finkelstein has expressed the desire to have his biography removed. According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability. Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group. These articles are about real people, not just some fictional video game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I closed this debate as delete. Keep in mind that this was in no way unilateral, that I did not come into this debate with a decided mind. I read the discussion, read the policy, and made a decision based on all arguments raised. Sean William @ 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Finkelstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards, I request that the community expand the precedent of courtesy deletions to a slightly wider scope: these examples aren’t world leaders and both of them have expressed to me by e-mail that they would rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Bear in mind that some of the information Wikipedia publishes about these people comes from small presses and date from an era before either this site or the Internet existed. To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet.

With respect for the editors who’ve contributed these pages, it’s always been my belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives.

I ask the community to replace these two pages with a template to the effect of “deleted per request of the article subject”, then Oversight the history and page protect, with equivalent action for the respective talk pages. I also ask we extend a similar courtesy in the future toward living persons who may be notable, but are neither celebrities nor criminals. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, SqueakBox 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Just because a few policy junkies have taken it upon themselves to make BLP more strict or try to enforce their view of it more strictly doesn't change anything. --Gwern (contribs) 01:09 10 June 2007 (GMT)

Er, if the policy itself has changed then surely that does make a difference? Orpheus 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we do need people to make policy and to not let others make policy in their own image etc, SqueakBox 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as before. Meets all relevant policies, enough nonsense already - we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Since when is it charity to remove someone of marginal notability from an encyclopedia? Keeping a non-notable would be charitable. 85.1.6.247 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a something of an inclusionist, who would have in the past sided with Keep in this article. I have become convinced that allowing opt-out of semi-notable BLP subjects is a wiser course.Edivorce 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by a participant in the Allison Stokke AfD, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry..... As with the AfD twinned with this one, the advice applies here. -- Robster2001 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move the sourced data elsewhere as per WP:BLP. Keep the data. Lose the troll magnet. WAS 4.250 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ripberger 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Badlydrawnjeff writes "we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case". On what planet would an encyclopedia carry an entry on a non-notable like Seth Finkelstein? Right thinking people sign up to write about Christopher Columbus and FDR, not to persecute individuals like Seth Finkelstein. Keep voters should be ashamed.--Oakhouse 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My only response would be as to what planet would consider Finkelstein non-notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: You mean upon which planet? Well, he's not sufficiently notable on this one, for starters, to hold him prisoner against his will. For a more formal answer, how long of a list do you want (of planets? Does Pluto count? More importantly, which planet are *you* from?62.202.195.170 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not sure how the article "persecutes" Finkelstein though. Ford MF 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep as I have been swayed by the arguments in this and the previous AfD debate, DESiegel, et al. Ford MF 07:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He makes his case here and here. WAS 4.250 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, for reasons I stated in the Daniel Brandt AfD. I've become more sympathetic of late with critics of the Wikipedia "system" due to my battles with the clique that's eager to suppress them (such as with the "BADSITES" proposal I wrote this essay about). I still think he's got some notability in "geek circles" and, like the Shakespearean lady, "doth protest too much" about his article, which doesn't seem harmful or defamatory in any way. In general I'd prefer Wikipedia to have coverage of such figures and topics that matter to computer nerds (if there's gonna be systemic bias, why not have it be in favor of my in-group!), but I'm giving more benefit of the doubt these days to those who say that Wikipedia isn't always so great for everybody, so I'll end up not siding with either side. *Dan T.* 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to make it official, for the arguments I've made so many times before. Please note, I don't want to retype them all for yet another discussion. Thanks to the proposer for doing a good deed, and the people above who have linked to the relevant past statements -- Seth Finkelstein 15:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as AFD before it. SakotGrimshine 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Mantanmoreland 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as the subject of the article is of questionable notability and the subject has also expressed his desire for the deletion of the article. Cowman109^Talk 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's marginally notable and has said he doesn't want it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per request of the subject. (Although matters like this should be handled by WP:OFFICE.—AL ^FOCUS! 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I completely disagree with this nomination. The idea that we should delete articles on "notable" subjects because someone somewhere doesn't like the coverage is abhorhent. It is typical PC, feel-good thinking run amuck and the sight of many editors patting themselves on the back for their newfound ethicality and love for their fellow man is appalling and revolting. In fact, it is this kind of approach that completely destroys whatever limited integrity wikipedia has built over the years. Perhaps that is the intent. Nevertheless, in the present case, Seth Finkelstein is no Daniel Brandt. Rather, he appears to be a complete non-entity unlikely to rise - despite the laudable attentions of the contributors to this article - to even a minimalist interpretation of wikipedia's "notability" guidelines. --JJay 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: by no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your remark, but I again disagree. There is no such thing as "lower-end" notability. Per policy and guidelines, topics are either "notable" or they are not "notable" - in the latter case the corresponding articles should generally be deleted. As for the wishes of article subjects concerning the disposition of bio articles, we should be granting equal respect to all article subjects, both living and dead (i.e. through their families). We should be encouraging them to edit their bios and to participate in improving wikipedia. Their opinions as to their proper suitability for a bio article should certainly be taken into consideration. This applies directly to Mr. Finkelstein, who has strenuously argued that he lacks the minimum prominence for a bio article. He wants his article deleted, I assume out of a desire to maintain wikipedia's notability standards. His voice is clearly heard, but it's his astonishing lack of prominence that rules the day and justifies removal of his article. Of course, should Mr. Finkelstein continue to pen articles on society and the world at large, should he actively seek to escape his current obscurity by transforming himself into a voice that matters, then the situation will have changed and Mr. Finkelstein would qualify for inclusion. JJay 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If, as you purport, there is no notion of marginal notability, then perhaps annotation to the policy is in order. This being in to offer a "shades of grey" perspective, a la "this is not a digital, but an analog determination". Anyways, he's only on Wikipedia by virtue of the propensity of hi-tech persons on Wikipedia, which doesn't at all represent the overall population of Wikipedia encyclopedia users.

Actually this site has some longstanding precedents for courtesy deletions of borderline notability biographies that would otherwise have survived AFD, per a request for deletion by the article's subject. Now that BLP policy endorses this practice I'm proposing we extend that courtesy toward other living people who aren't notable enough for coverage in traditional paper-and-ink encyclopedias. I think that's reasonable because it wasn't so long ago that neither Wikipedia nor the Internet existed. This isn't a very frequent type of request so fulfilling it would earn goodwill with minimal impact on our database. Honoring this type of request is also, in my opinion, basically the decent thing to do. Durova^Charge! 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Thanks to the exchange above I decided to look closer at Mr. Finkelstein's "notability". I had thought that his award was a bit of a joke, until I saw that it earned him a long profile in the New York Times. The Times says: "Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions". [3]. He is called an "expert", an "Internet filtering authority" and a "civil-Liberties activist" by a diverse range of news sources including the Washington Post. As an award-winning activist and apparently a leader in his field, Mr. Finkelstein has become a de facto public figure and suitably notable for a biography. Interestingly, Mr. Finkelstein states in his Times profile: "Once you give censors free rein, they go after sex. They go after sex education. They go after feminism. They go after gay rights." He is absolutely correct here. The idea of "courtesy deletions" is part of a slippery slope that leads inexorably to censorship, both oblique and blatant. I'm seeing it everyday, as people use WP:BLP to remove information from wikipedia that they consider unencyclopedic or otherwise distasteful. The self-righteousness and disdain of these self-appointed moral crusaders - Wikipedia's own Mutaween - is sadly not surprising, but still shocking to me. Our policies and guidelines are robust enough to ensure that bios of non-prominent individuals are deleted. Mr. Finkelstein though, is not in that category and this nomination is misguided. --JJay 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I treasure my award, but sadly, I can neither eat it, wear it, nor sleep in it. Nor has it converted into anything along those lines. After kilobytes of tedious discussion, I hardly think anything is being censored. Moreover, I'm not trying to suppress or hide anything. Rather, I don't want a "weapon of asymmetric warfare" trained on me all the time. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Based on your comment, it would seem that you implicitly recognize that you are suitably "notable" for a bio here - and your article does not appear to have been vandalized since January. Therefore, your "I don't want a bio " argument does not seem particularly compelling to me. I also find it hard to believe that you shun the limelight when you would appear to spend a fair amount of time either writing columns for The Guardian [4] - work that is republished around the world [5] - or sharing your expertise with other journalists [6]. Incidentally, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you provide to google, censorware writers and other assorted targets from your ~~weapon of asymmetric warfare~~ articles and public activism? --JJay 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please note I've repeatedly, repeatedly, replied to these arguments. It's potentially harmful to me, and that should be recognized. I'm not a celebrity or someone of great media status, so if I wish to opt-out if at all possible, that should be a reasonable request. It's extremely wearing to have so many people seemingly requiring a long personally typed reply on a repetitive point -- Seth Finkelstein 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thank you for personally typing your 65-word comment and I'm sorry you seem to find this debate tiresome. In the interest of repetition, I will restate my previous question: As a Guardian columnist and censorware/google activist, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you offer to your subjects of predilection? For example, in your April column entitled "Accusations of sex and violence were bound to grab the headlines", did you ask the bloggers involved if they found your insinuations "potentially harmful"?[7] Or in your March column "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive", did you ask Ryan Jordan if he wanted to opt-out from further coverage of his "flailing as his tangle of lies became undone"?[8]JJay 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines arguing over not just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but what dances the angels should be doing, what music should be playing when the angels dance, and whether the heavenly choir is notable only as a group or for individual members. A hypothetical WP:OPTOUT would be no more or less indeterminate than WP:BIO in the first place. The idea that one can't define a workable policy about who could opt-out, is ludicrous.

But somehow, when this topic comes up, a quasi-autistic condition sets in. Like patients with neurological afflictions who cannot distinguish human beings from objects (ala "The Man Who Mistook His Wife From A Hat"), there's a proclamation of the utmost inability to distinguish among any sort of level of notability. No shade of gray is possible, only the starkest black or white.

It is simply absurd, and an annoying smokescreen for the unwillingness to recognize the harms Wikipedia can do. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes, wikipedia has policies and guidelines for bios/notability and you meet those standards by a wide margin. And while you have singularly failed to demonstrate any harm caused by this entirely neutral article, either real or potential, your award-winning activism and journalistic endeavors continue to make you a valid subject for a bio. I congratulate you for that. Regarding autism, I also congratulate you for completely ignoring my questions, which speak directly to the potential harm caused by your activism/writings. --JJay 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hypothetically, possibly, conjecturally, allegedly, harmful at some possible point in the unknown future. Should that be the basis for making policy decisions about it now? It seems like if you accept such lines of reasoning, you can open the way to all sorts of pernicious things, including various forms of censorship (Well, you know, porn | radical politics | information on making explosives | etc. can possibly cause harm to somebody in the future, so you should censor it now!) Anyway, regarding your earlier comments... somebody should encourage EFF to make their future awards edible, wearable, or sleepable-on so future recipients can't question their utility! *Dan T.* 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DanT, I've already responded. To paraphrase, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; See my commentary here, except replace "Daniel Brandt" with "Seth Finkelstein"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYTimes thinks he's notable, and the EFF gave him an award. He is now no longer a strictly private figure. He has written an article in the Guardian (cited in this article) "I'm On Wikipedia, Get Me Out of Here" saying essentially that because it was subject to being vandalized, he didn't want it. Anyone at all could say that. In his case there is nothing but positive coverage. But this is an unfair precedent--anyone and everyone with coverage they thought unflattering, but had not actually been convicted of a crime or elected to major public office could ask the same. The result is that WP would become, as far as living figures are concerned, a source of Vanity Biography.

Durova, have you considered this aspect? DGG 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the irony makes me smile - an essay about how Mr. Finkelstein wants his biography deleted getting cited as a reason for keeping the biography. I did some research before nominating these biographies and located very few individuals who had a known desire to have their biography pages deleted. If we adopt a paper-and-ink standard for courtesy deletions I doubt there would be a substantial impact on our database. Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, has certainly had his share of bad press but any general purpose encyclopedia would probably include him because of his role in international events. Notorious criminals wouldn't leave our pages either, since those people get indexed in specialty dead-trees encyclopedias. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely notable. A mention in the NYT doesn't make him notable, either. -- ChrisO 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An 1,100-word NYT profile is hardly a "mention".~[9] JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never even heard of this guy before. -Pilotguy hold short 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTKNOWIT from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable within his field, has been the subject of multiple artilces in major media outlets, has been given an award by EFF (and I'll bet I could find several additional sources). IMO the subject's desire to have or not have a wikipedia aticle should be strictly irrelevant, provided that all content is accurate and fully sourced. Anything else makes us just another Who's Who, which we don't consider a reliable source because entries are at the request of their subjects. And there htere isn't even any negative content. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first AfD for answers to this question. I wrote many replies there. I don't want to retype them here. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. I do not find the arguments made there persuasive. In effect, you complain that although the current article is accurate and in no way defamatory -- indeed it is fairly positive -- the chance that someone could vandalize the article and thereby have liable or defamation be given wikipedia's imprimatur is just too great for you to risk. While there are never any guarantees, I note that the last vandalism was this edit at 14:06, 21 January 2007, reverted in less than 1 minute. The latest previous vandalism was this edit on 10:03, 18 October 2006, also reverted the same minute, and the one before that was this edit on 14:47, 28 September 2006 also reverted the same minute, and before that was this edit at 13:24, 28 September 2006, reverted 1 minute later, and before that this edit at 13:16, 28 September 2006 reverted three minutes later, and before that this edit at 12:14, 28 September 2006 , reverted seven minutes later. All of these are obvious vandalism -- none were at all likely to damage anyone's reputation, or be seen as anything other than vandalism by anyone of sense, and none stayed up for as much as ten minutes. The article has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last seven months -- not really horrid quality control. In short, i think you would do better to worry about being struck by lightning. As a matter of policy, i think that whether the subject of an article wants it deleted or not should have pretty close to zero weight in deletion decisions, or if anything a bit of negative weight. That is, a subject who wants an article should have it more likely to be deleted in a close call, and one who does not want an article should have it more likely to be kept in a close call. That is because the person who wants an article may be motivated by vanity, and his or her claims of notability should be looked at more dubiously, while a person who wants an article deleted may want something covered up. now I don't think you are trying to cover anything up here, so I think this article should be governed by our usual standards, and by those I think this is a clear keep. For better or worse, you have entered history in a minor way, and must put up with being recorded as a part of it. To say otherwise is ultimately to say that wikipedia should have no biographical articles at all, because the same reasoning about the risk of vandalism could apply to any of them -- indeed articles about really highly notable figures are vandalized far more often -- look at the edit history of George W. Bush for example, or John Kerry. Indeed, any article could be vandalized at any given moment, so, since inaccurate information is worse than none, the logical conclusion of this argument is that wikipedia should be shut down promptly, as inherently unreliable and a public nuisance. I don't agree. DES ^(talk) 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell the difference between me, Bush, and Kerry, there is nothing I can say beyond what I've already said too many tiring times. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is a justification for a Wikipedia listing, yet notability does not require a Wikipedia annotation. If that were true, this would be a worldwide "who's who", which it is not. And in the case of a living person, who doesnt like the listing - for God's sake, let them live in peace. Not even the entire Board of Wikimedia Directors has a BLP.BCBGchic 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's second edit at wikipedia. [10]. JJay 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:N and it is sourced by reliable sources to boot. I'm getting tired of editors arbitrarily applying their take on our standards to suit their opinion. With these AfDs, our "policies" and "guidelines" are becoming meaningless. --Oakshade 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO and WP:N are guidelines which it may or may not easily pass; WP:BLP is policy which is does not easily pass. --Iamunknown 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What section of WP:BLP doesn't this pass?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the fourth word of the nomination. Sean William @ 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That says they may take the subject's wishes into consideration when closing, not that it's a deletion criterion in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a tip of the hat to Durova for bringing this to AfD instead of speedy-deleting, and without prejudice towards incorporating the information in other articles. BTW I don't think need to put a template up about this being deleted at the request of the subject.

Seth's words from a few months ago have stuck in my mind: something to the effect of, "You've done some good things, so here is your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." The main objection I have to deleting articles upon request of the subject is that our graciousness would turn into a willingness to whitewash Wikipedia (and I believe we are doing too much whitewashing already). But deleting an all-positive bio about a private individual is not going to hurt our credibility, so let's do it. Kla'quot 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a need to say that while I support deleting this article, I strongly disagree with the rationale given in the nomination. The policy changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards are guidelines for closing, not reasons for nominating or for voting. Wikipedia is developing a culture where all it takes for an article to be deleted is that the subject isn't a world leader, the subject doesn't want an article, and the closing admin hasn't heard of the person. Kla'quot 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I argued to keep at the Brandt AfD, it does not appear to me that the subject here is of lasting enough notability to justify an encyclopedia entry. While I am not for the "delete-upon-request" mentality coming around recently, the fact that he doesn't want it either is rather icing on that particular cake. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes me really really sad when people find having a Wikipedia entry an extra nuisance. Having a Wikipedia entry should be an honor, not a burden... Very very sad. Also, it is one thing to "whitewash" (remove justified and well-sourced criticism), and a completely different matter when we unable to keep articles free from libel and vandalism. --Merzul 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have been able to keep this particular article quite free of libel and vandalism. See my list of vandal edits above -- less than 20 minutes of unreverted vandalism in the apst 7 months, and none of thsoe approch libel -- the most "defamnatory" was a staement that his beard was too long, for heaven's sake. See also GRBerry's comments below. I also will put this article on my watch list if kept, and help make sure that any vandalism is rverted. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and requesting deletion is not an encyclopedic reason to delete; if Oliver North or Bill Clinton or Charles Manson wanted their articles deleted or have the unfortunate material removed from them would any self-respecting encyclopedia comply? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finkelstein is notable for his investigations into Google and search engine censorship,[11][12] especially his controversial views on use of bayesian filtering at Google.[13] He's regularly used as a pundit and quoted by many newspapers and blogs. Finkelstein got an exemption made to the DMCA,[14] which is no minor achievement. He is generally listened to - when he wrote about his previous deletion attempt[15] it got picked up elsewhere.[16] Finally, his work has been recognized with an EFF Pioneer Award.[17] Together, this shows he is notable enough for inclusion.

I don't know what the "precedent of courtesy deletions" are, perhaps someone can point them out. The BLP deletion link given is very limited. Suggesting oversight is needed is crazy - deletion means it's off the internet. Protection of the page is probably not needed (you probably left this in from your copy-and-paste from the Brandt article). The references given are certainly not "from an era before either this site or the Internet existed". --h2g2bob (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"regularly used as a pundit ... He is generally listened to" - Who is this "Seth Finkelstein" of which you speak? Must be someone else who shares my name. I've never met him, but I'd like to. Thanks for the kind words, but the previous deletion attempt got coverage not because of who-I-am, but because it was a human interest story of someone who viewed a Wikipedia entry of him as detrimental to his life, in contrast to how so many people want to be in Wikipedia for vanity reasons. As I say, I consider this a case of "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" - Seth Finkelstein 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line of argument isn't really designed to win over Wikipedians, who are unlikely to want to believe that articles in their encyclopedia are "troll magnets" (true or not). *Dan T.* 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I'm not good at politics. What other reasonable answer is there to accusations of being a censor or a control-freak? -- Seth Finkelstein 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A mention in the New York Times doesn't make someone notable. A long article in the New York Times which covers his life including where he grew up and what he read as a child, and specifically credits him for making information widely public, an EFF award, and a DMCA exemption does. "As a founder of the Censorware Project, an anti-filtering advocacy group, Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions"... -AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If WP:OPTOUT existed, I'm not sure that this article would be at AfD. Mr. Finkelstein seems to meet the criteria for an article, and this doesn't really seem to be the main focus of his arguments for deleiton. As such, my preference that AfD arguments be based on established policy and guidelines leads me to this position. Maxa megalon 2000 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable enough for an article and the existing article seems consistent with WP:BLP. I don't see any realistic way to incorporate the subject's desires to not have such an article into the process. Bucketsofg 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:Bucketsofg above. If we have a general "opt-out" policy, and this person seems to want, anyone whose biographical article includes accurate but unwanted content will opt out, introducing a huge systemic bias, and making this into a large vanity-bio site. The subject's role in getting changes made to the DCMA alone warrant an article. FredCups 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by others. Three additional comments:

Durova writes, "To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet." This argument seems to apply only to pre-Internet incidents, and even in that sphere certainly doesn't apply to a profile in the New York Times, which was available on microfilm at every major research library in the United States.
Mr. Finkelstein has urged deletion because trolling edits to the article will be "reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia." He has elaborated: "Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website?" I don't think the laundering effect is all that great. I looked at a randomly selected vandalistic edit to the article and it told me, inter alia, that "Seth Finlestein [sic] ... jumps 4 inches high". The hypothetical reader who came to the article during the two minutes before that was reverted would indeed have trusted it no more than a crazy ranter's website (assuming the reader to have an ounce of intelligence).
If vandalism of this article is indeed a problem, then semi-protection might be appropriate. It wouldn't prevent all vandalism, trolling, mudslinging, etc., but it would help.

JamesMLane t c 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who? --Coroebus 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTKNOWIT is no reason for deletion --h2g2bob (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the existence of a handful of references to someone, who has achieved nothing of interest or note, is no basis for an article! (I am of course talking in terms of what belongs in an encyclopedia, rather than having a go at Seth) --Coroebus 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable and significant in his field. (Argument made more fully by me in the first AFD and by others above.) As I promised in the last AFD, I've watchlisted the article since then. I've only had three reverts on the article in the last year (two of those over external links); vandalism is not a frequent occurance. The only repeated vandalism I am aware of occurred within 48 hours of the first AFD closing, so we'll probably have to watch especially closely after this one closes. GRBerry 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, there are many stories where the gist of the plot is that a threat which hangs over one's head is still destructive even if that threat is never carried out. A Wikipedia biography is a constant threat. Regrettably, I would like to be unburdened of it. Yes, there are other negatives besides this. But, in my view, Wikipedia has already had its "one bite" at me, and the frequent news stories of people's Wikipedia articles being used to libel them do not re-assure me. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't give a rat's ass about WP:BLP -- there's no "delete because the subject is a control freak" clause within it that I'm aware of -- but the subject isn't all that notable to begin with. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with indefinite semiprotection. The possiblity of vandals causing reputational damage is a great argument for indefinite protection of the article, but not for deleting the article. Agree with FredCups a few edits up in that allowing public figures to opt out would set a bad precedent. Squidfryerchef 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is only marginally notable. In accordance with the new BLP policy we should delete. [18] I have noticed all the keep votes have REFUSED to properly address the new policy standard. So that makes their votes irrelevant. This also confirms the article can easily be deleted within policy guidelines. I call on the closing administrator to carefully evaulate the AFD comments and the new BLP policy. I must say, both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein are not notable to any degree to be included in any encyclopedia (paper or online). Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a contentious subject, I consider it unhelpful for you to urge that several other editors' comments be ignored as "irrelevant". As to your specific point, (1) the new policy applies only in cases of borderline notability, and some of us don't consider a Times-profiled award-winner to be borderline; and (2) even when it does apply, the weight to be given the subject's preference is not specified -- I'm guessing that any attempt to make the subject's preference dispositive, or even to accord it "substantial" weight or some such, would have met with significant opposition. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Seth Who? is only borderline notable. Thanks for your input. I rest my case. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News The Daniel Brandt is gone and has been redirected. The Daniel article was a lot bigger and has a lot more press coverage, including a multitude of references. Both articles do not pass any notability test. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Let's create a Censorware Project article and merge the non-trivial content from this article into that one. Problem solved. Jehochman ^Talk 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution. Delete this article in line with Brandt's article and move on to bigger and better things. The subject Censoreware Project is even less notable. It would not survive an AFD. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. (comment text copied from ChrisO) Ford MF 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not disputed that subject more than meets the usual "keep" standards for biographies, nor that there has been little vandalism or BLP issues with the article. The only reason this is being proposed for deletion is that subject does not like having a Wikipedia bio, and worrying about it causes him to lose sleep and lessen his quality of life. While I'm not unsympathetic to this, I'm sure a number of people with Wikipedia bios have lost some sleep over their bios for far more dramatic impact to their lives (Finkelstein's life seems to have been impacted only to the point that he is just bothered by the thought of a wikibio), so it's not clear to me why we need entertain this man's wishes. --C S (Talk) 09:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc Economy[edit]

This has previously been a No consensus AFD in March 06. changes since Since the AFD there have been no new references or external links added. None of the current links on the page mention "zinc economy". From what I see on the relevent google hits this is a neologism with most useful hits being forums.--BirgitteSB 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use better sourcing, but a Google search demonstrates the concept's currency in discussions of future energy economies. Ford MF 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which ghits do you think come from a third-party source other than a forum or a WP mirror?DGG 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term is not notable, at least yet. I couldn't find any reliable sources about it (i.e., books or scientific journal articles). --Itub 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly original research. Indrian 20:46, 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 keep. — Ocatecir ^T 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been nominated for deletion several times, and been no consensus or kept on the basis of what was seen to be "borderline notability". However, I feel that she has in fact become less notable, and was only notable in the first place for her involvement in an accident, which is not a factor in notability. I think enough time has passed since the initial media furor to see that articles from that furor are the only material available on her. To elucidate, while there were independent sources, they were not in-depth - every story was about her falling on her head, not how she accomplished some other feat. She meets none of the other criteria under the general heading, and nothing for athletes. The lack of any new or different material indicates to me that she has in fact become less notable. This article is the #1 hit for her, and that's usually a good indicator of nn. MSJapan 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:BLP1E - a person notable only for a single incident does not merit an article. She's had her 15 minutes. Clarityfiend 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While several months have passed by since the previous attempt to delete this article, which ended in a fairly resounding vote to keep the article. It seems hard to see that another nomination from the same person is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. As notability does not fade away, a statement about "lack of any new or different material" is ludicrous on its face. Given the multiple reliable and verifiable sources, this article should be retained. Alansohn 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, it wasn't "resounding" at all; most of the keeps were qualified in one way or another. My issue here is that, in the end, the person is irrelevant - it is the event that is notable (if that), and I think this is a textbook case of "people are not notable for accidents they are involved in". She got a few days of media coverage, and that was (and has been) it, and WP does not do "flash in the pan" stuff, which is really what this all boils down to. MSJapan 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This is your third attempt at deleting this article. Your previous two attempts ended in a clear consensus of Keep. As stated at WP:CONSENSUS, This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. This Wikipedia official policy is to attempt editors from taking a second stab (or third or fourth as you already have) at deleting an article after a consensus has been reached to keep it as is. I have yet to see a clearer and more well-defined effort by one individual to undermine established consensus. It's time to move on to other articles. Alansohn 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thanks for the compliment, I guess. This article should never have been created, and in kind, I've never seen a clearer case of nn being ignored by a short-term popular reaction. This is clearly a "15 minutes of fame" problem. I nominated it initially, and a lot of the "keep" had to do with leaving room for future improvement. That simply hasn't happened, and again, policy states people are not notable for accidents they are in. Thus was ignored at least twice. I have left plenty of time for improvement, or some indication of notability, and none has occurred. Biographically, we know nothing about the subject except for her name and birth year. So how is this a biographical article of a notable person? My point is that it is not, and it never has been. The reasons stated for keeping never materialized, so what's the point? This is a lousy article that's never going to get any better, about a person who had some short-lived notoriety and has since faded back into obscurity. The Salukis even placed well in the NCAA Tournament, and she was never mentioned although she was ostensibly onm the squad and at the games. We have a clear policy here, and it's not being adhered to. MSJapan 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: No compliment was intended or justified. The problem is that "We have a clear policy here, and it's not being adhered to." The problem is that the policy in question is WP:CONSENSUS and you refuse to abide by it. WP:CONSENSUS requires you to obey precedent, and lays out a procedure for those too stubborn to accept it: "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed." Yet you have refused to follow this part of the policy, as well. You have ignored consensus not once, but a second time. You have shown that you refuse to respect precedent as part of your ignore all rules crusade, firmly sticking your thumb in the eye of two clear agreements that this article stays as is. If this is a lousy article improve it. If you can't come up with a clear explanation for why WP:CONSENSUS should be ignored, it's time to walk away from this article. Alansohn 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That first sentence was sarcasm. As for why consensus should be ignored, no one has really ever made a strong case for keep based on actual notability, rather her "doing her job under adversity" or other moral/visceral judgments, which are not supposed ot figure into encyclopedic value. Additionally, no one has really said "hell yeah, she's notable" and cited evidence. As a matter of fact, in the second nom, the only solid keep votes were based solely on the fact that Wikipedia isn't paper, or that she was a victim, or that she was notewothy because the accident made the news. Meanwhile, Wikipedia policy clearly states that people are not notable solely for being involved in disasters and accidents. I think there's cause for concern, therefore, when the justification of an bio article is based only on the fact that WP's not paper - usually one can Google and come up with a pretty good idea of notability that way. Furthermore, based on the fact that others suggested renom in the future, I waited a few months, saw no change or interest in the article, and renominated. The third AfD was more of the same - many of the keep votes (that weren't cast simply due to renom) stated that it was likely the article would not pass the various year tests, which are one vague criteria of notability. Again, no one really directly addressed or rebutted the central point of the nom, which was the NN of the subject, instead contesting renom or basically saying, "Well, we'll keep it for now and maybe get rid of it later because WP is not paper". Thus, to my mind, consensus was reached by looking at other things besides direct rebuttal of the reasoning behind the AfD. My basic contention is that Yamaoka got 15 minutes of fame, and that was it. The article was based off of the same media coverage of the same event, and her notability was asserted based on "widespread coverage", which was quite literally down to zero not three days later. There is not one RS about Yamaoka that is not about her accident, nor is there a single story about her recovery or anything else afterwards. Therefore, I think that for some reason, the basic rules that WP follows with regards to article criteria were either sidestepped or ignored in building the supposed consensus for the AfDs, as shown by the responses, which is why I think consensus can be ignored in this case. MSJapan 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried to delete this article two previous times. Each time the closing administrator evaluated the arguments made by all parties and decided that the consensus was to keep the article. The previous AfDs were months apart and still resulted in a clear consensus to keep the article, as is. While I appreciate your zeal in trying to get rid of an article that you personally don't like, you are persisting in spitting in the face of the WP:CONSENSUS official policy, which states that This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. I have never seen a clearer violation of this basic, bedrock Wikipedia official policy. I couldn't care less what you think of the reasons why your previous AfDs failed. The plain and simple reality is that your views on the subject were rejected by consensus on two occasions, and you have made it clear that you will refuse to abide by consensus if your third (or fourth, or fifth...) attempt fail. I'm not quite sure why you reject consensus, but this is starting to seem to be some WP:POINT violation that you have with this article. How many more times will we have to put up with your disruption on this subject? Alansohn 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Why did you ask me why I felt I could ignore consensus if you weren't interested in the answer? I clearly stated why, and yet all you did was restate your earlier argument and belittle my reasoning. Moreover, I don't think admins make value judgments in closing AfDs (which is your assumption - you seem to state that if the value of the keep arguments outweights the value of the delete arguments, it gets kept, when in fact, unless blatant sockpuppetry is involved, it's a simple majority vote regardless of basis). Why else do you think that many people have had to remind AfD participants to cite a valid reason when voting, if not for the reason that people don't do that? There's no point in belaboring reasoning at this point, because now what I assumed was GF interest is simply just baiting to undermine what I have to say by portraying me as argumentative. MSJapan 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: AfD2 ended with 21 editors specifying keep, 6 deletes and 1 merge; the result was keep. AfD3 ended with 12 keeps and 4 deletes; the result was keep. WP:CONSENSUS requires you to obey precedent, stating that ...editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. You've tried twice and failed twice, by overwhelming majority votes, your preferred definition. All you are doing now is spitting in the face of consensus and overwhelming precedent. By your logic, if some future AfD should finally end with your "preferred outcome", why should anyone respect the delete and not simply recreate this article, exactly as is? I'm not sure why you have developed this ignore all rules obsession with deleting this article, but your WP:POINT is disruptive of one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's official policies. If consensus means nothing, why bother trying to reach it or change it. Alansohn 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind of a stupid article, but I don't really hold with any kind of eventualism, choosing to remain faithful to the idea that Wikipedia is not paper. Ford MF 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person. All sources referenced are about a cheerleading incident/policy, not biographically about this person.Piperdown 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One accident hyped by media should not be in an encyclopaedia (or the person involved for that matter).--Svetovid 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever if picked up my national media is notable the way we do things, and that still remains the rule until we change it. I hope when we do change it we'll find an alternative better than I do/dont like it. DGG 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient media coverage as per DGG. IPSOS (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media coverage connotes notability, which is not temporary. As for WP:BLP1E, nothing prevents an article for a one-event phenom: care to delete Monica Lewinsky, Mehmet Ali Ağca, Sirhan Sirhan, and many others who really are only famous for 1 incident? Carlossuarez46 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I had no idea a cheerleader falling on her head was as important as an assassination of a presidential candidate or a sex scandal leading to a presidential impeachment. Thanks for the enlightenment. Indrian 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Importance is subjective and irrelevant; notability is what matters. There are pleny of other people who are notable for 1 thing who perhaps even you would concede aren't important, but are still notable: let's see, we have Jessica McClure, Divine Brown (sex worker), or Kato Kaelin and the dozens of other who are only famous from OJ's trial, and all the participants in all the reality shows, none of which had much impact on world events but alas their notability endures. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It really does not matter how many people vote keep on this article. It clearly violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed for that reason. Indrian 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it violate WP:BLP? What contentious claims are not supported by reliable sources? Carlossuarez46 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think this is a reference to BLP1E again - not about sourcing, but "cover the event, not the person". MSJapan 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you have no issue with the content, why would you put this to AfD for your third time and not propose a move? Alansohn 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have an issue with the content - an article about an event masquerading as a BIO article is a content issue. I just don't think every event that gets a few days of coverage is noteworthy, and the comparison made with Sirhan Sirhan, for example, is apples and oranges considering the relative magnitudes of the event. Moving this article isn't an option, because there's nowhere to move it to - we don't have an article on "cheerleading accidents", and without anything else to add to the stub, it would just get moved back. MSJapan 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Content is not the only issue you have. The far bigger problem is that you refuse to respect precedent as required by WP:CONSENSUS which states that ...editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. If consensus means nothing, why bother trying to reach it or change it if those who disagree with you are free to ignore it? Alansohn 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in asking questions, and then replying to my answers with this same consensus material? Fine, you win. I withdraw the AfD, and feel free to nominate for a permaban, if that will make you happy. MSJapan 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the love of God, her 15 minutes of fame were up LONG ago. This shouldn't have been kept in the first place, and all the harping on about precedent doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 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 - no reliable sources; fails WP:BIO, subject is simply a retired executive. - KrakatoaKatie 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Swanson[edit]

We do not, as a rule, have articles on people because they were merely the executive of another notable article. This person does not appear to be notable, and indeed, given the complete lack of references, how could we possibly counter that initial impression? DevAlt 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. DevAlt 23:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (no, it's not helpful to the discussion, is it?)[reply]
Daelete as nn. Notice that the preceding and following presidents of Encyclopaedia Britannica have no articles. Get the message? Clarityfiend 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shows no signs of passing WP:BIO: not the subject of a bio or of multiple press pieces, and I don't think the encyclopedia itself counts as his personal contribution. —David Eppstein 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Google news archive results indicate there is room for expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)
Delete, as notability is not inherited, unless the article can be better sourced, as per Jayvdb. Ford MF 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, referring to the first two !votes, when has just stating an article's notability ever supported a !vote? Seems like this to me... *Cremepuff 222* 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was somewhat my point. DevAlt 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publisher of a very major publication is notable, even if it weren't one of our rivals. Agreed, not every publisher,but this one counts. That previous and later one's arent linked just means that we still have a way to go. DGG 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Weak Keep or Delete without prejudice against recreation) -- Long time president of a major publication. EB does not have an article on him, but that does not mean that we cannot develop one (they do have one on other EB presidents). The Atlantic, 1974 June has an article "Britannica 3, History Of" which at least references him, but it's not available by ProQuest, so I don't have access. However, as it is, it doesn't say anything about his contributions to EB, so it's not a useful encyclopedia article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete a mention in the EB article should be enough. FredCups 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Am I missing something? What's the debate? Are we going to list every former business executive here? That he was president of Encyclopedia Britannica is cool but so what? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per Speedy Deletion Criteria A1 - Very short articles providing little or no context. Nick 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all[edit]

This is solely a dictionary definition which already has an entry at wikt:Not at all. BirgitteSB 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definaltly Delete-This articles is a conflict of interest and sounds as if the person who coined the phrase Guy Mayhew wrote it. Anyway the article is mostly about him and if kept at all should be changed to Guy Mayhew. I agree that it is already in wicktionary and has no purpose here.Yamaka122 21:49, 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 merge all. I remind the nominator that you don't need to run an AfD to merge things, just be WP:BOLD. Mango juice^talk 11:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride of South Australia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list of lyrics. See WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The non-lyrical information, which is at best sentence or two worth of information, should be integrated into the team's page. Songs that merit their own article have articles like this or this. Please note that this nomination includes 15 articles of this nature. --Cheeser1 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge -- and redirect to the relevant team articles where possible. - Longhair\^talk 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with their respective teams. --Candy-Panda 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to suggest delete on the grounds that we should not be inflicting such appallingly bad lyrics on an even wider audience than are already subjected to them weekly at this time of year here in Melbourne -:) They are not notable and should be merged into the articles on the clubs concerned. --Bduke 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
give 'em the old heave-ho nothing to merge, more advertorial than artiicle especially as it includes the "sony BMG catalogue number", AfD should also include the template Gnan garra 03:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Templates have a different process for deletion. If (when) these articles are deleted (or merged and removed), I plan to TfD the template, since at that point it would be used nowhere and have nothing but dead-end wiki-links. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about the copyright of the lyrics; can they be transwikied to Wikisource? John Vandenberg 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:An interesting side-point: the use in Wikipedia of these lyrics, if copyrighted, doesn't even fall under fair use, since no meaningful or critical commentary is provided. Part of the reason, I think, that the lyrics themselves must be deleted (unless someone can demonstrate that they are not copyrighted or provide adequate commentary to substantiate an article). I have no clue about copyright, and none about where to find out either. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would be copyrighted as Sony BMG has the distribution rights to them Gnan garra 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, surely not. These songs are sung everywhere. Distribution rights for a recording has nothing to do with copyright on the lyrics. Are the words of Marines' hymn which one of these uses for a tune a copyvio? They are in that article. The point is here that the songs are not notable enough and should be merged into the Club articles. Copyright just confuses that. --Bduke 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, quite clearly not notable on their own, but still information that would be useful on the relevant team pages. Lankiveil 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all as non-notable and probable copyvio. Ford MF 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Um, aren't these a breach of copyright reproducing song lyrics. Should't they be speedily deleted. Assize 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That may be true for some, or even all, of the songs. Unfortunately, I cannot determine the copyright status for all 15 of these, and it makes much more sense as I see it to regular-delete them. Speedy deletion might be harder to estabilsh, and it's unnecessary since determining the copyright status of these lyrics doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be here anyway. But the point is well taken: if they are in fact copyrighted, that's yet another reason they need to be removed from Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio per Cheeser1's and Gnangarra's comments. Some information other than the lyrics if verified *could* be added to the club's article in each case, as has been done with the West Coast Eagles (whose song section in the article contains the same copyvio issues). Orderinchaos 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also have the lyrics in the article about the team? :O jeez! Talk about redundancy. My head just exploded. --Cheeser1 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shake down the thunder from the sky - WP is not the place for lyrics, definitely not in separate articles, even without the fact that some are subject to copyright. Sufficient info on the songs is generally included in articles already without merging. JPD (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate team pages. Team fight song lyrics are not copyright violations, as they have either been created by fan groups, or have been released by the team in question as in the public domain (as in the fight songs for NFL teams, including the Washington Redskins, Philadelphia Eagles and the Chicago Bears) --Mhking 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Up until now, everyone has asserted that the lyrics' copyright status is indeterminate. Do you have evidence supporting the claim that are in the public domain? (Is there perhaps some reason a fan group is not entitled to copyrights on songs they write?) Are you proposing that we merge the entire set of lyrics into the team articles? ---Cheeser1 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an entire category for college and pro fight songs for multiple sports (Category:Fight songs), and the specifics can be seen in songs like Bear Down Chicago Bears (i.e., the Chicago Bears' fight song). Hence the precedent has been established on Wikipedia. These songs would fall underneath that category and classification, and if they are not merged back to their original articles, should be retained, and placed underneath that categorization. --Mhking 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no such thing as "precedent" in this sense, since (1) those other fight songs could easily be AfD'd and (2) some fight songs may be encyclopedic while others may not. If a fight song has a substantial article with actual content that merits having a separate article, I see no reason not to have one. I don't know about all of the articles in that category (or the ones that aren't in it but should be) -- and I'm certainly not going to pick through them precisely in order to AfD the 100-something of them that don't merit their own article, not all at once. But none of the articles in this AfD have such merit, are dubious as to violations of copyright, and are basically just a sentence worth of info that could be merged into the teams' articles, if not already there. At least, that's my reading of wikipolicy. --Cheeser1 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Cheeser that WP:COPY trumps pretty much any other argument in dealing with these. It may be in some cases that there is no copyright, in which case there is no problem (except that the information is almost definitely unencyclopaedic and belongs on the club's own webpage, which is after all linked from the article). Orderinchaos 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who created it - if these articles are deleted then Category:Australian rules football songs needs to go too. I know that's an MfD not an AfD but it will be empty if the articles are deleted.Ga rr ie 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Is it reasonable to assume that someone may try to get to the Adelaide Crows page by searching "The Pride of South Australia"? Come off it.--Yeti Hunter 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all a few of these might be old enough to be PD, but most aren't. In any case, unless an article can actually be written about a song that establishes its separate notability, with references, a separate article just for the lyrics is not needed. FredCups 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most suitable solution for this situation. But are the songs covered by copyright? Does the AFL own them or the clubs? Also, would some of the songs be in the public domain because some have been around for quite a while. Lots of other song articles (not mainstream stuff) have lyrics probably not covered by copyright? (not too sure myself). Also, ensure the lyrics are copied and pasted over at LyricWiki. --Lakeyboy 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contacted the Fremantle Football Club,and ask who held the copyright to the lyrics of the club song the response was quick(inside 24 hours) that the AFL is the copyright holder. If anyonbe wants to see the conversation just email me and I'll forward it along. Gnan garra 06:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate you going and actually figuring out whether this stuff is copyvio (I'm sure others do too). It clears up alot about this AfD. Much thanks. --Cheeser1 06:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but without the lyrics, and reduced to the historical information (who wrote the score and lyrics, when it became the official anthem, etc.) User:Jorge Stolfi as 60.32.109.194 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be disagreeable, but that will leave us with permanently-stub articles. It would seem to make far more sense for a sentence or two to constitute a subsection in the article about the football team than to have unexpandable one- and two-sentence articles floating around. --Cheeser1 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the original suggestion by Cheeser1 I am a AFC fan but find all team lyrics unbearable unless it's the grand final. If people want the actual lyrics they can wait for a team to win a match and then put up with the screamed version before the TV cameras in the locker rooms. Sa87 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to recreation if and when the potential independent sources mentioned in the discussion actually are available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Warrant[edit]

as well as:

Wow! The first Pakistani band to cover a Rammstein song IN GERMAN! Er, right. Sadly there are no sources to back the assertions of notability in this article, and the assertions are in any case distinctly arbitrary; unless the Pakistani metal scene is particularly important (which to the best of my knowledge it is not), being among the first Pakistani metal bands is not actually significant. They also appear to be self-published. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has said anything here yet, I took the liberty to add the articles about their albums to this nomination, as their fate is inexorably linked to that of the band article. Punkmorten 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in The News about various metal bands, and their contributions were acknowledged, plus in a book on heavy metal in Muslim world by Mark Levine, their contributions are written. This article needs some editing but not deletion. D3si 3 June 2007

There was some material that I couldn't find reference and verify, therefore it was removed. Confirmed it with Mark Levine that he met the band for his book on heavy metal in Muslim world. Therefore the article should stay. Demetree 6 June 2007
Delete all unless multiple non trivial third party references are added by the end of this AfD. Single reference claimed (but not linked or verified) above is not sufficient. A1octopus 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the book everyone is looking for is "Heavy Metal Islam: Rock Resistance and the Untold Story of Islam's Generation-X" by Mark LeVine, published by Random House. Seems like it is held up in printing and is not widely available to the public. As such, I wouldn't include it in the references right away. Fans are talking about putting together all the articles that are in Pakistani papers and such, but I couldn't find any of them available online except the one in "The Nation" which is a rather short interview. The band has a significant number of albums and apparently some fanbase in a country that's pretty well documented as a bad environment for most music of this type. Self publishing seems to be closer to the norm in non-western countries and may arguably be following suit elsewhere. A lot can be said for greater artistic control and a larger cut of the profits; especially for smaller bands. There is good content here, and with a little more cleanup I doubt anybody would think it controversial in the least. It would be great if more references could be immediately found, but I think it would take an editor from Pakistan to get them. I know it's not particularly relevant (and I hesitate to say it), but if the almost universal lack of references in other articles about bands is any indication, the community at large doesn't seem to require as much of bands as it does of say biography of living persons. As for the list of albums, I would say they should be merged to the band if the article remains. If anybody really finds the article questionable as to references or verifiability, there are templates for that. Aspenocean 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the reason we're all looking for that book is that it doesn't exist. Replace "not widely available" with "never published". Maybe you know this LeVine dude; I don't know how else you would have seen a copy of the MS. Although I found some journalistic/blog pages from 2006 referring to the book as "forthcoming in 2007", the guy's own faculty page at UC Irvine merely lists the book as "forthcoming", confusingly, from both Random House and Verso Books, which are two separate publishers (Verso is an imprint of W. W. Norton & Company; maybe Verso gets UK rights?) The reference to the book only exists in the LeVine article because you put it there. On a more personal note, I'm a book retailer in NYC, and I can safely say there is no reference to the book whatsoever in any of RH's catalogues for their current backlist or forthcoming books. Not one single online retailer like Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com has any reference to the book as existing or forthcoming either. I don't understand how several editors are referencing this thing. I can't find a shred of evidence that suggests it was ever released by RH or Verso in even galley form, let alone actual publication. Ford MF 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say here that anyone can read this line in my previous statement for themselves: "As such, I wouldn't include it in the references right away." I will not "replace" anything I said in my previous statement. Notice I didn't make any claims as to what was in the book, and in fact I don't know "this LeVine dude." I only made a statement as to which book I thought other editors were refering to because it seemed vague. My previous statements should be indicitive of the fact that I didn't consider it a reference that influenced my thoughts on the article. Further, I said up front that it was apparently held up in printing and not widely available in case anyone else might try to refer to it in regards to this article. I will now append that statement by telling everyone that since I made that statement other sources suggest that this book will likely not hit retailers until spring of 2008. I will openly admit here that this is my original research as to a book previously mentioned only vaguely by other editors, and will not make any personal claims as to expertise as a book retailer. I will assume good faith here if anyone wants to make the claim that they couldn't find anything about the publication of the book. I will likewise assume good faith if somebody claims to have read a copy of the whole book or the section that deals with this band. Though my edit to Mark LeVine needs no defending, I will tell any reader that cares to read this far the steps leading up to that edit (please go to that link if you have any questions as to whether I made good faith edits to that article). First somebody mentioned in this discussion a book about heavy metal in the Muslim world by Mark LeVine. Second, since there was no book title here, I searched Wiki to see if there was an article on Mark LeVine. There was an article but no mention of the book. So I had to do other searches outside Wiki to determine the actual title of the book. Once I found it I posted it in that article and here as well. Of the other changes made to that article, no one mentions that I also put in a link to his faculty page in case anybody following the thread of this discussion wanted to know more about who he is and see what sort of work he has published (a large portion of which is peer reviewed). I may add further references to that article in the future, so please if anybody else has an objection to me editing an article that has very little to do with this discussion I would appreciate hearing about it. On another note in regards to a previous editor's reference to "The News," I think he may be referring to this respectable online journal. As for my own research there, I can only say that I was unable to access their archives and I don't know for certain that was the reference anyway. Further, if anybody here needs more clarification on the statement I previously labled as keep just let me know. I'm want to be as clear as possible to minimize the chance of misunderstanding. Special thanks to anybody who has bothered to read this far. Aspenocean 11:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what User:Aspenocean said.Eastmain 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all on the basis of being a self-released, home-recorded, probably non-notable band with virtually no coverage in secondary sources outside a one-page interview in The Nation, so the assertion that they're the first metal band in Pakistan is pretty much 100% unsourced. And the phantom LeVine book doesn't count. Sources that do not actually exist but are supposed to exist at some nebulous time in the future are not really sources at all. Ford MF 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, am I retarded? Why can't I find this in any of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion logs? It should be in June 2, but it's not. Was the AfD improperly listed? Ford MF 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note. Relisted because it doesn't appear to have been appended to the logs in the first place. Forgive me if I goofed and just missed it. Ford MF 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peak ammunition[edit]

Part hoax, part original research, part weird humor. I'm not sure that this fits any of the speedy deletion criteria, but it sure doesn't make for a good basis for an article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like original research to me. Hut 8.5 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could possibly add in-joke as well to that list, but original research all right. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this theory is part of internet folklore and deserves a page here as the term is used somewhat commonly amongst the online shooting community. -TRH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedHorseman (talk • contribs).
- We'd regrettably need a) some context for the article - I'm not a gun person or an economist so the article is extremely confusing and I daresay confounding - as far as internet phenomena go, I'm a little bit more knowledgeable, but something that nets 5 Google hits sounds like a little bit weak online phenomenon, and b) sources that explain what makes this particular phenomenon so notable and interesting. Also, as you, as the article creator, share an user name with the alleged creator of this theory, I hope you get acquainted with our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as patent nonsense after sending any salvageable parts to BJAODN, pending if it ever returns again. 68.186.51.190 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable forums joke from AR15.com --Haemo 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, funny, but it isn't verifiable or notable. *Cremepuff 222* 19:33, 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 all. Sr 13 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Songs of the 80s[edit]

This discussion concerns 9 articles of the same nature, the one above and the 8 listed below.

A list copied from VH1 without asserting the significance of this particular 5-day countdown. –Pomte 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia. Who will remember about this arbitrarily compiled list tomorrow? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL as copyvio. Ford MF 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't sure this consitutes copyvio, as I recall similar lists at AfD. I'm proposing the following lists for deletion as well.

Things like timelines of events aren't copyvio because you can't copyright facts or the order in which they occur. But stuff like this, i.e. content generated and hosted by MTV/VH1, with the little copyright symbol at the bottom of the page, most certainly is. Ford MF 09:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With only 5 episodes to each, and not much to say about them, I don't think the lists are worthy of inclusion. The gist of the "Greatest" series can be sufficiently covered in VH1#The Greatest series. –Pomte 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. Doczilla 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge to suggested article; not notable, in and of themselves. --Haemo 05:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random trivia. Biruitorul 06:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two should be the last ones. –Pomte 07:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, articles were copied from another website. *Cremepuff 222* 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if copyvio, although articles of these types show up from time to time, no one at WikiMedia has definitively andwered the question of whether these are copyvios. Regardless, they aren't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that the show was notable. JJL 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from copyright violations, there have been tons of "Best" lists for songs, and it's all POV nonsense that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. No way should this one take precedence for eighties music when they name a Bon Jovi song as number one. Like, duh! < / eighties > María (habla conmigo) 17:11, 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 Consensus to keep clear, closing early. ^(H) 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Age of Awakening[edit]

~~I decided to withdraw the nomination, as at least one reference has been provided during the AfD process. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

You crossed out your withdrawal. What does it mean -- are you now withdrawing the withdrawal and re-endorsing the nomination? Digwuren 14:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the the suspicion that the "abandon the trollfest in disgust" remark below might mean Ghirlandajo is not coming back to this nomination page, I also presented this question to his talk page. He proceeded to promptly delete my question without any further comment.

This appears to leave the nomination in limbo. Should we ask the administrators to determine its fate? Seeing the consensus, the most appropriate outcome would appear to be a speedy close of the AfD. Digwuren 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested administrator assistance in this matter. Digwuren 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I nominated this stub for deletion, I found myself the victim to a campaign of persecution and harrassment organized by a group of well-known extremist editors whose activities are coordinated from Estonian Wikipedia. After User:Petri Krohn stepped in to improve the article and demonstrated that the concept was recently introduced as a "historical construct" in some obscure Estonian publications, I withdrew my nomination. Nevertheless, people with a certain ideological background kept harrassing me in droves, throwing accusations of "bad faith" on my talk page, and three more persons added their votes to the inactive nomination by this point.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] My attempts to close the nomination were reverted. This prompts me to abandon the trollfest in disgust. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see rule that prohibits people adding their opinion before official closing by admin. Also I find personal attacks like well-known extremist editors highly inappropriate.--Staberinde 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you saw the light but need to point out that the difference presented is not mere addition of a source but replacement of an Estonica link with its English translation. Digwuren 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the history of this nomination, and I must point out that there have been no "attempts to close the nomination" by Ghirlandajo, at least as of now. Thus, the accusations of "reverting" those attempts, directed towards unnamed persons, are baseless. I'm having concerns this kind of knowing 'communication of falsehoods' might be inconsistent with commonly accepted standards of civil behaviour. Digwuren 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypal original research. The term has no currency in English-language historical literature. Seems to have been coined by the author of this article. Wikipedia is not a proper place for introducing neologisms. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, [24] note the tiny difference in search term and difference in results. --Alexia Death 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for disparate terms does not prove anything. This is beyond discussion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first book it points to. It talks about this very period.--Alexia Death 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also [25] gives to references to "Age of awakening" in the context of Estonians. I hpe this makes you see that I have not made this term up.--Alexia Death 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The term is a direct translation from Estonian "Ärkamisaeg". It is used pessistently in estonian literature and history books.[26] google search shows it a lot. I do not understand the desire to remove this stub. IT needs expanding but has nothing that warrants deletion.--Alexia Death 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is wrong with the title and the current one is not considered to be proper English term then a move is in order, not an AFD. The period on question is in now way "coined by the author of this article". I learned about it from my history books in school.--Alexia Death 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this search produces some results so the stub has chances to develop into something useful Alex Bakharev 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clearly a term that's used in Estonian literature and so the nominator's rationale for deletion - that it was a neologism invented by the article's creator - is false. Nick mallory 04:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs huge improvement, but if this is indeed a translation of Ärkamisaeg, then the subject itself is notable, valid, backed up by references, etc. Biruitorul 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak both Estonian and English, and I can vouch for 'Age of Awakening' being the translation of 'Ärkamisaeg'. 'Estonian' is a qualifier to distinguish this phenomenon from other Ages of Awakening. The main translation field is (Age|Era|Time|Period) of [National|Ethnic] Awakening|. (Standard BNF rules apply.) Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a term with what appears to be considerable currency in Estonian-language sources regarding a verifiable time period. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English language encyclopaedia. If a wikipedian likes to introduce a new term into English historiography, this constitutes a breach of WP:NOR. No evidence has been presented that the term is notable in English-language publications. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's the English-language Wikipedia, however the point I'm making refers to the fact that the subject matter itself is notable. The exact article title can be hashed out elsewhere (do we want it in Estonian, in the same way as events which are of significance to other nationalities are frequently titled in their languages? Do we want it in English under this title, assuming it to be the best translation from the Estonian original? Do we want it in English and under another title, as a contributor below is arguing, on the grounds that a better translation exists?), but that's not important here. If something is notable, it's notable. It's always better to have English-language sources to prove that in an English-language encyclopedia, but in lieu thereof, sources in a different language which do the same are A-OK. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation doesn't constitute original research, or we should delete half of Wikipedia's articles. As to No evidence has been presented that the term is notable in English-language publications -- I have never seen such a requirement in WP rules. Colchicum 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly bad-faith AfD nomination. DLX 07:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User warned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is clearly frivolous. Digwuren 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oy, forget exactly what it's called - that's why we have redirects. By now it's clear that this period exists as a historical construct, and it's possible to write intelligent prose about it. But this is most definitely NOT a bad-faith nom; given those web search results, I would have listed it myself. :) YechielMan 08:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking from a position of contextlessness. If it was true that Ghirlandajo was in a similar position, WP:AGF would be in order. However, he is not; he has shown consistent interest in Estonia-related topics and thus, can be reasonably expected to know about one of the major periods of history of Estonia. (For a brief overview, see History of Estonia#Part of Imperial Russia.) Thus, he has knowingly made a false nomination for deletion. Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per DLX. Ghirlandajo's bad faith is, for example, displayed in wanton quotation marks in the Google query provided. Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BigHaz. Incidentally, I don't think this is a bad-faith nom either. Ford MF 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have moved the article to Estonian national awakening and provided some references. I can fully understand Ghirla's suspicion, many of the editors now promoting this article, have so far contributed very little usefull or NPOV material to Wikipedia. I still think their edits should be followed closely. -- Petri Krohn 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think that you should actualy ask opinions of other editors before making such hasty moves of actively discussed articles.--Staberinde 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject clearly deserves article, title may need some discussion.--Staberinde 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable enough, per Wikipedia:Notability, but the title is problematic. --SunStar Net ^talk 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. See also National awakening of Romania, Latvian National Awakening, Armenian national awakening in the Ottoman Empire, National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians, National awakening of Bulgaria, National awakening and the birth of Albania etc. It would be very suspicious if Estonian national awakening didn't exist, so I have to agree with DLX. As to the titles, both are perfectly ok, as "the Estonian Age of Awakening" is the most natural translation of the Estonian term, while "Estonian national awakening" is modelled after all these. Colchicum 11:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It would be very suspicious if Estonian national awakening didn't exist"? Words fail me. The whole concept of "national awakening" is an outgrowth from the tenets of Romantic Nationalism. Once Scotland gains independence from the Great Britain, you will learn that there has been the "Great Age of Scottish Awakening" between 1990 and 2010. A decade later, you will learn about the "Age of Texan Awakening" between 2010 and 2020, if Texas is lucky enough to break away from the US. That's how such "historical constructs" are made. The process is similar to an assembly line. In retrospect, every nation considers it proper to have a "national awakening" at some of its history, although the nation's independence may have been a matter of sheer luck or, as in the present case, Lenin's complaints about the "prison of nations" coupled with the Germans' desire to set up a puppet statelet immediately to the west from the Russian capital. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand the way small nations have awakened to their national identity is understandable, as you belong to a great nation that awakened so far back that it is hard to have any sources on it. The independence is the goal for a nation obtained in awakening. It is not always achieved. Scots have been awake and felt like a nation for ages. They have fought for their independence. Please try to see now that the world is not all big ages old nations.--Alexia Death 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Your ethnic slurs are noted.--Alexia Death 13:12, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GearHead[edit]

A game about which no sources have felt fit to comment. The article is unsourced, hitting Google gave me only blog and wiki posts, and Google News has never heard of it. Grue asserted that it's notable when he removed the prod, but failed to add any sort of sources to back up that claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Codex mean anything to you? 70.162.13.111 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Is notability really that big an issue, considering that the article is to help people learn about something. I was assuming that Wikipedia's purpose is to tell people about topics that would require sifting through elsewhere.[reply]

No, not really. RPG Codex seems to be a news blog written by pseudonymous authors. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia that rests its authority on reliable sources, meaning ones with peer review or editorial control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about notability? GearHead has plenty of facts about it, and it is quite advanced. 70.162.13.111 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I'm on it, doesn't it have a deletion vote? (Which I started, but forgot to sign) 70.162.13.111 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the quality of having been commented upon in reliable sources (meaning ones with peer review or editorial control). GearHead lacks that quality, as far as I can tell. As for the deletion discussion, this is that very discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I'm on it (that may be a common quote), isn't Wikipedia quite pseudonymous itself, for someone whose page doesn't say a whole lot about himself. Huh? At least somewhere where you have to register an account should be more valid than Wikipedia. Fine then, I'll write a video-gaming magazine about GearHead. Now. (By 70.162.13.111, I never sign, sorry.)

All the more reason for Wikipedia to use sources that are reliable. Wikipedia's articles are only as reliable as their sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GearHead is listed as a Top Dog at the Home of the Underdogs. That's quite an accolade. SharkD 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not cited in the article, and since when is HOTU a reliable source? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a roguelike to be mentioned in mainstream gaming magazine such as PC Gamer is quite a feat. Also Top Dog on Home of the Underdogs. Grue 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't this article cite that PC Gamer article? Is that PC Gamer article substantive enough to actually serve as a source for this article, or is it the typical two-sentence blurb as part of a list of all the games crammed on the cover CD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only real issue I see with the article is that it's rather... sparse. Maybe if it looked more like the Dwarf Fortress article? Also, I fail to see the issue with Home of the Underdogs as a source for information. Ryan Magley 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Home of the Underdogs is pseudonymous and has no form of editorial control (let alone peer review). It's a fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, HoTU is not pseudonymous, check the GameSpot article. At least, unless the pseudonym is full fledged.70.162.13.111 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryan Magley and the guy with the annoying sig (or one of them). Ford MF 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: There are two attempts to show notability: the RPGCodex interview and the HoTU review. Now, per WP:Reliable sources, a source really needs some editorial control (such as a magazine) to be acceptable. Whilst I've never heard of RPGCodex, I trust HoTU's judgement and the review appears to be staff-written. However, ideally there should be multiple sources. As a side note, the appearance on a cover CD is largely irrelevant and the links to the forum and wiki should be removed per WP:EL. Marasmusine 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a fun game, but there are simply no reliable sources to back that up. HotU isn't a reliable source (as AMiB pointed out), RPG Codex is amusing (if only because the reviewers are so bitter and "old-school") but it's not reliable either, and the PC Gamer coverage seems to just be the file appearing on the CD. PC Gamer, at least a few years ago, regularly gathered up whatever free stuff they could find to fill any shortages of demos and videos to cram on the disc. It indicates that at least one employee liked GearHead, but it also indicates that they didn't like it enough to dedicate some precious magazine space to a couple of paragraphs saying how cool it is. Garrett^Talk 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks notability. Top Dog on HotU -- a title it shares with almost 320 other RPGs[27], and many more in other genres -- does not make a game notable enough for encyclopedia coverage. Ichibani 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 are no secondary sources to attest to notability and the article fails WP:V. There is no logic in a merge into Brattle Theatre, an unconnected business (also unsourced as it happens). A page on Brattle Hall sounds like a good idea but that is not for here. TerriersFan 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algiers Coffee House[edit]

It sounds like a review. Even if we cleaned it up, what significance does this restaurant have? Yes it is a historic building, but if we created an article for every single business and restaurant and coffee house that coincidentally site on a "historic" building, we'd have another 200 stubs and worthless articles. Aren't we trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, articles and the site itself? Crad0010 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It probably was a review. it even gives t he ingredients and prices for one of the dishes. It is in a historical building, & there should be an article for the building, Brattle Hall.--there is none at present.We should be glad to have another few thousand articles on historic buildings, but not on NN current occupants DGG 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose. I did create this sometime in the past, something I seem to have forgotten till it showed up on my watchlist. In the intervening time someone clearly added some strangely review-like aspects to the article, which certainly don't belong there. That being said, Algiers is the oldest operating cafe in Harvard Square, and is frequently featured prominently in books set in Harvard or about harvard - I can remember a recent bestselling murder mystery and Zadie Smith's last in particular. I would urge against deleting it, as coffeehouses in significant locations that serve as a particular intersection for intellectual life tend to get referenced over and over again. I did intend to at some point work on the article to make it comparable to, for example, Cafe Pamplona, which is a comparable establishment. Hornplease 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and merge with Brattle Theatre. Brattle Hall is a red link. I would suggest that be removed and Brattle Theatre be expanded to cover both. However, in merging the present article should be greatly shortened. Details of menus are not encyclopaedic. If retained the article title should be changed to reflect its location. There must be many coffee houses in the city of Algiers. Peterkingiron 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources. It's mentioned in Harvard Square, and unless someone can convince me otherwise, that's enough. Clarityfiend 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Clarityfiend. Ford MF 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot notable. IP198 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack S. Phogbound[edit]

Word for word copy of his entry already included in Li'l Abner DarkAudit 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need the same information in two places. Useight 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork. Ford MF 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Useight. Konczewski 03:07, 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 no consensus. Whether, where, and what to merge remains, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Nirvana[edit]

Delete - unsourced, duplicates Nirvana discography. There is no need for two lists of Nirvana songs. Otto4711 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment There is no other list! ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Useight 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD. Administrator tools are not required for dealing with such things. Uncle G 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTDT. Otto4711 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you haven't. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles tells you how to discuss things with someone who disagrees, which does not involve AFD in any way. Uncle G 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose merge in the usual manner. This is more extensive list of singles than is on Nirvana discography, and its format is different. Nomination doesnt include a real reason why this article must be culled. John Vandenberg 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very different from the Nirvana discography, just as the List of songs by Kreator is different from the Kreator discography. There is no other list of Nirvana songs, or at least, I haven't seen any. If there is, I will change my vote. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no information that isn't already in the discography article or one of the album articles. Minimal additional infos given, meaning that this is essentially a duplication of Category:Nirvana songs.Malc82 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateIn a very similar case, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_by_Avril_Lavigne just ended in a Delete. Malc82 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nirvana discography -- no need to delete. --Itub 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with discography. --Tone 21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the discography page. GassyGuy 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question (Honest question, no sarcasm) How would you want to merge these two articles? The discography already has critical lenght, uses a completely different format and contains most of the info, with the remains being in the album articles. Malc82 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you check if the info si consistent, if not, add info to discography and then make a redirect. --Tone 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Nirvana discography. List of songs by Nirvana is pointless as an article, especially since it doesn't include every song by Nirvana. --Leon Sword 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The list actually includes every song released on the official albums and boxed sets as well as the Outcesticide CD's. Apart from the improv's and end jams, there is no song missing on there. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Make sure each item listed is included in Category:Nirvana songs. Allow content to be merged into the Nirvana discography (if it isn't already there), but I see no reason for this page to stand alone. -MrFizyx 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nirvana discography - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with discography. Jmlk 1 7 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then proceed with the usual discussion about merging. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zouvaman. The discography is long enough, and is a discography; adding all the songs in would probably spoil the discography article. Ichibani 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Filmation. Sr 13 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmations[edit]

Reads like an advertisement with not a neutral POV (i.e. "skeptics say this isn't Web2.0, but it is!" tone). Also, when this article was brand-new in September, a PROD was removed by an IP address user who added more spam. Questionable notability, or perhaps information about Filmation in general should be shrunk and merged to another article Guroadrunner 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Filmation, a notable American animation studio. I don't see this being talked about anywhere. This seems to be a neologism which is not being talked about by third parties. --Charlene 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect IANAL, but unless these guys bought the rights to the name, I see a trademark infringement case brewing. DarkAudit 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as adspam and redirect to Filmation. Ford MF 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement, and no reliable sources. Possible merge/redirect with Filmation. *Cremepuff 222* 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (novel)[edit]

DeleteWP:V, WP:OR, WP:IINFO ex.#7 and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it but remove all the junk below the stub template. I took the liberty of doing that, hope thats not a problem. Cheers. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for your keep entry, out of curiousity? It obviously fails WP:BK, considering it hasn't been published yet. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice should this book a) actually be published and b) sell enough copies to be notable. I had thought this was about the Jackie Collins book, which (quality aside) was a million-selling New York Times best seller translated into 50 languages, and passes WP:BK handily. --Charlene 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no way to tell now if it will be notable.DGG 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub per WP:CRYSTAL. Doczilla 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There's nothing really there so it's hard to support a "keep", but for the fact that the article will clearly be recreated once the book published. Cecily von Ziegesar is without question one of the most major YA authors writing today, and the rest of her bibliography is appropriately articled out. Ford MF 09:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable. John Vandenberg 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on the series. Presuming this series is notable enough that any future books will merit articles, I see no reason to delete this when a redirect will serve just as well. That said, I am also concerned that this would need to be a disambiguation, though the only [28] novel I could find was an Avon Romance which I'm not sure merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrozenPurpleCube has a good idea, but we have to consider the thought of other novels named Lucky, and the confusion that this could cause, esp. per Charlene above, considering that this is probably some small 4th grader-middle school book, and there are probably a lot of other, better-known books, by the name of "Lucky". Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the dab page, there are no other novels called Lucky listed; there is only one other book, Lucky (memoir) by Alice Sebold. I do agree that there are others that may be listed in the future, however. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only referenced listed is Amazon's page on the upcoming novel, so I'm not denying that the book will be released and may in the future be notable. It is now, however, not notable and information on it is scarce. I say delete it until more information is available, which will probably be at the time of its release; future novels are not like future films in that there is not such buzz over a book unless it's by an extremely high profile writer. This one isn't. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep soon to be released and will clearly be recreated. JJL 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still WP:CRYSTAL, and there's no telling if it will pass WP:BK. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:17, 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 Sr 13 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Berman[edit]

No proof of notability offered despite claims. Whs itc hy 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Film-maker, 1 claimed major film, currently up for deletion--if it isn't notable, neither is he. DGG 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as well. Berman's notability seems to begin and end with the one major documentary he filmed (which I think should be kept). Outside that, this article reads like a CV not an encyclopedia entry. If better sources can be discovered, maybe it's a keeper (a very weak maybe). Ford MF 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources cited that have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchen Mammuts[edit]

5th league team, German text, deleted in German Wikipedia since obviously not notable, some idiot removed the speedy deletion tag Tdxz 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tag was removed by an admin. If you believe the administrator misinterpreted the tag, you can place a message on his talk page, or try a more detailed description in the db-bio tag. --Sigma 7 09:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-English article in the English Wikipedia. Ford MF 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very NN from what I read. Pavel Vozenilek 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Completely NN and wrong languague. Malc82 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. -Yupik 22:12, 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. Sr 13 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Montgomery[edit]

Notable? Neutrality^talk 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tell us. You are supposed to have attempted to determine this yourself before nominating the article for deletion. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and learn the lesson of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. See also User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Your nomination here, and your nominations of Roger Vincent Tari (AfD discussion), Ruy Garcia (AfD discussion), Anthony Hickox (AfD discussion), are exceedingly poor ones. Please improve them. Uncle G 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of us aren't familiar with rather arcane, changing AfD rules. I've been here for a long time, and I don't think it's exactly friendly to call my nominations "exceedingly poor." Seeking consensus is important, so I try to reach it, and I don't think my formatting needs to be perfect in every case. Neutrality^talk 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I might not have said "exceedingly poor", instead substituting "inconsiderate". Ford MF 10:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Requiring that nominations be more than one-word questions, which the nominator xyrself hasn't even answered, isn't arcane, and as one can see from the date on the RFC, this isn't something that has changed. Describing your exceedingly poor nomination as exceedingly poor has nothing to do with being unfriendly. That is a red herring. So, too, is the claim about consensus. After all, if you were seeking consensus, you would have stated your own opinion.
    Instead of correcting your exceedingly poor nomination you are now making bad excuses for it that don't hold water. Once again: Please improve your exceedingly poor nominations. Uncle G 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is claimed, and the documentation was a myspace link. I think it would be a valid A7, and you could have safely done that, as it would still be reviewed before actual deletion.DGG 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few Ghits and no entry in IMDb. Clarityfiend 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contextless ghost entry with no assertion of notability. Ford MF 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person. Vanity bio case if only source is person's own website. Piperdown 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the nominator meant to say was that this article does not demonstrate any notability about the subject whatsoever, and is completely lacking in multiple non-trivial sources, and fails WP:BIO rather miserably. RFerreira 06:34, 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 keep. Sr 13 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hickox[edit]

Notable?Neutrality^talk 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - He's directed 24 films, mostly indie it appears, so I guess the question is how notable those are. His IMDB is here: http://imdb.com/name/nm0382776/ . Guroadrunner 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep His first film, Waxwork, was a minor horror hit under wide release in the late 80s and spawned several sequels. - Richfife 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Wilcox is clearly notable, for Waxwork alone. The lack of sources and context in the article is problematic, as is a fairly astonishing dearth of info about the guy online. But I know sources do exist. This guy got major exposure in the horror press in the late 1980s. I wish I still had my 1988 issues of Fangoria. Ford MF 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person. IMDB is a list of jobs. IMDB bio's are submitted from unreliable sources and are not suitable for reference. IMDB is suitable as a supplment link for those otherwise notable and listed there. Piperdown 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, I'm not gong to hunt down sources right now, but I think it can be backed with some good ones. If no sources can be found within a short time, delete it. *Cremepuff 222* 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and enlarge + add sources.--Svetovid 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources to the article. Yeah, an image of a DVD case is not a traditional reference, but it should be reliable proof that he directed the film. Here's a poster for Waxwork in which his name is clearly visible: [29]. - Richfife 01:45, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Garcia[edit]

Notable? Neutrality^talk 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're short on rationale from the nominator, a look at Garcia's IMDb profile suggests that he's done quite a few films as sound designer (including notable films like Y Tu Mama Tambien), and was nominated for the Ariel Award, Mexico's top film award, in 2002. I have no idea whether that makes him fully notable, but as a stub, it may be worthwhile. Weak keep for the award nomination and body of work. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also weak keep per Tony Fox
Keep It's definitely notable in Mexico especially considering he won one of the big awards there. Also, working with a [[Celia Cruz | multi-Grammy award recipeint also adds to the notability--JForget 00:27, 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. Sr 13 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Vincent Tari[edit]

Non-notable Neutrality^talk 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability in the article, no indication of multiple reliable sources (especially with 25 Google hits). Tony Fox (arf!) 02:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS. Ford MF 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, and I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources. *Cremepuff 222* 20:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BasicLinux[edit]

Non-notable and apparently dead Linux distribution. Chealer 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have any claim to notability. -- Mikeblas 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website is up-to-date, there's lots of activity on the discussion list, v3.50 was released in 2007, and it's a notably efficient & useful distro.

Delete. Makes an assertion of notability, but no independent sources for it. Someguy1221 20:27, 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. Sr 13 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Food Appreciation Society[edit]

Apparently a local group of students. Notability not documented in article. Latebird 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and possibly speedy delete as notability is not asserted. --Charlene 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. 80.41.34.146

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DES ^(talk) 06:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alpha emitting materials[edit]

Pointless and misleading. The information, which nuclids are alpha emitters, is contained in the articles of the elements. Generating a list from that would give a rather unreadable list with hundreds of entries. --Pjacobi 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A table with the necessary hundreds of listings would at least be useful and accurate--this lists only 6 elements, and wouldnt be any help to a proper articleDGG 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add in the energy of the particles, and sort them by energy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Such a list could be useful if expanded. The current version is not more than a stub, but that's no reason to delete. --Itub 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, although it's a clumsy structure to expand, further sorting of the information with this expansion would bring marked improvement in usefulness. Elmo 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the present form, the article is IMO to be deleted or eventually merged to Alpha particle as a list of examples. If someone decides to work on the article and put the energies, activity, half-times and things like that, I would be for keep. --Tone 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onebase Linux[edit]

Stub on non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. Idle projects aren't likely to obtain them. --Sigma 7 09:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. The last sentence of the article could be construed as an assertion of such, but there is no explanation given as to its significance, and still no independent sources to back up notability claims. Someguy1221 00:51, 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. Sr 13 01:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Worden[edit]

Lacks notability Corpx 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources whatsoever, his record label doesn't even have an article SalaSkan 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article was obviously created by Chris Worden. You can not find any sources for this information. koujoushin 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)— Koujoushin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete One hit on this guy--Wikipedia.--Blueboy 96 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Only 3 google hits for this guy. Wikipedia, Myspace and his personal website.-- 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, definitely non-notable if the only hits are Wikipedia, Myspace, and his own website. *Cremepuff 222* 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, textbook CSD A7 candidate. RFerreira 06:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEADA[edit]

An as yet unpublished magazine, sourced only to its own web site, that may eventually become notable. It's own site says "The first issue of MEADA Magazine will be available in Late July 2007." WP:CRYSTAL DES ^(talk) 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This magazine already has issue zero published. Obviously, all search engines and publishing organizations would have this information stored when it is automatically crawled or manually updated. The magazine is well known in the Middle East anyway.
Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to delete it at first, but I patched it up a bit to make it stub-worthy. I have a feeling it will just come back in some form or other anyway. Anakin101 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think even your patching works, sorry. This is a magazien whose first issue hasn't even been published, and there are no independant sources cited at all. DES ^(talk) 22:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable mag Corpx 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It may return someday, but if it does, it will then have some notability attached to it. Resolute 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; google search indicates its not yet notable. I couldnt find an ISSN either.[30] John Vandenberg 05:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of magazines are born and dead every day worldwide. If this one gets to be notable we will have the article in a few years. We don't have a crystal ball to now the future. Right now its simply free advertising, even if in good faith. - Nabla 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it becomes established. The web site announces that it "is set to be one of Middle East’s leading consumer’s Art, Design, and Architecture magazines. " but there's no reason for others to share their confidence. DGG 02:53, 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, without prejudice to recreation if and when the potential independent sources mentioned in the discussion actually are available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Warrant[edit]

as well as:

Wow! The first Pakistani band to cover a Rammstein song IN GERMAN! Er, right. Sadly there are no sources to back the assertions of notability in this article, and the assertions are in any case distinctly arbitrary; unless the Pakistani metal scene is particularly important (which to the best of my knowledge it is not), being among the first Pakistani metal bands is not actually significant. They also appear to be self-published. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has said anything here yet, I took the liberty to add the articles about their albums to this nomination, as their fate is inexorably linked to that of the band article. Punkmorten 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in The News about various metal bands, and their contributions were acknowledged, plus in a book on heavy metal in Muslim world by Mark Levine, their contributions are written. This article needs some editing but not deletion. D3si 3 June 2007

There was some material that I couldn't find reference and verify, therefore it was removed. Confirmed it with Mark Levine that he met the band for his book on heavy metal in Muslim world. Therefore the article should stay. Demetree 6 June 2007
Delete all unless multiple non trivial third party references are added by the end of this AfD. Single reference claimed (but not linked or verified) above is not sufficient. A1octopus 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the book everyone is looking for is "Heavy Metal Islam: Rock Resistance and the Untold Story of Islam's Generation-X" by Mark LeVine, published by Random House. Seems like it is held up in printing and is not widely available to the public. As such, I wouldn't include it in the references right away. Fans are talking about putting together all the articles that are in Pakistani papers and such, but I couldn't find any of them available online except the one in "The Nation" which is a rather short interview. The band has a significant number of albums and apparently some fanbase in a country that's pretty well documented as a bad environment for most music of this type. Self publishing seems to be closer to the norm in non-western countries and may arguably be following suit elsewhere. A lot can be said for greater artistic control and a larger cut of the profits; especially for smaller bands. There is good content here, and with a little more cleanup I doubt anybody would think it controversial in the least. It would be great if more references could be immediately found, but I think it would take an editor from Pakistan to get them. I know it's not particularly relevant (and I hesitate to say it), but if the almost universal lack of references in other articles about bands is any indication, the community at large doesn't seem to require as much of bands as it does of say biography of living persons. As for the list of albums, I would say they should be merged to the band if the article remains. If anybody really finds the article questionable as to references or verifiability, there are templates for that. Aspenocean 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the reason we're all looking for that book is that it doesn't exist. Replace "not widely available" with "never published". Maybe you know this LeVine dude; I don't know how else you would have seen a copy of the MS. Although I found some journalistic/blog pages from 2006 referring to the book as "forthcoming in 2007", the guy's own faculty page at UC Irvine merely lists the book as "forthcoming", confusingly, from both Random House and Verso Books, which are two separate publishers (Verso is an imprint of W. W. Norton & Company; maybe Verso gets UK rights?) The reference to the book only exists in the LeVine article because you put it there. On a more personal note, I'm a book retailer in NYC, and I can safely say there is no reference to the book whatsoever in any of RH's catalogues for their current backlist or forthcoming books. Not one single online retailer like Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com has any reference to the book as existing or forthcoming either. I don't understand how several editors are referencing this thing. I can't find a shred of evidence that suggests it was ever released by RH or Verso in even galley form, let alone actual publication. Ford MF 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say here that anyone can read this line in my previous statement for themselves: "As such, I wouldn't include it in the references right away." I will not "replace" anything I said in my previous statement. Notice I didn't make any claims as to what was in the book, and in fact I don't know "this LeVine dude." I only made a statement as to which book I thought other editors were refering to because it seemed vague. My previous statements should be indicitive of the fact that I didn't consider it a reference that influenced my thoughts on the article. Further, I said up front that it was apparently held up in printing and not widely available in case anyone else might try to refer to it in regards to this article. I will now append that statement by telling everyone that since I made that statement other sources suggest that this book will likely not hit retailers until spring of 2008. I will openly admit here that this is my original research as to a book previously mentioned only vaguely by other editors, and will not make any personal claims as to expertise as a book retailer. I will assume good faith here if anyone wants to make the claim that they couldn't find anything about the publication of the book. I will likewise assume good faith if somebody claims to have read a copy of the whole book or the section that deals with this band. Though my edit to Mark LeVine needs no defending, I will tell any reader that cares to read this far the steps leading up to that edit (please go to that link if you have any questions as to whether I made good faith edits to that article). First somebody mentioned in this discussion a book about heavy metal in the Muslim world by Mark LeVine. Second, since there was no book title here, I searched Wiki to see if there was an article on Mark LeVine. There was an article but no mention of the book. So I had to do other searches outside Wiki to determine the actual title of the book. Once I found it I posted it in that article and here as well. Of the other changes made to that article, no one mentions that I also put in a link to his faculty page in case anybody following the thread of this discussion wanted to know more about who he is and see what sort of work he has published (a large portion of which is peer reviewed). I may add further references to that article in the future, so please if anybody else has an objection to me editing an article that has very little to do with this discussion I would appreciate hearing about it. On another note in regards to a previous editor's reference to "The News," I think he may be referring to this respectable online journal. As for my own research there, I can only say that I was unable to access their archives and I don't know for certain that was the reference anyway. Further, if anybody here needs more clarification on the statement I previously labled as keep just let me know. I'm want to be as clear as possible to minimize the chance of misunderstanding. Special thanks to anybody who has bothered to read this far. Aspenocean 11:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what User:Aspenocean said.Eastmain 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all on the basis of being a self-released, home-recorded, probably non-notable band with virtually no coverage in secondary sources outside a one-page interview in The Nation, so the assertion that they're the first metal band in Pakistan is pretty much 100% unsourced. And the phantom LeVine book doesn't count. Sources that do not actually exist but are supposed to exist at some nebulous time in the future are not really sources at all. Ford MF 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, am I retarded? Why can't I find this in any of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion logs? It should be in June 2, but it's not. Was the AfD improperly listed? Ford MF 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note. Relisted because it doesn't appear to have been appended to the logs in the first place. Forgive me if I goofed and just missed it. Ford MF 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 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. Falls short of WP:NOT. Sr 13 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer spell format[edit]

Mediocre article on non-notable format. Tagged merge since April 2007, but there is actually hardly anything to merge. Chealer 16:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a how to guide to do stuff Corpx 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be on gamefaqs.com, not Wikipedia. Useight 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article? This has nothing to do with video games. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo O'Neill[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR Sethie 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not the place for a family tree Corpx 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:02, 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 speedy keep with semi-implicit reliance on WP:IAR. When this article was listed for AFD, it had zero cited references. Now, thanks to the tireless efforts of Freechild, it has 41. I'm going to award Freechild a barnstar for a job well done. YechielMan 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

This article appears to be original research and any relevant information should be merged into Omaha, Nebraska. Useight 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I aggregated the content of this article from pre-existing, heavily cited WP articles three days ago. Now my weekend WPing will be consumed with adding citations from those articles to this one. I heart WP process. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikitravel Corpx 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Category:Culture by city for more examples of this type of article. I used Culture of Dallas, Texas and Culture of Chicago as templates. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have finished adding citations throughout entire article. Please review and add vote considering those additions. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may be biased as I contribute to Omaha-themed articles, but it looks like Freechild has fixed the original research problem. I am strongly against merging as this information was already split from the Omaha, Nebraska article, which has swelled due to enthusiastic contributions from a number of editors. If only every city had such a dedicated group of editors! I see no need for deletion. - BierHerr 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's been improved as Freechild has added a myriad of cited sources. Definite improvement. Useight 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Freechild's massive additions to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 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 speedy keep obviously misjudged nomination. A huge company. `'юзырь:mikka 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence Design Systems[edit]

Speedy-deleted for spam. I found it in the speedy list and someone deleted it. I recreated it as a short spam-free stub, because about 50 other pages linked to it. User:LouScheffer edited it back to all the original spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 2007-06-09 16:16:41

Keep. The EDA industry is big enough for serious conferences, journals, etc. So surely the largest companies in the field are notable. Also, a quick search shows 169 references in the New York Times alone. LouScheffer 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would a reader who knew nothing about such a company want to know about it? I think they would want to know what business it is in, how big it is, where it is located, what products they sell, and perhaps some of how they got to where they are today. These are all publically accessible facts, so do not seem like advertising in my mind.LouScheffer 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article will be non-neutral if it is solely based upon the company's own autobiography and press releases, as is apparently the case here. For reasons explained at Wikipedia:Autobiography, autobiography and press releases are unlikely to cover such things as customer dissatisfaction with the company's habit of continually renaming its products, for example. Always use independent sources. Uncle G 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unsourced and has failed to assert it's notability. --Witchinghour 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see the spam here. But I do see peacock terms. Remove those, add some sourcings, and you have a perfectly fine article, I'd say. Guroadrunner 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revisit in a month if not cleaned up. One and a half billion in turnover should be sufficient to gain at least some external coverage. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Cadence Design Systems v. Avant! Inc. has been cited as one of the rare instances where a plaintiff has been successful in misappropriation of trade secrets litigation. Uncle G 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The practice of stubbifying spam articles on notable companies instead of deleting is a good one and should be encouraged. DGG 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was reverted, note. Uncle G 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted it because calling something spam does not make it so. A relatively small portion seems spam-like and in this case I believe an editor should remove the spam parts and leave the parts a reader who did not know the company might want. (and I did this in addition to the revert.) Note also that the same editor put a spam tag on Avanti Corporation, where I cannot for the life of me see even a single word that might be considered spam. This lead me to think that perhaps the editor was plunking down spam tags indiscriminately, without reading the articles. Especially in this case, it's better to de-spam a line at a time rather than an article at a time.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Bundled Magma Design Automation for deletion since that article is also there for glorifying and advertising the company. --Witchinghour 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim to stub Magma Design Automation, as 12 other pages point to it. Edit out the "peacock's tail" NN list of directors and convert to WP:NPOV. Anthony Appleyard 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO it is better to avoid details about current product line (everyone can find this easily on company website) and concentrate on history of the company. Otherwise Cadence is WP notable, because of its history. Pavel Vozenilek 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scopical[edit]

Speedy deleted before (db-spam), I was asked to make a discussion so I list it here. Tone 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clearly worthy considering it provides a third party point of reference for its upcoming service. The page is a commentary on its development and provides information on an up and coming product, of which is potentially significant.
Strong Delete I found this one by sheer luck, as I remember placing this on my watch list before speedy deleting it some months back in the first pass of the Aussie corporate category cleanup. As not meeting WP:CORP, references do not meet WP:RS as they are self-published by the company, and as its all something being released in the future and has not produced a living product, i'll throw in WP:CRYSTAL for good measure. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Its product hasn't even been released yet - hard to be notable without one. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Clarityfiend 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I forgot to state my opinion before...) --Tone 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as above - Kneale 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by others Dixonsej 18:16, 9 June 2007
Delete as above. Recurring dreams 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CORP, vapourware... take your pick. Lankiveil 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete Not only WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CORP, but after reading that article I'm not even sure I know what the product *is*. Orderinchaos 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it's Web 2.0! It doesn't have to make sense! Lankiveil 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I needed that laugh Lankiveil, gold. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They know what references are... now where are the secondary references to show notability? Oh, there are none.Garrie 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seems like it needs salting too.Ga rr ie 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the comments above, fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources and non-notable. *Cremepuff 222* 21:17, 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. Sr 13 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraLife[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (2nd nomination)

I was going to remove the external links from this, but that would leave no content. Seriously. This may be a notable topic, I have no idea, but this article is blatant promotion and if it hadn't just been undeleted I would delete it as lacking a claim of notability, blatant advertising AND no significant content other than links. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this rigmarole before when I got the article to be undeleted.

First: No content? I'm not done writing it yet. It's a stub for crying out loud! Sheesh.

Second: The notability is proven in the article - it is ranked #9 of 57 by Major Spoilers and is ranked #192 of 9191 by TheWebcomicList. Also, it's been mentioned in a slew of magazines around the world. The creator of ExtraLife also created the largest World of Warcraft guild ("alea iacta est"), of which Leo Laporte is a member. The podcast (ExtraLife Radio) has interviewed Veronica Belmont of CNET. The video podcast (ExtraLife TV)

Third: Blatant advertising? What about Buzz_Out_Loud? Is that article an example of "Blatant Advertising" for CNET? What about Podtacular? Is THAT an example of "Blatant Advertising"? The only link on the article that gives any kind of money to anyone would be the link to HeroesForYou.com, which is a recent side project similar to Len Peralta's MonsterByMail.com. If you want me to make the article 100% money-free instead of 99%, I'll be happy to remove that bullet point.

Fourth: As far as having "no significant content", please refer to the bottom of the article, where it is listed as a stub. Furthermore, a request to the right of the identification of the article as a stub reads "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - this implies that the author (me) knows that there is not a lot of content (yet) and is requesting aid in helping with content or lack thereof.

If you still have a problem with this article, I still have plenty of reasons why it should stay. I should know - I wrote it.
--Shaymus22 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stub, it's quite big, but most of it is weblinks to the site itself. Spam-mungous. Ugh. So what if the creator also created the largest WoW guild? Notability cannot be gained by association (and in any ase creating a WoW guild is not actually much of a claim). BuzzOutLoud is also irrelevant - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow. It really does have an extra life, even after the decision has already been made. Clarityfiend 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment It has an extra life because I breathed one into it. The decision was wrong - that's what I'm here to prove. --Shaymus22 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam has been removed but all the same an article whose existence is a spam projectile has no place in wikipedia, SqueakBox 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "spam" is defined as links to prove ExtraLife's notability, then every article on Wikipedia should be deleted. As far as an article being a "spam projectile", I think that the list that I so very carefully created of guest hosts was very similar to that found at Buzz_Out_Loud.
I fail to see how pages like Penny_Arcade_(webcomic), Vgcats, and Buzz_Out_Loud are fine, but ExtraLife is not.
Also, as far as it being a stub, I put that there because I'm not done writing the article yet. I haven't gotten the chance - people keep wanting to delete it--Shaymus22 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only judge the article as it is now and not as you promise to make it. This was the clearest example of a spam article I have ever seen, and people afdingg is no excuse for not improving the article, SqueakBox 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is this article spam? If it is so clear, why are you the only person who has mentioned that it is spam so far? Also, as far as improving the article, I've just managed to restore it back to its original form, with the episode numbers, etc. Plus, I'm spending a lot of time arguing with you about whether or not all of my work will be in vain. --Shaymus22 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what I have added to the article (four cited third-party sources) should satisfy any notability concerns. Would you agree? --Shaymus22 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not. You've got what appears to be 4 blogs and/or forums. Not what I'd consider reliable sources. DarkAudit 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, crazy? "blogs and/or forums"? Did you even click the links? Joystiq is one the biggest gaming news site in the industry. And are you trying to say that Major Spoilers and TheWebcomicList aren't reliable sources? The only site that could POSSIBLY factor into your insane statement would be The Pisstakers, but that is only by a longshot. Look - you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about, so why don't you bother someone else? --Shaymus22 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did click the links. They looked like blogs. And stop with the personal attacks before you find yourself blocked. DarkAudit 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because I have a huge history of personal attacks. Give me a break. --Shaymus22 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have a huge contribs history and we try to discourage any personal attacks. If you went in to work and someone started calling you crazy they would doubtless be warned and if they continued would lose thier job. Respecting others is a foundation of our work here, SqueakBox 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in so many ways, and until that changes, I don't care about what happens to this article. ExtraLife had a real-life meetup at a theater that the fans bought out in Utah for Spiderman 3. People came from all over the country. They've organized several of these events before. The podcast has over 20,000 subscribers, with hundreds of new subscribers each week. If you search "Scott Johnson" (the most common name imaginable) on Google, ExtraLife is on the front page out of almost four million results.

If you want to try to tell me that ExtraLife is non-notable, be my guest. If you want to delete this article, go right ahead. Prove me right. Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in so many ways, and until that changes, I don't care what happens to this article. --Shaymus22 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC) PS: @SqueakBox - don't expect my 'contrib' history to get any larger any time soon. Kthxbye.[reply]

Delete - does not cite any reliable sources which support notability --Haemo 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still no valid sources. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has been deleted twice at AFD and its notability has not improved much since then. Sources are not reliable, does not satisfy WP:WEB. Many of my doubts concerning the sources were voiced at DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 8. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:24, 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. Sr 13 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSM Player[edit]

A quick google turns up a bunch of results that don't seem to be about this piece of software; unable to find any reliable sources, so I think this fails the general notability criteria. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found to establish notability, or even confirm if it's part of this Game Maker program. Which to be honest, I'm not sure about either. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This software is real, Article should not be deleted

GSM Player is real software, I have downloaded it and tried it, it does everything it claims to do. Upon start, GSM Player (Version 1.1a+) clearly displays a logo saying 'Verision' and the old download link links to the Verision Website, who is the creator of this piece of software. A quick search on the Game Maker Community brings up some results which are related to the Software. GSM Player can also be found in the 'Game Maker Creations' section of the Game Maker Community on about Page 2. A search on google for "GSM Player Verision" does bring up links which are about this piece of software. Link to google results When the player is running (See download link at the bottom of the page, It does not contain any Viruses... I have checked it) Press F1 to get up the help window, and it is noted in there that it is created in Game Maker. Skullblade 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Ok, but forums are not reliable sources; reliable sources need to be fact-checked, and I'm pretty sure those forums aren't. I'm not calling them liars, I'm just saying we can't put the same degree of faith in them that we'd put in, say, the BBC, the New York Times, or other sources. I checked the google link, and two of those appear to be about the player, and like I said, forums don't count. The rest appear to be misspellings of either 'version' or 'Verizon'. Also, please don't create new sections; it messes up the format of other pages. And sign your comments at the end with four tildes (~~~~), please. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSM Player is a small, new FreeWare media player... It is not going to appear on websites like the BBC.

The article also gives a link to an old download page which houses Version 1.1b, and some more information about the player. Skullblade 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, Sorry for the trouble... I am new to Wikipedia.

Skullblade 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per skullblade. "Small, new freeware" = not encyclopaedically notable. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take Skullblade's request as a db-self then? FrozenPurpleCube 20:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I never really knew what I was doing, I just saw something that lacked an article and immediately created one...

Skullblade 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many things that don't have articles. Sometimes that is because nobody has noticed, or because there aren't any sources, but sometimes it's because the subject in question isn't quite that important. In general, for software to be notable, it should either be from a major publisher, or at least receive a review from a major source. Anyway, it's not a problem that you've done so, and recognizing this is actually quite commendable. So kudos to you! FrozenPurpleCube 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any independent sources. As is stated in the article, this is under development, so good sources are not likely to exist yet, if ever. Someguy1221 20:31, 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 take a leak on this article. Krimpet (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey[edit]

giant trivia fork, just a long list of times various parts of 2001 have been parodied or references (or may have been, it's not sourced well). It is an indiscriminate list of information, and a similar page about The Shining was deleted recently. Biggspowd

Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list, even though someone put a LOT of work into this one. Useight 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with other "in popular culture" articles. It is popular culture, anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list and as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's important to show the extraordinary impact that 2001 has had on society. I do, however, recommend a thorough clean-up to leave only the very notable references. Ackatsis 06:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whoa, that's a big one. Although a highly important film, this list is riddled with useless trivia and every single little mention of Odyssey ever. Ten examples from The Simpsons alone! TEN. María (habla conmigo) 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tone 21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this list is trivia. It is not encyclopedic to indiscriminately list every single pop culture reference to a film. The original research via personal observation is by nature unattributable in its significance. If a film magazine had an article about the impact of 2001 on popular culture, then it can be reiterated in prose in the film article's Cultural impact section. This list has no such background to mark any kind of significance among these trivia bits. Oh, and let's put these up for AfD, too: Dr. Strangelove in popular culture, List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club in popular culture, and whatever other content forks of trivia exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 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. Sr 13 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Khan[edit]

This person fails WP:N specifically the athlete section in WP:BIO. This is the younger brother of boxer Amir Khan, Haroon, who is currently an amateur boxer of little fame apart from his famous sibling. Judging by the name of the creater and major contributor this is a vanity page done by himself or another relation. The artical has no references or sources. Greatestrowerever 15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough!User:Lil'GKhan —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation if the subject does become notable. There is no indication that he is a notable amateur boxer. In fact, if the infobox is correct, he hasn't even had a fight so far. The article states that he's in training for the 2012 Olympics, but it's not clear from the article that he has even the remotest chance of reaching the Olympics. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Also, appears to violate WP:AUTO. --Evb-wiki 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to violate WP:AUTO as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I think the infobox says it best -- 0 --. There is just nothing here. Probably could have been speedied. JodyB_talk 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this kid. Non-notable. Doczilla 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Sioux[edit]

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A google search shows that this film has an entry in imdb. It also shows that this film was released in 1937 instead of 1944. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The date 1937 is correct per Beck and Friedwald's Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons, so I've emended the article accordingly. I'm ~~neutral~~ on the AfD, as I doubt that we need an article on every cartoon WB made. Deor 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I'm going to change my opinion to weak delete. I doubt that the reference to Film Daily can be correct, since the cartoon dates from seven years before the supposed review of it as a "new film". If a better sourced and fuller article about this can be created, I'd be willing to accept it, but this one just has too many problems. Redirecting it to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography would just result in a circular redirect in that article. Deor 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Friz Freleng ~~Delete~~ Neutral. Now, I'm perplexed. An indifferent early cartoon, but made by a famous animator. Clarityfiend 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- --sparkit ^TALK 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? - is there a list of Warner Bros. cartoons this can be merged to? Otto4711 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography, but many of the individual entries are redlinked, and I'd have to see a really persuasive argument to convince me that there needs to be 1000+ articles to cover the whole batch. Deor 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm good with a redirect to that article. If some more substantive information becomes available no prejudice to recreating. Otto4711 17:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filmography already mentions this cartoon. Being made by a famous animator does not make this cartoon notable. Ichibani 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is unnecessary; most of the links in the filmography are red, not pointing to the animator. Ichibani 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ichibani - an unnecessary article. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with Ichibani. Astrale01^talk_contribs 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I would probably have opted to delete or merge myself. But the consensus is clear. DES ^(talk) 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Hareblower[edit]

At the very least should be merged to Bugs Bunny. However, don't think that it's either notable enough for it's own article, not is it well written enough for a merge. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Created by Friz Freleng. (If you don't know who this is, congratulations! You haven't misspent your youth.) IMDb entry gives it a pretty high rating. Clarityfiend 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Friz Freleng directed a LOT of shorts: what makes this special? --Calton | Talk 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, it needs a rewrite. But Looney Tunes is at least as deserving of entries for each episode as many of the TV shows that have them. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed it down. Clarityfiend 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most Looney Tunes shorts by the likes of Freling, Jones, and McKimson are inherently notable. This article needs a bit of work, though. DarkAudit 23:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- --sparkit ^TALK 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ain't IMDB-Lite, and unless you've got some reliable sources actually discussing this specific cartoon and its impact/meaning/history/whatever, you've got bupkis. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Bugs Bunny cartoons per WP:EPISODE - As soon as it becomes notable, it can have its own article. Needless to say, this probably goes for much of the list's material - Tiswas^(t) 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Fun[edit]

Is this legit? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a local, afternoon "collection" show. I don't see how it's notable. -- Mikeblas 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual shows may be notable, but not as presented by a local UHF station. DarkAudit 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar of current and future sports events[edit]

The page is not kept up to date, no-one is editing it, and it seems too hard to keep up to date. It has had no real content for 1 month now, and is pretty useless. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is the problem with anything that purports to be current -- somebody has to keep it up. There is obviously no one doing the work. I say let's post it on the calendar of soon to be deleted articles! JodyB_talk 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OMG! have all the sports been canceled? ~ Infrangible 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per wp is not a tv guide. Also the author requests deletion on the talk page. meshach 18:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could also categorize this list as unmaintainable. I would also suggest deleting the monthly entries in the see also section - I can't imagine there are too many people wondering what happened in November 2006. Resolute 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable category. Doczilla 05:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, unmaintainable, crystalballish (future events), and not really useful (almanac-wise). Carlossuarez46 20:43, 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 speedily deleted by DragonflySixtyseven as a mistakenly created page. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg[edit]

Useless talkpage that has only been vandalised. Dreamy 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tagged WP:CSD#G6 --Javit 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6, per above. Hut 8.5 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espadrille (band)[edit]

One "modest success on college radio" in 6 years seems non-notable Kevin McE 13:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There are no reliable sources here to confirm notability and it fails the WP:MUSIC guideline. I concur with the nom. JodyB_talk 15:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND. tomasz. 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Practice Magazine[edit]

Non-notable freebie magazine published by one of the twenty-plus subsections of the American Bar Association. There are several dozen such publications, and there does not seem to be any reason for each to have its own article, but one single editor rejects the idea of just rolling all these up into a single sentence in the ABA article, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion, since that page (which has no real external links) is never going to have any traffic to create a consensus. 9000 ghits, but most are law organizations or people mentioning that they were mentioned in the magazine. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Finally, note also that Wikipedia does not have any separate articles for any of the six or so Federalist Society publications. THF 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Javit 12:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I created the article. And apparently I am the "single editor [who] rejects the idea of just rolling all these up into a single sentence in the ABA article".) The deletion nomination is not in line with Wikipedia:Guide to deletion (WP:GD). The nomination suggests a merge into American Bar Association (ABA) ("to roll up" = "to accumulate; collect") through the addition of "single sentence in the ABA article". If the content of the article (or some of it) should be preserved, then there is no reason to delete the article and its history. WP:GD says:

"Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." (emphasis in the original)

If the content, or some of it, should be preserved, then I think an independent article would better present the topic, with corresponding external links to the ISSN entry, and so on. But, anyway, in this case, this issue should not be discussed here, but on the talk page of the article.

Secondly, IMHO, the magazine appears to be notable: see, for instance (obtained from a Google Scholar query on "Law Practice Management" - the old name of the magazine), citations in [31] (ref. No [4]), [32], [33] (ref. No 2.) These are just three random citations in apparently quite serious and renowned publications. A deeper exploration of Google Scholar would certainly reveal more citations. Having articles on sources such as specialized magazines is invaluable (please read the introduction in Wikipedia:List of missing journals). --Edcolins 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that any of the publications of such a major organization would likely be notable, and the fact that they publish 20 does not count against them. Many excellent trade publications are supported by advertising and available free either to all or to those in the industry (known as controlled-circulation)--this is not a negative factor either. Magazines are made notable by notable articles, and in some areas of life this can be seen at least partially by citation. Ulrich's lists it as "Law Practice" (and the article should be moved to Law Practice (magazine).)

From the data there it is free only to members, & otherwise sold by subscription, it has a circulation of 19,000, and, most important, is indexed by the services A B I - INFORM (American Business Information), Accounting and Tax Index, Current Law Index, Family Index, Inspec, Legal Information Management Index, LegalTrac, P A I S International (Public Affairs Information Service), and SoftBase --nine major services. (I've added all this to the article.)

This makes it quite clear that it's being taken seriously in several different fields. A principal indication of notability is the indexing, because it shows that all of these organizations thought it important. The profession determines the importance, and we just record the fact. DGG 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any of the publications? According to the ABA website, they offer 2000 separate publications. Even if you limit it to periodicals, newsletters, and law journals, that's over sixty publications that each merit their own article according to that crieria. THF 20:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I wasn't thinking critically. As with most societies, not everything sold on their site is even their publication, they sell Roberts Rules of Order, Freakonomics, and so on, & I wasn't thinking of their textbooks and practice manuals and education packages for continuing education, & committee reports, and so on, nor most newsletters. I was thinking only of their formal periodicals and magazines. But I would say that all established academic journals and substantial professional magazines from established publishers & listed in major indexes are notable. (that leaves probably 75% of purported professional or academic serials that are not notable--the low end goes very low, as with most things. ) That the major professional society in a very large profession should publish 50 or so seems very reasonable. My thoughts in general about giving them separate articles is that if they have separate titles, yes, if they are parts A, B, C. etc of something, no matter how substantial, then just sections, if they are pairs, such as Journal of XYZ, and Journal of XYZ Supplement, then sections at most. But this is their basic professional magazine, supplied to the entire membership, There have been a few academic or professional magazines brought to AfD in the last 6 months; I've !voted no on some, and the consensus held me wrong in one that was unindexed and not even found in the issuing institute's library--and the consensus was right. DGG 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the "basic magazine provided to their entire membership." That's the ABA Journal. This is a magazine provided to a single subsection. And again, there are literally sixty periodicals, journals, and magazines published by the ABA, not all of which are notable. So the fact that this one is published by the ABA means nothing by itself. THF 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced by patents and held in many libraries in America and over seas, even russia and finland. John Vandenberg 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep INSPEC-indexed professional publication. —David Eppstein 19:36, 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. Completely unsourced, with no references, this article fails WP:V. During the AfD minor sources were mentioned but no editor was prepared to add them to the article. Fewer than 15 Google hits, and some of those are duplicates, with none unequivocally demonstrating the meeting of WP:N. Being a member of a notable choir does not convey personal notability. I will happily userfy if anyone wants to source up the page in which case I have no objection to its recreation. TerriersFan 03:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beniamino Borciani[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. While the article needs to be wikified, cleaned up and referenced, a Google test suggests that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Examples are this recording on Amazon.com, this mention at the 2002 Edinburgh Festival ("The young Beniamino Borciani (surely up well past his bedtime) performed 'My brother is a Luftwaffe pilot' with a naive simplicity that made the tragedy of the final verse all the more affecting.") and this review at IndieLondon. I'm moving this to AfD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion for the moment. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely too young to have achieved any real notability to date. WWGB 12:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this particular person is notable enough for Wikipedia, but age does not indicate non-notability or marginal notability. Borciani is older than Charlotte Church when she broke through. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think the article attempts to assert notability through its comment about the critics. Although not cited well, This youth is a member of a very notable choir. I agree that age is no measure of notability. JodyB_talk 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep that ludicrous sounding title is actually a song by Kurt Weill. He has also sung the shepherd's song from Tannhauser, not necessarily a major accomplishment, but he sang it at La Scala. 23:43, 9 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 delete. Punkmorten 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Nevermind Lyrics[edit]

self-explanatory, lyrics are generally not included on wikipedia as it is a copyright violation ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 12:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyright violation. Also, unencyclopedic. Maxa megalon 2000 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio. --Evb-wiki 13:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyright violation. Even if the copyright had expired it wouldn't belong here. Hut 8.5 13:38, 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 was user withdrew nomination (keep). Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Başak[edit]

~~Per WP:BIO No assertion of notability. Speedy struck down. Javit 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination per DGG --Javit 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll sponsor the nomination. I still don't see any reliable sources. --Evb-wiki 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment resume spam. ~ Infrangible 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Inadequate article, but asserted notability as a professor. Expanding the article, he is Associate prof. at the London Business School, a part of the University of London, & of similar quality to the best US Schools. An Assoc Prof. can be notable if he's received enough recognition through publication & citation. He has 17 peer-reviewed papers, one reprinted in an anthology. The highest two have counts of 53 and 44 citations. He's associate editor of 2 good journals, which also counts as professional recognition. But not yet a full professor. DGG 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, let me ask you: only 17 articles in a field known for highly prolific authorship? 97 citations on his two leading articles? Why do you think this is notable? I'm genuinely curious, given that you're a librarian. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete' Not notable. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. As a procedural note, the afd notice has been off the article since June 10th. I've reinstated it. You might want to keep the discussion open a little longer than normal . - Aagtbdfoua 15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkimonline[edit]

Unsourced, does not appear to be a notable company. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, just as I've done twice for this article already. Non-notable web forum, created by an editor with a clear conflict of interest. -- Longhair\^talk 09:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. On top of that, it clearly fails WP:WEB. There are no sources, just links to multiple sections of the website. After filtering the site in question and discounting Wiki-mirrors, I got 268 Ghits (the first, incidentally, being a spammers-paradise.com link). I'm also concerned with the lack of content: the site's AUP, for example, is hardly something that should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article and aside from that and a general description, there just isn't much, I'm afraid. I'm sure a lot of work has gone into this website[34], but it's just not ready for inclusion here yet. Sorry. Tagged as A7. --Seed 2.0 12:13, 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 nomination withdrawn by the original proposer. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mak Man Kee Noodle Shop[edit]

~~nn restaraunt. only resource not in English —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom is withdrawn...I jumped the gun. Apologies. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break! Are you are trying to out-delete this deletionist? I just put this article up 30 seconds ago! This is in the top 2 most famous wonton noodles restaurants in all of Hong Kong, and it is listed in numerous guide books. It has been copiously written about in the tens of Chinese newspapers in the territory, and an integral part of Hong Kong culture. The reason I only included a source article written in Chinese, because the most important details of its preparation, recipe etc are only available in Chinese sources. It has been widely written about in japanese, korean, english language guide books as a "must visit". I have now put one english review of the restaurant. Ohconfucius 09:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:42, 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 contents - I've turned it into a redirect. Tyrenius 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ward (video game)[edit]

This article is out-of-date, contains little information, and the wrong game title, and there has been an updated article with the proper game title created here: Dementium: The Ward Fragman52 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --MaXiMiUS 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Freshacconci 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions. -- --sparkit ^TALK 02:49, 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 redirect to Oscar Wilde. Whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision, as always, history will be left intact in case anyone wants to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Holland[edit]

Oscar was Wilde, but his son was just one of many British soldiers killed in WWI. Clarityfiend 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to hist mother's article (more room there). Maybe without the quote. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 6 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, Sr 13 09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vyvyan Holland --Javit 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oscar Wilde. The relevant information (birth and death) is already there and he doesn't appear to be independently notable. His mother's name is a redirect to Oscar. Otto4711 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person is not notable. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oscar Wilde per Otto4711. The essential info is already there and there's no independant notability shown for Cyril. It's too bad we can redirect to the "Marriage and Family" section of the Wilde article; hopefully the developers will give us that capability some day.--Kubigula (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oscar Wilde. Being the child of a famous man or woman does not automatically make you notable enough for Wikipedia. The Filmaker 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non admin closure. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist republic[edit]

I'm fairly certain there is no government that identifies as a 'capitalist republic'; there are, however, socialist republics, which incorporate socialism into their constitutions—yet capitalism, especially of the laissez-faire variety—naturally forms with a free market economy. The only states that would use this word would be the aforementioned socialist republics when decrying capitalism. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 04.06.07 2203 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per Uncle G's rewrite. Could someone clerk this appropriately? Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 17.06.07 0148 (UTC)

Delete. This is not a widely used term. —Sesel 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to bourgeois republic, per Sohelpme. This is a commonly used expression in Marxist circles. —Sesel 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only examples I can find of the term's usage (which are relatively few) are basically political whining. I would go with delete per WP:NEO. -Cquan ^{(after the beep...BEEP.)} 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to bourgeois republic. That term and context is more believable. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The given alternate term bourgeois republic seems to get many times more hits, many of which seem to be relatively scholarly and historical-i.e. not just forum whining, etc., primarily related to Spain, France, and Russian/USSR history. Perhaps it should just be moved? Just because a phrase may not be in current common use doesn't mean it doesn't have historical relevance. Sohelpme 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, sure, ~~but there's nothing here worth moving.~~ DGG 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we'll improve it when it's moved to fit the new context, if that happens. —Sesel 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)-- and I see from the revised version that it was improved impressively--therefore : Keep'DGG' 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because countries don't self-identify as such, doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Beardo 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly WP:OR. Bourgeois republic may deserve an article, but this particular one should not be it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no more than a definition, and the term seems merely to be a converse for socialist republic, but since the collapse of the communist block in 1989 and the marketisation of China in the past decade, such socialist republics hardly exist. An article of this length should normally be tagged as a stub, but there seems no prospect of any useful expansion of this article, beyond the present definition. I would thus suggest Transwikify to dictionary. Peterkingiron 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 09:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki — As above, its just a definition. JodyB_talk 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not (now) original research. The sources use this very name for the concept. And clearly the article can be expanded beyond one paragraph. Neither renaming nor deletion are required. Keep. Uncle G 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rewrite by Uncle G. It is an article about a concept, not a term, and a notable one at that. Thus, it is not limited to being nothing more than a dicdef. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not enough independent sources. This should not be read as an endorsement of Coldmachine's allegations of conflicts of interest. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford[edit]

Reopening AfD3 based on discussion with admin here.
Mandrake of Oxford is not the subject of secondary sources, as required of criteria in WP:CORP
The article therefore holds no notability: "a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."
This is not the case, and in addition the creator GlassFET and another editor IPSOS of the article both have established interests in this area which is in breach of WP:COI. This guideline states that "when editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." Coldmachine 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no conflict of interest as alleged. Nominator is intentionally misinterpreting WP:COI after having been told by both parties [35] [36] that there is no affiliation with the subject. From previous comments by the nominator, he is basing this opinion simply on interest in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. If editing articles on subjects that one is interested in is COI, Wikipedia would be dead. In return, I note that "another" user Emnx who has been blocked for three months for sockpuppetry was also very interested in deleting this article and made similar accusations, but would never directly answer conflict of interest questions himself. Thus, I formally ask Coldmachine - do you have any association with competing publisher Mandrake Press, for example, working for them or owning a large collection of their works? IPSOS (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. If you read my user page you will see what I'm up to in life. I have no interest in the occult, in the Golden Dawn specifically, or in publishing houses that produce material on those subject areas. I also do not need to defend my position here: I have not edited the article, and my reasoning for nomination is explained above.Coldmachine 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments on previous AfD --Javit 11:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mandrake of Oxford figures significantly in British magic after Crowley. This is covered in independent secondary source, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality by professional academic researcher Dr. Dave Evans, Ph.D. Meets WP:CORP. IPSOS (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This source is not independent. It has been authored by Dave Evans, owner of an occult e-commerce store, and the same individual cited within the article as having interviewed the owner of the company, Mogg Morgan. His own personal connection with the subject matter of the article does not reconcile with the primary test of notability which states that "a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself..." etc. Coldmachine^Talk 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you seem to be confused here. The subject is Mandrake of Oxford, not "the Occult". If he's not an employee of the company in question, he's independent. IPSOS (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point was that this individual runs his own occult publishing company: he cannot be considered independent for that very reason. It has nothing to do with the general subject (the occult), but the subject of the article: another publishing company (Mandrake of Oxford). My apologies if that wasn't clear. An analogy might be Microsoft publishing a work in which AOL, Yahoo and IBM are described.Coldmachine^Talk 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources would be perfectly acceptable. Independent in this context simply means not done by an employee of the company or for hire. IPSOS (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely this argument just above is wrong. Dave Evans interviewed Mogg Morgan. He is an academic and clearly (at least to me) not linked to Mandrake of Oxford. He is not dependent on the subject of the article - Mandrake. Just because he understands the subject matter does not stop him being independent. If it did, I would not be allowed to edit any article about chemistry. --Bduke 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see above for response. My apologies for not making the term 'subject' more clear. I do not refer to 'the occult' but to 'Mandrake of Oxford' specifically.Coldmachine^Talk 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means that the source should be used with care. It does not mean the source should be completely rejected. In this case you are objecting to him making his competitor notable. That does not make sense. BTW, I just wandered in here as it mentioned Oxford. I have no truck with the occult and I certainly do not have a conflict of interest. This article is as notable as other stuff and you have not made a convincing case for deletion. If in doubt, keep. --Bduke 10:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "you have not made a convincing case for deletion": this is in your opinion. So far I count two in favour of deletion, and two in favour of keep. I accept the point that "if in doubt, keep", but believe I have adequately outlined my reasons for AfD nomination in the opening paragraph. One source, and one which cannot be considered entirely objective at that, does not suggest this company is notable by any stretch of the imagination.Coldmachine^Talk 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

Whilst the concept of "notability" is an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which are to be deleted, I will admit in one sense there is no really objective criteria on which to make a decision. However, I do not see any real sources within the article that assert notability. The article itself asserts that "Mandrake of Oxford is best known for discovering German occultist freestyle shaman Jan Fries" — surely that is, in itself, not a particlularly notable act or something to be considered famous for. Equally, being the publisher of the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic for the University of the West of England is, in itself, not a particlularly notable act or something to be considered famous for. Furthermore, considering that two of the references in the footnotes are from the company's own website and a third reference is an interview with the owner talking about the company I am led to support the proposed delete on the grounds that "Mandrake of Oxford is not the subject of secondary sources, as required of criteria in WP:CORP"

Note: COI is not grounds for a delete although a "lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference" does seem to be to the detriment of a NPOV here. --Arthana 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user account (Arthana) was created 3 days ago. Today is the first time this user has participated in AfDs. IPSOS (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your facts! — today is not the first time I have participated in AFDs--Arthana 08:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This user appears likely to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Emnx based on this report. I will open a checkuser to be sure. GlassFET 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As pointed out above, the sources themselves possess an aspect of COI, leaving us with no reliable sources. And without those, there is nothing to establish notability. Being the publisher of a small journal in a small university is not notable, and the "discovery" is not notable outside a very narrow community. Fails WP:CORP, hence delete. -- Kesh 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IPSOS and Bduke. There is nothing wrong with the references and IMO they establish notability. GlassFET 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting back to subject of article, the sources do not establish notability since I see no source that would be acknowledged as reliable. --Work permit 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST TO ADMIN TO SUSPEND AFD

GlassFET and IPSOS created the article concerned. I believe this AFD has been compromised by the actions of these two editors and their alleged COI. I request that this discussion and Mandrake Press be dealt with on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere.

Reason for Request
Since I have been accused of being a sock puppet by IPSOS I have been carefully investigating the events leading to the present discussion.

There are three main issues on which I base my request for suspension of this discussion.

Intention to circumvent AFD
I note that during this discussion IPSOS has duplicated the contents of the Mandrake of Oxford article into Mandrake Press despite having previously added diff tags to both articles and creating a disambiguation page to avoid confusion between them! Presumably this action was intended to keep the Mandrake of Oxford information on Wikipedia in the event that this AFD is determined as delete.

False Accusations against Opposing Editors
I note that prior to the allegations made against me, that IPSOS has recently made two other false sock puppet/ puppetmaster allegations (they've been investigated and neither has been banned!) :-

The first was against Whateley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with whom he'd had a disagreement. Whateley23 was accused of being the "real puppetmaster"! [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx]|Suspected sock puppets/Emnx]

and

The second was against Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who placed a PROD tag on Mandrake of Oxford and who subsequently re-opened this AFD. Coldmachine remains accused of being a sock puppet. Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

the accusation against me followed shortly thereafter :-

Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) voted in an AFD and disagreed with IPSOS and then accused of being a sock puppet. Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

Meatpuppets
There does seem to be a pattern emerging here and with two prior false allegations already to his/her name I am not very inclined to assume good faith on the part of IPSOS. Equally I note that when IPSOS makes a report of a sockpuppet, GlassFET requests Check User. This means as creators of the article and because they are in now effect acting and voting in consort they must now be regarded meatpuppets.

Therefore, given the following :-

the suspicion mentioned in the main discussion above that IPSOS and GlassFET have a COI,
that IPSOS and GlassFET are acting and voting in consort
that the sock puppet allegations made by IPSOS and GlassFET may be little more than attempts to remove or disparage views that don't coincide with their own
the low number of votes
the contentious nature of the issues and events

I feel the only sensible conclusion is that this discussion should be suspended forthwith, all aspects properly investigated and the matter dealt with at a higher level. A default keep for lack of consensus would not, in the circumstances, be a satisfactory outcome.--Arthana 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to request

Gee, if only you were the nominator, you could withdraw the nomination! IPSOS (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, I note from the history of this article that you twice blanked this information. Furthermore, I note that since then you archived your talk page to remove the most recent postings there — the most recent four were 1) request to keep a civil tone, 2) Some friendly advice about being sucked into conflicts, 3) a vandalism warning and 4) a personal attack warning. Reading through the background material relating EMNX (especially deleted materials from page histories etc.) I found that you regularly remove criticisms from your talk page and that you were previously accused of archiving your talk page to permanently remove such adverse material from your records.--Arthana 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep talking. Every word you say makes me more certain you are Emnx. I assume you are making it more obvious to the admins as well. Keep it up. IPSOS (talk) 12:38, 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. Sr 13 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost[edit]

Unnotable, unknown, and unsigned musical band User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable ensemble. unsigned. maybe up and coming but this ain't no crystal ball. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I notice the article has been tagged for speedy 2 or 3 times and the article originator pulled the tag without adding the appropriate hangon tag. I also wonder if the author is connected to the lead singer? Could be some WPCOI here. There are no non-trivial sources here therefore notability cannot be established to me. Sorry. JodyB_talk 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this, not notable, spammy in style, delete again Jimfbleak 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, dont delete this band, I went in to the whats notable page, and this band has in fact won a competition, the Break Out Artist of the year, runner-up.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 empty. Sr 13 09:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of ideas, concepts, hypotheses, and theories[edit]

WP:NOT a directory, not a lists or repositories of loosely associated topics ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it's empty right now, but if there's a textbook case for "indiscriminate" this is it. -Haemo 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 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. Sr 13 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Strong[edit]

Non-notable biography which don't meet WP:AfD at all. + it is Unsourced thus unverifiable. The Joke النكتة‎ 07:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search turns up plenty of results. OK, most of it is about DVD rentals so won't be helpful for verification/notability, but there are some published interviews out there. Grease Bandit 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is a porn actor, surely when you google it you will find many results, that is what they do..advertising and filling as many pages with the name they want to propagate.--The Joke النكتة‎ 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per inclusion in AVN Hall of Fame. Meets WP:PORN --Javit 11:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of AVN Hall of Fame as well as winner of AVN's Best New Starlet award, either of which meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per AVN Hall of Fame she meets WP:PORNBIO criteria. Carlosguitar 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with request to to include refs to published interviews. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AVN Hall of Fame. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, satisfies much more than WP:PORN BIO if you ask me. RFerreira 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How could someone in the AVN Hall of Fame not meet WP:PORNBIO? I know we're supposed to AGF, but I think someone got up on the wrong side of the porn couch this morning. Xihr 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable porn whore... AVN Hall of Fame proves it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:16, 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Feinberg[edit]

An unknown postdoc. Wait a few years/decades and try again... User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 06:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. None of the publications seems to stand out yet. —David Eppstein 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, a little early, but just a little. He has a total of 13 papers, all in first-rate journals, and the top 5 have been cited 13, 13, 12, 11, 9 Even just these, since the oldest date to 2004, will have more citations in the next few years. DGG 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be at all familiar with academic publications. There are many graduate students with dozens of papers and many faculty have published hundreds of papers. That his papers have combined been cited a few dozen times is not even worth mentioning. One high quality scientific paper may be cited hundreds (or sometimes even thousands) of times.--User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,DGG, looking at your user page, you do know a great deal about academic publications, so I'm now at a total loss to understand your comments. He obviously doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Almost every postdoc I know, particularly at schools like MIT and Harvard, seems equally if not far more noteworthy. And I wouldn't create a page here for any of them either. --141.154.243.201 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the word Delete. but I thought it was clear that that was by !vote. I discuss further below, since we seem to running a mini-symposium on scientific notability, & I want my share of the floor :) DGG 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each one of these papers has been sited more than double each journal's impact factor would predict, meaning that these papers are twice as important as the journals think they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.244.231 (talk • contribs) — 140.247.244.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, your IP is from Harvard, which is where David Feinberg is located. Just in case you are or know him, I'll remind you of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Second, I am not here to make friends, and your comment sounds like some kind of threat. I certainly hope not. And finally, I am here to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. Period. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No threats here, but I'm glad you know how to do an IP trace. Kudos Big Brother. Just wondering why its your goal in life to take the article down. If you search for David Feinberg on Google, the wikipedia article comes up on the first page. So, there must be a fair number of people who access the article. Its not the number of papers that should guide who goes on wikipedia in any case, its whether or not somebody thinks you are worth writing about, and somebody thought this person was worth writing about. Don't let jealousy guide content on wikipedia.

First, there are a total of four web pages linking to the article: [[37]]. I think you don't understand how Google calculates page rankings. (It has infinitely more to do with Wikipedia than it does with him.) Second, the page is not notable. He is just one of thousands of anonymous postdocs. Sorry, I was one once too and know the feeling, but there is no reason to list them here. Also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the above user deleted his comment, which I considered a threat. I'm replacing it here for the record. Threatening comments like this do not belong on Wikipedia. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Careful whose articles you delete, you will not make friends this way." 140.247.244.231

Delete Has the same number of first-author papers as I do and I am not notable. TimVickers 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and is WP:NN in my book. --Evb-wiki 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Are people taking into account differences between fields when judging whether the number of papers is significant or not? For instance, papers in Computer science tend to be much shorter and more incremental than in, say, Renaissance history--thus many more CS papers are needed to be notable than history papers (which tend to be single authored). Where is psychology in this scheme? I don't know. But "same number of first-author papers as me" is not a relevant metric unless we take into account different fields. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am qualified to evaluate his work. My opinion is amply represented on this page. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)? He is simply not notable at the moment. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on your qualifications or the subjects notability, I commented on the practice in this AfD of editors comparing themselves to the subject of the article and concluding that the relative number of first authored papers is alone a reason to delete. Oh, and yes, I have read Notability (academics) -- in fact, I've made several contributions to it, used it to participate in several dozen academic related AfDs, and my name appears eight times on its talk page. I'm,hoping I'm just misreading the implications of your statement, which I found condescending. You have jumped on DGG with "You don't seem to be at all familiar with academic publications" and then assumed that someone posting from an address at Harvard was the author and read a threat where frankly, I don't see one, and then quoted "assume good faith" at him or her. There are reasons to disagree with your views beyond being ignorant of guidelines and policies. For one, people may well believe that an average Harvard post-doc surpasses the "average professor" test of WP:PROF. (I argued at an AfD for a grad student a few weeks ago why we might hold people at the early stages of their careers to an even higher standard; I'll dig it up if anyone is interested) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to forgive my utter frustration with this discussion. As someone who regularly evaluates scientific CVs for potential grad students, post docs, grant reviews, etc., it is astonishing to me that anyone would think there is something notable here. This is simply a case of embarrassing self-promotion in a self-authored article for a postdoc with no obviously notable publications. (The notion that a Harvard postdoc is more notable than the "average" professor is quite amusing. I'll have to mention that to my colleagues in the morning.) I'm going to stop here before I get carried away in my response, as I think this much discussion on what to me is so obviously a non-issue has become ridiculous.--User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm curious, how would you read his comment?: "Careful whose articles you delete, you will not make friends this way." The presumption an academic might make to such a comment is that if he knew who I was, he might try to damage my career, e.g., reject papers, proposals, etc., presuming he someday gets a faculty job. It didn't seem a particularly veiled implication to me. By the way, I also didn't assume it was the author. Please reread what I actually wrote. Finally, I suggest if you find me condescending, replying in kind may not be the most productive approach. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not notable journals, look up their Impact factors. Hormones and behavior - 0.3 Evolution and human behavior - 0.2 Animal Behavior - 0.3 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America - 0.1. In contrast I have multiple JBC papers (impact factor of 0.6) and one PNAS paper (impact factor of 10). I am not even close to being notable or important. TimVickers 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, from impact factor:

Misuse of impact factor: "The comparison of impact factors between different fields is invalid. Yet such comparisons have been widely used for the evaluation of not merely journals, but of scientists and of university departments. It is not possible to say, for example, that a department whose publications have an average IF below 2 is low-level. This would not make sense for Mechanical Engineering, where only two review journals attain such a value."

Microbiology could have might higher average IFs than Pyschology. All in all, I think the article is a delete, but I don't think that all of the reasons given for deletion are sound. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNAS publishes psychology articles, the best journals such as Science, Nature and PNAS publish across fields. TimVickers 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. Fairly obvious self-promotion, since Dr. Feinberg started his article and his personal webpage links directly to the Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion There is indeed a tendency for people in a field to judge very few people in the same field to be notable--that is a useful bias on an appointments committee, but not here. And people at the same university may know their colleagues too well to think highly of them--it's as common as positive bias. Because it seemed obvious that the article would be deleted, I didn't try to improve it, as I and others sometimes do. He is now a post-doc, but the published work is that done as a graduate student. He's working in a very specialized niche, one in which I know citation counts are low. He is author or coauthor of 14 papers, not 4.-- he only listed 4. --That's not self-aggrandizement, it's modesty or stupidity. Whoever wrote it listed only first-authored papers; I just now added to the article quickly without formatting them the most cited, some of which are in higher ranking journals--reasonably enough--although he was not the principal author. And now I have a confession to make: I find his work interesting. But that's not supposed to count--I do not advocate keeping articles on the grounds of ILIKEIT, or unreasonably slant an article so it sounds much more important than it is -- so I didn't say keep, and merely said something nice as an aside, not intended to influence the decision--and it didn't. Most people seem to also say delete DGG 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor James[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. No encyclopaedic info in article. Unsourced. Apparent vanity page.--Smerus 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Smerus 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Well, the Cornwall Festival seems a big deal and is itself notable. The young performers competion is apparently a part of that. It sure doesn't hurt to have it and I suspect some work could be done to better source the article. JodyB_talk 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'the Cornwall Festival seems a big deal'?? - to whom? What is it? In what way is it notable? No reference or source given.--Smerus 12:04, 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 - Speedy Delete as possible hoax with no references. If appropriate refernences are found I am not opposed to re-creation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocking_Jayat_Mayaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ocking Jayat Mayaj

This is an apparent hoax similar to the Melano Supriatna which is also currently up for afd. No google hits except for wikipedia clones. The article previously stated he was an Indonesian defence minister, but a thorough search of Indonesian cabinet ministers since 1945 showed nothing. Both these articles were created and developed by a 'group' of troublesome users that were the subject of a sockpuppetry and blatant vandalism case from which check user confirmed. Citations to authorative books were provided but when searched, no trace of Ocking Jayat Mayaj was found (as also happended with the Melano Supriatna case). The main contributor has since been indefinitely been blocked for sockpuppetry and blatant vandalism. The actual starter of the article, was the main contributor to Melano Supriatna and his contribs to that article have been shown to be bogus. Merbabu 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No sources. Extensive searching reveals a plethora of sites that mirror Wikipedia but no actual references. Hoax article. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: With serious doubts that major search engines could locate, confirm or deny Indonesian ministers from the 1950's - suprised by the top google hit of the Jakarta Post list of Indonesian cabinets - no minister in the whole Sukarno era having any of the three claimed names as part of their name. Disturbing lack of credibility at any point in the article - clearly hoax. Satu Suro 10:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow or speedy delete. Take your pick. Sr 13 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian woman[edit]

The entire text of the article: "An Indian woman refers to a woman the American Indian ancestral group. It may also refer to someone in India. It sometimes used to refer to all women of the Indian subcontinent including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the islands of Maldives." Clearly, this falls under the indiscriminate collection of information rubric, no? Raggaga 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Raggaga 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it is assumed as the nominator that your opinion is delete, so you don't have to mention it seperately. I really haven't seen anyone nominate an article for deletion and then vote keep... (and yes, I do know AfD is not a vote...) :-) Leuko 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per db-empty, db-nocontext. Leuko 06:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we keep this, then what's next? Russian woman engineer over 50? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3, rephrasing of the title. Could be half a dozen other things as well. Hut 8.5 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm waiting for 44-year-old Canadian woman, myself. --Charlene 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hut 8.5. Ironically, despite this article's focus on a restatement of the obvious, its only source doesn't support its claims. (The source refers to female Native Americans as "American Indian women", not just "Indian women".) --Metropolitan90 17:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as db-empty, rephrasing of the title. -- The Anome 19:52, 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. Sr 13 06:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McNulty (author)[edit]

Non-notable author with only one book published, fails WP:BIO, no sources. Rackabello 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:BIO.--James, La gloria è a dio 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find the newspaper articles mentioned in this article. Doesn't seem verifiable to me. Grease Bandit 07:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - book "published" by AuthorHouse a well known vanity outfit whose only requirements to becoming a published author are a credit card payment. Fails WP:BIO quite dramatically. DreamGuy 20:57, 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. Sr 13 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Delights[edit]

Article about a Betty Crocker dessert product. Almost no content, no indep. sources, unimproved for over a month. NawlinWiki 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collection of recipes. This article is not encyclopedic.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant advertising Rackabello 05:25, 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. Redirect unnecessary, unlikely redirect. — Ocatecir ^T 08:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goron Elders (Twilight Princess)[edit]

Information exists elsewhere DurinsBane87 04:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the content on this is small and because the content is covered in another article. There is no reason to keep this.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. -- Jelly Soup 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, content already exists on said list. Therefore, Delete. -- Jelly Soup 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the simple solution to use here. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Yes, probably best to point it back. JodyB_talk 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Useight 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an unlikely redirect. It's not linked to by any articles, either. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I moved the article here so you guys can delete it --Cs california 04:12, 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. With hole-by-hole coverage too! Sr 13 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake View Country Club[edit]

Almost an orphan. Article does not explain why this golf course in a town of 1,357 is notable. There are no sources given for the information included. —Bkell (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable enough.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, reads like advertising. Wikipedia is not a directory of golf courses. Hut 8.5 13:36, 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--Tone 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television Shows Considered The Greatest Ever[edit]

Utterly POV list. —tregoweth (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think reading this discussion may be helpful before this one proceeds. Whether or not this page meets the standards of that one, I'm not sure, but since I'm sure there will be keep arguments based on that, I will ask that anybody who does so at least try to show how this page is like that one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Title sounds POV, but article actually is neutral. Useful and well sourced information. Capmango 07:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - title violates guidelines, but the article is good. --Haemo 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the title only violates the guidelines because Films Considered The Greatest Ever as well as the other Greatest Ever categories do the same. --User:AKR619 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment er... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really valid you know. Whs itc hy 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this used to be a lot worse in terms of POV than it is now, and at least most of the possible entries are referenced now. However, it doesn't feel complete, or in any way conclusive - most of the entries only have one poll to backup their inclusion and I seriously wonder how notable some of the surveys and critical polls actually are. In addition, at the moment it suffers from not representing a worldwide view. I think if I was pushed, I would probably suggest weak delete. Bob talk 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well if you want to add shows from other countries besides from England, Australia and the U.S, just find eligible facts from sites about shows that don't come from those three countries. User:AKR619
Weak delete the fact it's not some arbitrary list with OR gives it some chance, but fails WP:NOT. Whs itc hy 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move to People who mistakenly think they are qualified to decide for the rest of us what is the best television show ~ Infrangible 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that create a bit of confusion with Television Network executives ? FrozenPurpleCube 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename (I'm not sure what's the best name, though) --Itub 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV in selection of the sourcing and compilation of the "results". Carlossuarez46 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, we got shows from America, Britian, Australia, and Japan... That's somewhat worldwide, but we can add more, I'm sure. And Bob Castle, half the films on the greatest ever list have one poll that says they're great. --Plasma Twa 2 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that more of a problem of the films list than a keep argument for this article, though? Also, what is considered a reputable poll - are those Channel 4 list programmes notable enough, for example? As an aside, maybe "List of poll-winnning television programmes" would solve the title issue. Is there a limit on the number of Emmy awards that permit inclusion here? Does that also include BAFTAs? Does that also include the television awards that presumably take place in most countries? Bob talk 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but both are in the same boat. What works for them works for this one as well. And the only reason the Emmy award ones are on here is because of their large amount of either being nominated or winning. Any show that gets 94 Emmys would more than likely be cosidered one of the best shows ever. --Plasma Twa 2 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Baftas are the British equivilent to the Emmys, or the Logies, there for the show with the most Baftas (note I said the show meaning out of all the genres) is eligible. User:AKR619
Weak Delete Maybe it can be improved, but it's not very substantive right now. It cites its sources, but there's little to alert the reader as to why a show was considered to be "great" by the magazine/website/etc. that made the choice, nor what the show was, for that matter. TV Guide doesn't list a show as the greatest without an explanation. When was the choice made? What did critics believe to be the greatest show of all time when "all time" had only made it up to 1969? Not a bad concept, but definitely room to do better. Mandsford 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it could be improved in some ways, compared to the other best ever lists. But for right now, there is no reason to delete it. Plus, it appears that most people want to keep it. DonZabu
- Note: the above comment appears to be from an IP address (168.103.48.200)[38] rather than a registered user and has made no contributions other than to this discussion. Bob talk 09:01, 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 Speedy delete both a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. Unlikely to be the "most influential" anything if his album sold 20 copies out of his garage, as stated in the article. NawlinWiki 04:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McOwned[edit]

Also Nerf Da Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Taggged for speedy as an A7 (no assertion of significance), but IMO "he is regarded the most influential Nerdcore rapper of the modern era." and a actual album (or alleged album) are at least a claim of significance, so I don't think this qualifies for speedy delete. That said, this is compeltely unsourced, and looks to me like a non-notable person. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless sources can be cited that show fulfillmemnt of WP:MUSIC. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added page Nerf Da Sword: album by McOwned --h2g2bob (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not a notable person.--User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No references anywhere I can find. No label. No assertion of notability. --h2g2bob (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedier delete. Are we even really sure this artists exists?? Totally non-notable. Realkyhick 04:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong WP:SNOW delete: no WP:RS to indicate notability or verifiability. Leuko 04:10, 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. Sr 13 06:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political flops[edit]

Violates WP:OR, and lack of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political flops

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced, at least as a concept. Which I believe can be done, but if it's not, go ahead and delete. Identifying the "flops" themselves as a whole isn't needed though. FrozenPurpleCube 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a political incident or event was referred to as a "political flop" in a published source, the sources are not valid as per WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think my choice of words must not have been clear. What I mean is that there doesn't need to be a single source that lists all of the flops together, nor do we need to worry about whether any of the "flops" on the page is one or not, if there's a source discussing the subject. That sort of thing can be handled on cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 04:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subjective. Come on, who thinks "flops" is an objective, encyclopedic term? Doczilla 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, and subjective. Many of the items on the list are in my opinion not flops, just clear defeats. I wouldn't call the Goldwater's defeat in 1964 a "flop", he garnered several southern states and lost due to an agenda which was viewed as too conservative. I wouldn't call a big loss to the hugely popular president Reagan in 1984 a flop either. Landslide elections happen for many reasons, not just gaffes and flops, and is a part of democratic politics. Basically a collection of items, the title is not neutral, and serious issues with the possibility of keeping this in line with WP:NPOV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-While an article on the concept might work, this just doesn't, since there's no criteria for one constitutes a "flop". Even in a perfectly sourced state, it would only be a list of endeavors called flops, since is an inherently subjective term.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a flop itself. Reeks of WP:OR. Whs itc hy 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this original research, but there's a possible BLP concern.Blueboy 96 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, invented here, cruft, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, cruft, everything that has been said Sleep On It 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above. Carlossuarez46 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and most of the above comments --JayJasper 21:00, 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. Sr 13 06:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable drug culture figures[edit]

POV magnet. No criteria for inclusion established in this list and total lack of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be a list of anyone who has ever made movie, written a book, performed research, organized on behalf of, been famously convicted of, sung a song about anything drug related. Indiscriminate list. --Haemo 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a slew of reasons: WP:BLP for lots of people on the list; "drug culture" is ill-defined and inherently POV; the selection criteria seem POV, without sourcing it is basically an indiscriminate list as per Haemo. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep It seems valid to me, whether we like it or not drugs are a part of American culture. Some people are interested in this stuff.WacoJacko 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect the article Australian Rappel has more information and appears to be the more common name as such, no content to merge Gnan garra 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rap jumping[edit]

Don't think this is notable enough to warrant its own entry. From reading, it appears just to be another way of abseiling (which could be mentioned in the Abseiling article). Also reads a bit like a "how to" guide and sneaky advertising. Speed Air Man 10:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge & Redirect it seems to be just another word for abseiling (or rappelling). Perhaps merging it into Abseiling. I would also like to hear from the page author - how is it different from abseiling? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err on the side of merge with abseiling. Wl219 09:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to abseiling Orderinchaos 12:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here I thought it was some kind of hip-hop move ~ Infrangible 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Idle comment Glad to see I wasn't the only one! Orderinchaos 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Is it just. me or are there too. many full. stops. in the. article? Lankiveil 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to abseiling where a paragraph might be included to explain the term.--Arthana 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the spam [39] ExtraDry 10:24, 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 speedy delete. Sr 13 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Octals[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Article consists of a history replicated from the group's website, and vanity lists of current and former members, songs, and upcoming events. No independent published sources. Savidan 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tagged as copyright violation of http://www.octals.org/octalslore.html. Phony Saint 05:44, 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. Changes made to article after most delete votes. — Ocatecir ^T 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Christian Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Makes no assertion of notability, reads like an advert and quotes no reliable sources. I would have speedied per A7/G12 but it was the subject of a past AfD which failed mainly because of an entirely unrelated attempted mass deletion shortly before. Orderinchaos 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (nominator vote) Changed from Delete after changes by Capmango on 13 June 2007. No longer reads like an advert and does quote sources now, question solely rests on notability now. Orderinchaos 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Boston Globe article from the previous AFD and from the basis that this is not "pitch til you win." Edison 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a congregation of 5,000 is pretty much a guarantee of notability. But the title should at least be changed to "Jubilee Christian Church (Boston)", there are a lot of other churches with that name, and I know of at least a couple that are just as notable. Also, text of article should be changed to not read like an advert. Capmango 08:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aww, I was all set to say delete per nom, but this church is extremely well-referenced in the Boston Globe at least. Agree, needs to be rewritten. Grease Bandit 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepp- agree with above comments and would say it is notable. Thunderwing 08:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably notable, but this doesn't look like the article that will demonstrate it. Unless the source of the notability is the various commercial enterprises mentioned in the article, I'd really like to see what makes this distinctive as a church. The hilariously miscapitalized Gospel Concert won't do it. Abstain for the moment (and I clicked through expecting to be able to vote keep). -- BPMullins | Talk 14:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well-referenced??? Boston Globe: 97 words which have nothing to do with the congregation in question, but rather a passing quote about the phenomenon of gospel-sytle music in an article about gospel-style music (and not the congregation.) How is that significant as a source? Yahoo from last AfD: No longer available. No mention of who the ordaining authority of the Bishopric is, but I'd suspect it is the congregation itself. I also wonder which ones of the people mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are present at that concert featuring the 'biggest names in Gospel'... LaughingVulcan 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe also had a page-1 article specifically about the church (and the bookstore that it runs) on June 6 2006. Capmango 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there's a criterion to the contrary, I don't think being a big church guarantees its notability (I'm sure that there are tons around); for example, there's no article for Southland Christian Church, a church double Jubilee's size that I pass occasionally in the Lexington, Kentucky area. Moreover, as was already said, the idea of being a bishop conveys authority over multiple churches, while churches with the name of "___ Christian Church" are generally either altogether nondenominational or part of the anti-hierarchical Restoration Movement — definitely not inclined to have a bishop with authority over many churches! And the references aren't relevant and sufficient enough to generate notability. If this were a long-established church, it might be notable due to its historical impact, but such a new church is unlikely to have had much historical impact — and if so, there's no indication of their existence, other than the irrelevant bit about the music. Nyttend 01:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think in this case, the youngness of the church adds to its notability -- it has only been around 25 years, but is now larger than any other protestant church in Boston. Also, maybe relative size should be a factor. Does being the biggest church in a major city bring notability? Capmango 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Candy-Panda 01:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the last AfD, no sources have been added. Size doesn't determine whether or not an article should be kept, but notability does, which the article lacks. *Cremepuff 222* 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local churches rarely get enough media attention, and WP shouldn't be used as a substitute. DGG 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be true in general, but this particular church has gotten a lot of media attention, not all of it positive. Capmango 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until they can find WP:RS that they've raised the dead or something else noteworthy that distinguishes them from every other congregation. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO ADMIN I have made several changes to the article. Those who voted for delete may want to take a new look and see if the new text, which no longer reads like an ad, has external sources, and asserts notability, is now acceptable. If kept, I would like to move the article to Jubilee Christian Church International (Boston) Capmango 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Weak Keep I'm still not sure if this really counts on notability grounds (or organizational grounds,) but Capmango has done a yeoman's job in cleaning the article up and bringing at least some independent sources to the article. (And his/her research skills should be complimented; pulling references for "Jubilee Christian Church", even Boston, was pretty daunting earlier.) Supplementing his entry above, the closing Admin may want to look at [this diff, at AfD to 'now'] Not really convinced that it's focus is anything beyond local in scope, and not sure that it's "controversies" and other references are above any other congregation of this size, but maybe it should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case. LaughingVulcan 04:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the church is large doesn't mean it is notable. Plus there are how many churches that don't have articles, why should this one be an exception. Xtreme racer 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Optimists[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). No independent published sources are provided; only links to the group's website and self-released CD. No indication that its any more notable than any college singing group. Savidan 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They were "formed early in the 21st century " Edison 03:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself fails to establish notability, and I can't find anything via Google to augment the article to an acceptable standard. I'd suggest a redirect to Bates College.
Delete, it is a non-notable college college group (per WP:MUSIC). I don't think a redirect is necessary either because there are no independent sources. *Cremepuff 222* 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OzoneGuard[edit]

Article is advertising that does not provide useful information.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if they think 90% effectiveness is acceptable, then they have not smelled the farts that I have ~ Infrangible 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (hehehe, nice one, Infrangible. :) ) Just because the Ionic Breeze is notable, it doesn't mean a component of it is. Maybe merge into Ionic Breeze since it has a source, but definitely don't keep this article alone. *Cremepuff 222* 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I listed this as it appears to be part of the ongoing advertising in Air ioniser. - Toastydeath 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one and only source only mentions its usage in a product. Being used in one notable product alone does not imply notability, had it been several more, it may go another way.--Kylohk 17:07, 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. Sr 13 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elbuntu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Still not notable, should be deleted for the same reason as the last time. Chealer 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Misleadingly, search turns up lots of results for this, but they're practically all project pages. I'm sure it'll be notable when it's ready for release. Grease Bandit 08:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (and first go-around, too). Also nominate the logo for deletion. —Over My Head 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with an apparant consensus that the content should be merged. --BigDT 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Lite[edit]

Non-notable Linux distribution. Still looks much more like a project than a product. Chealer 01:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or keep) - only Ubuntu variant to run on my P1 32MB. At least look at the install link before passing unjustified "notability" judgments. 16:23, 10 June 2007 (Denver)
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ubuntu? Grease Bandit 08:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Article looks more to be advertising than Information. Looks to be very unpopular, I don't think it is a Notable Linux distribution. Skullblade 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a notable version of linux, but this version isn't a very opular and well mentioned one.--Kylohk 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a separate flavour, just like Xubuntu or Kubuntu, and though it's not got far yet, it's in active development with a full release planned for Oct 2007, along with Ubuntu 7.10. - Liam Proven 20:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Ocatecir ^T 07:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Oxx[edit]

Non-notable company, no claims of notability, no valid sources, was nominated for speedy deletion but the speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the slightest sign of notability, impact, or importance. The only news source is a one-sentence mention in a short newspaper interview where the interviewee says, yeah, I use their products. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would respectfully note that your deletion rationale is no longer applicable; the article now mentions they have won awards and has more than a single reference. Addhoc 09:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No change in vote or rationale - the "awards" are trivial at best and the references are more grasping at straws than actual sources. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - adequate notability from awards combined with news coverage. Addhoc 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now, according to the article it has some notability (per the awards), but alone that's not enough. If more info can't be added the article should be deleted. *Cremepuff 222* 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Ocatecir ^T 07:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Shively[edit]

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other accomplishments, and only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant. Part of an assembly line of 49 nearly identical "biographies" created by PageantUpdater (talk · contribs), which only vary in the trivial personal details ("She will attempt to become only the third delegate from Delaware to place in the nationally televised pageant") or don't even include 3rd-party references at all. PROD tag added, but removed by User:PageantUpdater with the summary Miss Teen USA state titleholders are not "minor" and she will be competing at Miss Teen USA, a nationally televised show. To which I say: yah, they're minor and being one of 51 contestants on a single TV program is straining for notability -- not to mention if she really were notable, references outside of local papers would be easy enough to find, eh? For the full list, see here: ((Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates)). Calton | Talk 01:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull. Calton is clearly ignoring hte references here. ~~He needs to fuck off~~. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to read this, this, and this. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna watch the language -- I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but telling someone to F off can be considered a threat. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a threat, it's simply a childish outburst. no sense in exaggerating its importance. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Calton is clearly ignoring hte references here - You're right, that's why I wrote only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant -- oh, wait, that not "ignoring hte references", is it? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Say whatever ~~the bloody hell~~ you want... this article IS REFERENCED with sufficient reliable secondary sources and thus meets WP:BIO. ~~Why don't you and your crusade fuck off? I am pissed off and don't particularly care about the WP:NPA attack policy right now... your reply to me was fucking rude~~. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So "Oh, wait, that's not ignoring the references" is rude, whereas tellling someone TWICE to fuck off is not... That does not compute. And please, please stop threatening other editors, for your own good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - this article IS REFERENCED with sufficient reliable secondary sources - No, it's referenced with hometown news sources saying, hey, a local girl won this beauty pageant.
  - Why don't you and your crusade fuck off? Why don't you have a read of this and this? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Somebody report this PageantUpdater already, he's being horribly incivil... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - She has already apologised to Calton for her poor reaction. Apologies to everyone else as well. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 02:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My bad. Please do try to hold your tongue, though, next time -- I'm sure that you have good intentions on Wikipedia, you just had a simple human error in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and the others. Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable. I ask that neither side in this heated debate swear at me because I'm sensitive about such things. Capmango 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable, and the article has several references. Edison 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable - Why? There are 51 of them: what makes any of them stand out, other than the ability to walk across a stage wearing a swimsuit, high heels, and a sash? And as for the "several references", they're hometown newspapers and TV stations saying, hey, a local girl won this here beauty pageant.--Calton | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not convinced to keep any of these articles solely based on winning these pageants, their notability is usually brief and often local. I'm even doubtful of the winner of the national pageant. This isn't to say that there can't be some winners who develop other reasons for notability, but I don't know that I feel Wikipedia needs to try to cover everyone who wins an award just because they get a little notice from it. But if somebody can show me how there's some real lasting notability to the winners, maybe I'll be convinced otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 04:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'd like to second the calls for civility here. Attacking other editors is never a good idea, and while it's ok to point out mistakes or errors, or simply to offer advice, profanity should never be employed. FrozenPurpleCube 04:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologies for my outbursts. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 04:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And kudos to you for doing that, it's very important to remain civil on Wikipedia, though it can be hard when you're interested in a subject. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well a number of Teen winners have used their experience and exposure at Miss Teen USA to propel them onwards in the entertainment industry. Shelley Hennig recently started acting on Days of Our Lives, Tori Hall appeared on MTV's Road Rules Revenge, Maria Menounos, Rachel Boston and Melissa Lingafelt are others who became notable (to varying degrees) after participating in the pageant. I'm not sure if that's the sort of thing you're talking about. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 04:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, no, since from what I understand you're saying, they've found other reasons to be notable, that doesn't demonstrate their notability as a winner. A winner of a state athletic championship might use that to get a scholarship or a pro-career, but that doesn't make all winners of the championship notable. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I misinterpreted what your were asking. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FrozenPurpleCube. I don't buy that a regional beauty pageant winner is notable. I would consider the Entertainment subsection of WP:N to be relevant as it specifically mentions models. This individual does not appear to have a large or cult following, appeared in a major production, nor has she made a unique or innovative contribution. Resolute 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pasting here what I wrote on another afd... ::Comment They are notable because they won a state title... in most cases against tough competition (up to 100 other girls, in some cases)... and in some cases having previously won a local title in order to gain entry to state). The hold their title for a year, making appearances and doing charitable work etc, as a representative of their community and state. Competing in the Miss Teen USA pageant is just a part of why they are notable. It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?). PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they won a state title A meaningless distinction. What makes a "state title" here the slightest bit meaningful?
..in most cases against tough competition - what constitutes "tough competition" (are there obstacle courses involved?) and what is the slightest relevance of the "tough competition" to the actual notability to begin with? State-level spelling bees and 4-H competitions can also be described as "state titles" and "tough competition" -- probably more so than a minor beauty pageant -- but practically no one can credibly argue that the Florida state spelling bee champ deserves an Wikipedia biography for that alone, neither should these contestants.
It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant - Again, not an actual argument, an article of faith aka the ol' crystal ball. Pretty much every garage band and college drinking game that shows up on AFD seems to take a stab at this one. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable--I say "these', as there are several AFDs related to this, and don't feel like typing the same comment over and over again. Jeffpw 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of the word "obviously" I was previously aware of. You mean like, say, all the 51st through 4th-place winners on American Idol, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To me, the ultimate point of the notability guidelines is to establish criteria for this question: will any user ever look for an encyclopedia article about this person? I can't imagine someone needing this reference. Grease Bandit 08:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Edit: Oops, that reads harsher than I meant it to. I can't imagine someone needing this, but I don't claim to know everything people use WP for. Grease Bandit 08:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Çomment'. Exactly, GB. The Miss Teen USA Pageant is an event that has been televised nationally in the USA for 24 years, that makes the event itself notable. Anyone researching the topic could conceivably need to know the names of the individual contestants. In my opinion, each contestant should have her own entry. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is online, and we have no concerns about length. Jeffpw 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A false or at least misleading argument: Miss Teen USA is not up for deletion, the 51 distinctly minor and otherwise undistinguished participants for this year are. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable participant in an unnotable activity. BTLizard 09:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FrozenPurpleCube. --Fredrick day 10:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite PageantUpdater's jerkishness. A nationally televised event is notable, and so are winners in the event Lurker 10:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a nationally televised event is often notable, and I think most people would agree that the winner of Miss Teen USA is notable. However, these contestants are only the winners of a state pageant. Not a national one. Resolute 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Maybe after winning, she'll become something notable -- but until then, she's just a pretty face with little distinction in a very crowded and competitive field. -- Mikeblas 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think the issue is the person and in this case its referenced. While these people may never change the world, they do meet our established criteria. JodyB_talk 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that local coverage of local events is not encyclopedic notability, no matter how many home-town newspaper articles there are. I would accept significant coverage in regional papers, or any coverage in national media. (I'm referring to subjects in general, including this one). DGG 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being overly defensive, but it must be noted that regional and national coverage will increase markedly around the time of the pageant (August). I think it would be best to hold these off until after then, but of course that's not my call. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you might seek coverage of past pageanters? If they are notable, then there won't be the same problem covering them. Or you might hold off until then before making such articles. FrozenPurpleCube 03:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all state delegates to a single list article. While obviously these aren't fictional characters, I think looking to WP:FICT is instructive. It suggests merging into a single list article until such time as there is sufficient notability for any particular entry to be spun off into an individual article. For the most part the information about each of these delegates is going to be the same and people interested in one are likely to have some level of interest in all of them. Otto4711 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at all.--Svetovid 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I look to WP:BIO here rather than WP:FICT, since these are in fact real people. I think that these individuals most closely fall under the criteria for athletes which is basically interpreted as any player who has ever played in a MLB or NFL or NBA or NHL game or ever raced in a NASCAR race or the Indy 500 or any race in F1, or CART or Indy series, etc. is notable for inclusion. I would say that competing in a national pageant meets the same standard. Therefore, contestants in state and local pageants would not be notable, but the state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant. Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is a pure crystal-ball article of faith. IF they become famous, obviously they rate an article, but not before actually become famous. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are there. Everyking 06:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" -- what few there are -- are simply hometown newspapers and TV stations saying, hey, a local girl won this here beauty pageant. Not much different from hometown papers reviewing the local garage band or new Italian restaurant downtown. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 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. Most keep arguments center around crystal ballery: "sources will increase as pageant draws near." — Ocatecir ^T 07:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Isdale[edit]

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other accomplishments, and only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant. Part of an assembly line of 49 nearly identical "biographies" created by PageantUpdater (talk · contribs), which only vary in the trivial personal details or don't even include 3rd-party references at all. PROD tag added, but removed by User:PageantUpdater with the summary Miss Teen USA state titleholders are not "minor" and she will be competing at Miss Teen USA, a nationally televised show. To which I say: yah, they're minor and being one of 51 contestants on a single TV program is straining hard to argue for notability -- not mention if she really were notable, references outside of local papers would be present. For the full list, see here: ((Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates)). Calton | Talk 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for now, can be recreated if and when the subject becomes notable due to Miss Teen USA media coverage. --Javit 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable, and the article has several references. Edison 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete See my comments at the discussion above, but if this article is kept, I think saying she was involved as a three-month old in a school shooting is a bit misleading. I'd say that'd need to be rewritten to just indicate she was present. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment huh? It wasn't a school shooting. Read the article on the massacre. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was thinking of something else, however, whether it was at a school or a cafeteria, saying she was involved is a bit much. I'd write it differently. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pasting here what I wrote elsewhere... They are notable because they won a state title... in most cases against tough competition (up to 100 other girls, in some cases)... and in some cases having previously won a local title in order to gain entry to state). The hold their title for a year, making appearances and doing charitable work etc, as a representative of their community and state. Competing in the Miss Teen USA pageant is just a part of why they are notable. It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?). PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they won a state title A meaningless distinction. What makes a "state title" here the slightest bit meaningful?

..in most cases against tough competition - what constitutes "tough competition" (are there obstacle courses involved?) and what is the slightest relevance of the "tough competition" to the actual notability to begin with? State-level spelling bees and 4-H competitions can also be described as "state titles" and "tough competition" -- probably more so than a minor beauty pageant -- but practically no one can credibly argue that the Florida state spelling bee champ deserves an Wikipedia biography for that alone, neither should these contestants.

It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant - Again, not an actual argument, an article of faith aka the ol' crystal ball. Pretty much every garage band and college drinking game that shows up on AFD seems to take a stab at this one. --Calton | Talk 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable--I say "these', as there are several AFDs related to this, and don't feel like typing the same comment over and over again. Jeffpw 07:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of the word "obviously" I was previously aware of. You mean like, say, all the 51st through 4th-place winners on American Idol, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable participant in an unnotable activity. BTLizard 09:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"""Comment""": BTLizard, you stated your opinion, which is nice, but gave no reasoning to back it up. Please explain why this delegate and this event are non-notable. Otherwise, it is hard for me to take your vote seriously. This is a repost of a comment at another AFD discussion where BLT made the same comment: Comment: BTLizard, did you actually taken the time to familiarize yourself with this t\opic before you made your comments? It doesn't seem like it. If you had, you'd realize that the Miss Teen USA pageant is a substrate of the Miss Universe organization, which also oversees the Miss USA pageant and the Miss Universe pageant. To call Miss Teen USA unnotable (sic) would be to imply the same for all pageant delegates, something clearly untrue, given both the viewership for these pageants (up to 1 billion worldwide) and the controversy the pageants themselves draw from a variety of individuals. Simply participating in the event is notable...and quite honorable, if you ask me. Jeffpw 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

False argument: Miss Teen USA is not up for deletion, the 49 distinctly minor and otherwise undistinguished participants are. --Calton | Talk 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Maybe after winning, she'll become something notable -- but until then, she's just a pretty face with little distinction in a very crowded and competitive field. Notability is not contagious or inductive -- just "participating" in something notable does not make the participant notable. -- Mikeblas 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that local coverage of local events is not encyclopedic notability, no matter how many home-town newspaper articles there are. I would accept significant coverage in regional papers, or any coverage in national media. (I'm referring to subjects in general, including this one).

She does not get additional notability from having not been shot in the massacre reported. I was one of those arguing for individual notability for each of the VPI victims, but I never suggested notability for each of the thousands of other students. DGG 00:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being overly defensive, but it must be noted that regional and national coverage will increase markedly around the time of the pageant (August). I think it would be best to hold these off until after then, but of course that's not my call. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all state delegates to a single list article. While obviously these aren't fictional characters, I think looking to WP:FICT is instructive. It suggests merging into a single list article until such time as there is sufficient notability for any particular entry to be spun off into an individual article. For the most part the information about each of these delegates is going to be the same and people interested in one are likely to have some level of interest in all of them. Otto4711 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I look to WP:BIO here rather than WP:FICT, since these are in fact real people. I think that these individuals most closely fall under the criteria for athletes which is basically interpreted as any player who has ever played in a MLB or NFL or NBA or NHL game or ever raced in a NASCAR race or the Indy 500 or any race in F1, or CART or Indy series, etc. is notable for inclusion. I would say that competing in a national pageant meets the same standard. Therefore, contestants in state and local pageants would not be notable, but the state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant. Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is a pure crystal-ball article of faith. IF they become famous, obviously they rate an article, but not before actually become famous. And given that they're not athletes, using a narrow and legalistic interpretation of the standards specific to athletes to as reasoning here is more than a little flimsy. --Calton | Talk 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep -- Y not? 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Schull[edit]

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other accomplishments, and no 3rd-party references other than the pageant websites -- which don't even provide any real information. Part of an assembly line of 49 nearly identical "biographies" created by PageantUpdater (talk · contribs), which only vary in the trivial personal details or the addition of hometown news articles announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant. PROD tag added, but removed by User:PageantUpdater with the summary Miss Teen USA state titleholders are not "minor" and she will be competing at Miss Teen USA, a nationally televised show. No refs a valid point...will work on this. To which I say: yah, they're minor and being one of 51 contestants on a single TV program is straining for notability -- not to mention if she really were notable, references wouldn't have been an issue. For the full list, see here: ((Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates)). Calton | Talk 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Schull is notable... all the contestants are notable. They all won state level titles and will compete in the nationally televised Miss Teen USA pageant. Some have more references than others (blame that on the state orgs getting their queens out there) but they are all equally notable. I am extremely aggravated at Calton's response to my suggestion that nominating all these girls at the same time is ridiculous when I suggested that one or two should be used as "test cases" rather than having to copy-and-paste the same responses to all. I have already had to deal with 6 prods and 7 more are currently still on articles... I cannot be bothered dealing with them right now.

Please read this re the notability of teens. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of three comments (counting yours) on a Wikiproject talk page don't constitute anything within shouting distance of consensus and certainly don't trump basic encyclopedic standards. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...but they are all equally notable - On that we agree. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that listing them all under separate AfDs is a bad idea. Please combine them into one AfD --Javit 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 49 of them: One is too few to get any kind of consensus and 49 at once is a bad idea generally: hence, a sampling of 4. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Miss Teen USA pageant is notable, and Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable. Thre should be numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up. Edison 03:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last part isn't a reason, it's a declaration of faith -- one unbacked by actual evidence, so far.
Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable - Why? There are 51 of them: what makes any of them stand out, other than the ability to walk across a stage wearing a swimsuit, high heels, and a sash? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment posting here what I posted at another AFD... ::Comment They are notable because they won a state title... in most cases against tough competition (up to 100 other girls, in some cases)... and in some cases having previously won a local title in order to gain entry to state). The hold their title for a year, making appearances and doing charitable work etc, as a representative of their community and state. Competing in the Miss Teen USA pageant is just a part of why they are notable. It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?). PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they won a state title A meaningless distinction. What makes a "state title" here the slightest bit meaningful?

..in most cases against tough competition - what constitutes "tough competition" (are there obstacle courses involved?) and what is the slightest relevance of the "tough competition" to the actual notability to begin with? State-level spelling bees and 4-H competitions can also be described as "state titles" and "tough competition" -- probably more so than a minor beauty pageant -- but practically no one can credibly argue that the Florida state spelling bee champ deserves an Wikipedia biography for that alone, neither should these contestants.

It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant - Again, not an actual argument, an article of faith aka the ol' crystal ball. Pretty much every garage band and college drinking game that shows up on AFD seems to take a stab at this one. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable--I say "these', as there are several AFDs related to this, and don't feel like typing the same comment over and over again. Jeffpw 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of the word "obviously" I was previously aware of. You mean like, say, all the 51st through 4th-place winners on American Idol, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable participant in an unnotable activity. BTLizard 09:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTLizard, you stated your opinion, which is nice, but gave no reasoning to back it up. Please explain why this delegate and this event are non-notable. Otherwise, it is hard for me to take your vote seriously. This is a repost of a comment at another AFD discussion where BLT made the same comment: Comment: BTLizard, did you actually taken the time to familiarize yourself with this t\opic before you made your comments? It doesn't seem like it. If you had, you'd realize that the Miss Teen USA pageant is a substrate of the Miss Universe organization, which also oversees the Miss USA pageant and the Miss Universe pageant. To call Miss Teen USA unnotable (sic) would be to imply the same for all pageant delegates, something clearly untrue, given both the viewership for these pageants (up to 1 billion worldwide) and the controversy the pageants themselves draw from a variety of individuals. Simply participating in the event is notable...and quite honorable, if you ask me. Jeffpw 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

False argument: Miss Teen USA is not up for deletion, the 49 distinctly minor and otherwise undistinguished participants for this year alone are. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the principle that local coverage of local events is not encyclopedic notability, no matter how many home-town newspaper articles there are. I would accept significant coverage in regional papers, or any coverage in national media. (I'm referring to subjects in general, including this one).

that the pageant winners go on to higher levels of competition and that those who win there become notable, does not make for notability of the ones who only win at the state levels; whichever one does win at the national level will be notable, but we're not trying to cover the ground with crystal balls. The above argument is an argument for notability for everyone who even enters. 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)DGG

I know I'm being overly defensive, but it must be noted that regional and national coverage will increase markedly around the time of the pageant (August). I think it would be best to hold these off until after then, but of course that's not my call. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...regional and national coverage will increase markedly around the time of the pageant - I repeat, not an actual argument, a pure crystal-ball article of faith. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all state delegates to a single list article. While obviously these aren't fictional characters, I think looking to WP:FICT is instructive. It suggests merging into a single list article until such time as there is sufficient notability for any particular entry to be spun off into an individual article. For the most part the information about each of these delegates is going to be the same and people interested in one are likely to have some level of interest in all of them. Otto4711 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that the kind of "let's make a short article and a giant photo of this teen hottie to increase circulation" media coverage these girls get makes them notable. This is an encyclopedia, our inclusion standards should be a little bit higher than those of some tabloid. Malc82 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all.--Svetovid 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I look to WP:BIO here rather than WP:FICT, since these are in fact real people. I think that these individuals most closely fall under the criteria for athletes which is basically interpreted as any player who has ever played in a MLB or NFL or NBA or NHL game or ever raced in a NASCAR race or the Indy 500 or any race in F1, or CART or Indy series, etc. is notable for inclusion. I would say that competing in a national pageant meets the same standard. Therefore, contestants in state and local pageants would not be notable, but the state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant. Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MLB, NASCAR etc. are leagues or series while a national beauty pageant (which isn't an athletic competition, IMO) is a one-time amateur event. The key differences here are that these athletes are professionals, meaning there is enough public interest and long-time coverage available for them, while beauty pageant contestants will usually go back to obscurity once the competition is finished. This also means that apart from their final position there's really nothing noteworthy to write about them (unless one calls being part of a school dance team notable). Malc82 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it doesn't pay. Some guys can win multiple Olympic gold medals and could be broke. The fact they have no money doesn't mean that they are lesser achievers to some guy who plays in a fourth division football team and is probably the 1000th best player in the country. Most Olympians are also ignored except for two weeks every fours years by the average Joe who watches popular sport, but "fame" /= notability. Someone may lose fame after they are not in the public view, but by your definition, George Washington is now less notable than GWB? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that these were athletes, just that a living person comparison seemed more applicable to me than one for fictional characters. The athlete standard also specifically applies to amateur sports as noted in the guideline, so amateur vs. professional should not be a concern. There are a great number of persons who have played a limited number of games in their sport, or who have competed in only a singular golf or tennis tournament, these persons all meet the standard for notability. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that these were athletes... Uh huh. So why does your analogy explicitly lean on a narrow reading of the sports-only "participating in at the highest professional-league level" criterion, as opposed to, say, WP:BIO in general? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my response and intentions in good faith. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly per After Midnight. I guess its a bit hard to compare Pageantry to "other sport", but it is a explicitly competitive pursuit, so I guess comparing to sport is Ok (unless this is magic cards or some champion in some computer game). So I guess that's a rough approximation. These people competed at the highest level of this competitive pursuit, which is screened widely on television, even outside of the US, and needed to pass qualification to get on. It's not like they could just walk up and get onto the TV show, they had to win state preselection first. As such, the fact that they are amateur does not matter. Many guys who have won triple Olympic gold medals in no-money sports such as swimming and Aaron Peirsol do count. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most keep arguments center around crystal ballery: "sources will increase as pageant draws near." — Ocatecir ^T 07:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annilie Hastey[edit]

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other accomplishments, and no 3rd-party references other than the pageant websites -- which don't even provide any real information. Part of an assembly line of 49 nearly identical "biographies" created by PageantUpdater (talk · contribs), which only vary in the trivial personal details or the addition of hometown news articles announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant. PROD tag added, but removed by User:PageantUpdater with the summary Miss Teen USA state titleholders are not "minor" and she will be competing at Miss Teen USA, a nationally televised show. No refs a valid point...w ill work on this. To which I say: yah, they're minor and being one of 51 contestants on a single TV program straining for notability -- not mention if she really were notable, references wouldn't have been an issue. For the full list, see here: ((Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates)). Calton | Talk 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Miss Teen USA pageant is notable, and Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable. There should be numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up. Edison 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last part isn't a reason, it's a declaration of faith -- one unbacked by actual evidence, so far.
Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable - Why? There are 51 of them: what makes any of them stand out, other than the ability to walk across a stage wearing a swimsuit, high heels, and a sash? --Calton | Talk 05:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry but that comment is fairly ignorant. They are notable because they won a state title... in most cases against tough competition (up to 100 other girls, in some cases)... and in some cases having previously won a local title in order to gain entry to state). The hold their title for a year, making appearances and doing charitable work etc, as a representative of their community and state. Competing in the Miss Teen USA pageant is just a part of why they are notable. It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?). PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they won a state title A meaningless distinction. What makes a "state title" here the slightest bit meaningful?

..in most cases against tough competition - what constitutes "tough competition" (are there obstacle courses involved?) and what is the slightest relevance of the "tough competition" to the actual notability to begin with? State-level spelling bees and 4-H competitions can also be described as "state titles" and "tough competition" -- probably more so than a minor beauty pageant -- but practically no one can credibly argue that the Florida state spelling bee champ deserves an Wikipedia biography for that alone, neither should these contestants.

It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant - Again, not an actual argument, an article of faith aka the ol' crystal ball. Pretty much every garage band and college drinking game that shows up on AFD seems to take a stab at this one. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable--I say "these', as there are several AFDs related to this, and don't feel like typing the same comment over and over again. Jeffpw 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of the word "obviously" I was previously aware of. You mean like, say, all the 51st through 4th-place winners on American Idol, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable participant in an unnotable activity. BTLizard 09:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable activity? The pageant has been televised live every year since 1984. Just because you might have no interest in pageants, does not mean that are not notable. I am sick of people's ignorance and negative stereotyping of the pageant. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 09:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BTLizard, did you actually taken the time to familiarize yourself with this t\opic before you made your comments? It doesn't seem like it. If you had, you'd realize that the Miss Teen USA pageant is a substrate of the Miss Universe organization, which also oversees the Miss USA pageant and the Miss Universe pageant. To call Miss Teen USA unnotable (sic) would be to imply the same for all pageant delegates, something clearly untrue, given both the viewership for these pageants (up to 1 billion worldwide) and the controversy the pageants themselves draw from a variety of individuals. Simply participating in the event is notable...and quite honorable, if you ask me. Jeffpw 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False argument: Miss Teen USA is not up for deletion, the 49 distinctly minor and otherwise undistinguished participants for this year alone are. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The question is not whether the pageant itself is notable but whether the individuals in the pageant are. If multiple non-trivial sources can be found then we should let it remain. I am confident that they are there but let's remember, the article should be sourced from creation to prevent these kind of discussions. JodyB_talk 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that local coverage of local events is not encyclopedic notability, no matter how many home-town newspaper articles there are. I would accept significant coverage in regional papers, or any coverage in national media. (I'm referring to subjects in general, including this one).

It would have saved some trouble to nominate just one at first.00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being overly defensive, but it must be noted that regional and national coverage will increase markedly around the time of the pageant (August). I think it would be best to hold these off until after then, but of course that's not my call. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all state delegates to a single list article. While obviously these aren't fictional characters, I think looking to WP:FICT is instructive. It suggests merging into a single list article until such time as there is sufficient notability for any particular entry to be spun off into an individual article. For the most part the information about each of these delegates is going to be the same and people interested in one are likely to have some level of interest in all of them. Otto4711 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I look to WP:BIO here rather than WP:FICT, since these are in fact real people. I think that these individuals most closely fall under the criteria for athletes which is basically interpreted as any player who has ever played in a MLB or NFL or NBA or NHL game or ever raced in a NASCAR race or the Indy 500 or any race in F1, or CART or Indy series, etc. is notable for inclusion. I would say that competing in a national pageant meets the same standard. Therefore, contestants in state and local pageants would not be notable, but the state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant. Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is a pure crystal-ball article of faith. IF they become famous, obviously they rate an article, but not before actually become famous. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus formed after relist. Sr 13 08:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishflip[edit]

Subject appears to be a non-notable neologism from the television series Family Guy. Usage in a single episode of a show is not sufficient to establish notability, and the unsourced claims of local and "global" usage are dubious at best. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually used in subsequent episodes, becoming something of an 'in-joke' in the show. The term spread amongst Family Guy fans and subsequently others, however a breakage in the time and space rift (which incidentally flows straight through the city of Cardiff) caused it to be lost from history, hence not appearing much on t'internet. I know that sounds so much like a lie, but it's not. See, I'm a time lord. The last of my kind, in fact. I've seen the future, and it's FULL of fishflips. Trust me.

But in all fairness, it is a neologism at the moment, so maybe deletion might be the way to go....Matt2206 91 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Without reliable sources to support the notion that this term has "spread globally" and to substantiate the usages described, there's no article here, just a reference to a single sentence in a Family Guy episode. A Google search fails to turn up support. Deor 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously not notable outside of Family Guy (this vote is not at all swayed by the fact that I don't like Family Guy). I wouldn't mind if someone flipped some fish in my direction however... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and a wry nod to Matt for the DW reference. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a place for this and it is UrbanDictionary. Capmango 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Acalamari 02:40, 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 Invalid, not an article. Default to keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, excluding the perpetrator[edit]

An absurd redirect page. The redirected page also includes the killer anyway. Malamockq 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion --tgheretford (talk) 01:12, 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 --BigDT 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux For Clinics[edit]

As the person who created this page and is currently managing the project I wish to know WHY our wikipedia entry is being deleted. We are certainly alive.

Jerry has certainly been a help in joining us to the other Linux distros but isn't a part of the project so I apologize if his edits have made us look like an 'advert'.

LFC is NOT a for-profit group.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxforclinics/ https://launchpad.net/linuxforclinics

Also, do a search for 'linuxforclinics' (notice the lack of spaces) before you make a hastey judgement:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=linuxforclinics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

29,500 hits.

And done in quotations and with the 'l' in 'linux' and 'c' in 'clinics' done in lower case letters ("linux for clinics")

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Er2&q=%22linux+for+clinics%22&btnG=Search&meta=

616,000 hits

We aren't a fly-by-night.

Theforkofjustice

---

I am not sure if I this is the correct location for adding my comment but I do hope it is being noted.
I am a member of the Linux for Clinics (LFC) project and I am entirely confused on what the reason is for marking the LFC page for deletion.
I hope that someone can clarify what is the main reason for marking it and how we (the LFC project) can prevent -- if possible -- the deletion.

I additionally like to add that someone that - AFAIK - is not related to the project in any way but has altered the page (something I can live with) can indicate that he is ok with the deletion (as indicated by Jerry G. Sweeton Jr..

Please be so kind to answer my question before actually deleting the page.
TIA Useresa

Having read the wikipedia article I would like to note several things:

The only reason I can see that it would be up for deletion is that it is believed that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If this is, indeed, the reason, then I would appreciate being informed of this (via this page).

The article is based, in part, on work which I did for the Linux For Clinics project and cannot, therefore, offend copyright as I, quite simply, am more than willing to have my work modified and presented here. (I do not know who Jerry J Sweeton is, but as far as I know he has never been related to the LFC project.)

Bearing these two points inmind, I would appreciate knowing just why it is marked for deletion, and what we (in the project) can do to ensure that a small but vital open source project continues to maintain a presence here.
dhalgren_4_lfc

Notability must happen before article creation. Warning: do not rely on estimated Google hits. Real Google hits is about 66. Chealer 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering comments by Theforkofjustice and UseResa, there may also have been a conflict of interest in the creation of the article, and about half of the edits.--Chealer 17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information posted is quite basic and "half the edits" were for formatting, spelling and changed URLS only. I never attempted to make the project look more than it is by embellishing information. I wouldn't want the project to look like an 'advert' or do anything that would subject it to deletion. The only reason for deletion of this article that is of any merit that I can see is the fact it is a 'young' project and doesn't carry as much weight as a more mature work.

Theforkofjustice

~~HOW DARE YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE. Just kidding.~~ Actually, I did do quite a bit of work to the article, but if its deleted, I'd be ok with it. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, dear Lord... Read WP:OWN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forgot, ambitious editors with aspiration of being admins have no sense of humor. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I got 39 results on Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Linux+for+Clinics%22&hl=en&start=40&sa=N, plus it reads kind of like an advert. Useight 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. We do appreciate your contributions Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.. --Javit 02:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Whether they are non-profit or for profit, they at NN. meshach 19:04, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sparks[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:A. Clarification on reasons for AFD - this was a contested PROD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marrying the daughter of a notable person does not automatically make you one yourself. SirFozzie 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. I think maybe he's prominent enough for an article. Useight 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This should be decided by people who know the wrestling world (which would not include me). I think Mike Sparks the folksinger is famouser than this Mike Sparks. Capmango 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just being a WWE referee isn't enough, he hasn't done anything to stand out enough to have notability. MPJ-DK 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His WWE involvement doesn't merit an article. Wikipedia guidelines are clear: Being someone's relative does not establish notability. Doczilla 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and the article fails to provide notibility. Nikki311 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-as above. Perhaps if there's a true interest in the subject a list might be worth looking in to.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. -- Mikeblas 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any notable informatio nabout him on the web, so he's more than likely not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. *Cremepuff 222* 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. RFerreira 06:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Wangi. Sr 13 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Stupid Foxes[edit]

Hoax, no links on Google for either "Two Stupid Foxes" ; or "2 Stupid Foxes" SirFozzie 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user, who created this article, User:Migjhafaja, seems to be inserting hoax material into Wikipedia, with several articles linking off this (apparent) hoax article. I will be bringing this up on ANI. SirFozzie 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There aren't any related results on Dogpile or Yahoo, either. Useight 00:35, 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. Sr 13 06:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leftism and Anti-semitism[edit]

Per WP:VERIFY . No sources, possible original research. Javit 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails Wikipedia standards according to WP:OR. Useight 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW, until very recently this was part of the Nationalist anarchism article, which has since been c&p'd to Nationalism and Anarchism, then moved to Nationalism and anarchism. Sohelpme 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only it is completely uncited, it also reads like an essay. Evilclown93 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, no sources Lurker 10:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think te originator needs to looka bit more closely at what wikipedia is about. It is not about essays.Harrypotter 10:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In an unsourced state, something as controversial as this is flame-bait. Echoing the original research concerns above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic straw man along the lines of Godwin's Law ~ Infrangible 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's already an article on Antisemitism, and the way the article's written suggests original research. *Cremepuff 222* 01:37, 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. WP:NOT#IINFO #7 is policy and this article violates it since it contains no real world context with the exception of the viewing figures. The keepers have simply failed to address this issue bar implying that it might be met in the future. I would add that the article also fails WP:V since the plot details are unsourced. Nothing substantial has been added during the AfD and the article can be recreated if suitable content is added. I will happily userfy to anyone who wishes to merge content or fix the article. TerriersFan 01:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in EastEnders[edit]

Delete This is just a list of mere plot summaries of Christmas episodes of the popular British soap opera EastEnders. It contains little to none "real-world context and sourced analysis" - what little there is could be merged into the main EastEnders article Phirazo 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The policy I'm quoting above is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Phirazo 03:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this nomination is extremely rash. Before it was nominated for deletion, concerns could have been voiced on the article's talk page to see if the contributers are willing to make improvements. --Gungadin 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? How can this article ever be more than a mere plot summary? --Phirazo 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The same way any fictional subject can be more than just plot summary, by providing real world context, impact, commentary, crtique, popularity. Christmas time in UK soaps is always a major battle between television networks, each trying to outdo each other. This always makes the press with regards to ratings, reviews, interviews etc. There is plenty of things that could be included to the article to make it more than just plot summary. Press coverage on UK soaps is substantial, particularly at Christmas.Gungadin 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should most certainly be kept, as Christmas in EastEnders is the time when the most dramatic storylines air. The plots which feature are often the culmination of a year and these often classic episodes deserve a separate page.— 86.27.82.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't show anything to be notable about these episodes. Episode summaries are not encyclopedic, anyway. -- Mikeblas 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge — I would think it could be paired down to the best Christmas episodes and merged into EastEnders. JodyB_talk 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:NOT#IINFO #7. Just because EastEnders is popular doesn't mean that Wikipedia policy should be ignored. Masaruemoto 06:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. 80.41.34.146
Keep per Gungadin. 84.9.61.204
Keep per policy, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell Galaxy[edit]

contested PROD - was CSD'd in a previous life. non-notable non-professional under 19 football team. Fredrick day 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick look through google results suggests this isn't verifiable. References appear mostly: 1. WP, and 2. competition schedules/scorecards. Grease Bandit 08:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. --Seed 2.0 12:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable local amateur team. -- Mikeblas 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have high school football teams started recruiting internationally? Infrangible 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obviously non-notable. semper fictilis 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable football team. *Cremepuff 222* 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable if existing; ~~however it smells like hoax to me.~~ Okay, it exists, but it's clearly non notable. --Angelo 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In repsonse to "Have high school football teams started recruiting internationally?" It's not a high school team. This is a professional team. Koreansupremacy 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note user has only edited this AfD page ChrisTheDude 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reference for that claim? Personally I find it highly unlikely that a team which plays in the Georgia State Under-19 League and appears to be based out of a public rec centre could employ a squad of full-time professional players..... ChrisTheDude 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Most likely written by a team member, so COI too - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:35, 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. Sr 13 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitshanger Lane Bus Stop[edit]

It's a bus stop - what next telephone boxes? Fredrick day 11:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This listing was incomplete. It is listed now. --Seed 2.0 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no show of any sort of notability. J Milburn 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per J Milburn, and also that the article is borderline close to failing CSD criteria A1 and A3. No signifact Google hits for the specific stop, either. Evilclown93 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why are train stations notable, but bust stops are not? -- Mikeblas 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Because a bus stop is a sign on a post. A train station is a major piece of infrastructure costing tens of millions of dollars and lasting 100 years or longer. Many train stations are also notable because of their architecture or due to historical events that have taken place there. --Charlene 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Answer: not all train stations are notable and perhaps this bus stop could be, but the article's got to prove it. Otherwise we'll have thousands of individual articles about the location of bus stops, which is just a duplicate of the hundreds of public transportation websites and Wikipedia is not a directory. Useight 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps speedily, since it makes no claim of notability). semper fictilis 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely no notability. *Cremepuff 222* 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why wasn't this speedily deleted? RFerreira 06:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'There is little need for deletion - why not expand on the subject?'

em with what? --Fredrick day 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Previous Comment - The bus stop is a gateway to a unique environment of Pitshanger Village - which has survived the onslaught of supermarkets. There is a great scope for further expansion, which will surely follow.

Please sign your posts - so what you are saying is it requires a line on an article about pitshanger village not the other way around. --Fredrick day 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The bus stop is the gateway - both online and in the village itself.'

Delete -- a non-notable bus stop. - Longhair\^talk 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An individual bus stop one out of so many similar copies that it won't be notable. However, a bus terminal may be notable enough.--Kylohk 17:04, 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. Sean William @ 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of US Reality Stars with Foreign Descents[edit]

Lots of reasons. First of all, it's kind of a pointless list on its face. It's not useful. Secondly, it has almost completely no criteria for inclusion. People born in foreign countries are mixed in with Americans with ancestors from foreign countries. Well. That's a bit random since most Americans have ancestors from foreign countries. So essentially, this is a list of reality show contestants. And that definitely is useless since most of these folks fail notability. Please kill it. :) Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Woohookitty. It is also painfully unreferenced, and this kind of thing is the sort of thing that needs to be referenced. J Milburn 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, many of the people on the list could be arguably notable by virtue of being on a TV-series and gaining celebrity status. But "foreign descent" has absolutely zero impact on their role as reality TV stars, and as the nom says, almost all Americans are of foreign descent from only a few hundred years back. Alternatively, rename article to List of US reality stars who are not of Native American origin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List isn't supported by being used by anyone in the greater culture or literature. --Alabamaboy 14:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sjakkalle. This is a really bad idea for an article. --Metropolitan90 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of non-notable people is not notable. This is also trivia. -- Mikeblas 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone in the US is of foreign descent, even the natives had to come across the Bering strait at some point. ~ Infrangible 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, they are known to have been in North America before the British are known to have been in Britain, the Irish in Ireland, and the Scandinavians in Scandinavia. In reality we're all immigrants, but the Native Americans have more claim to America than the Irish, English, Welsh, and Scots have to the British Isles. --Charlene 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really List of US Reality Stars Whose Ancestors Weren't From the British Isles. It implies that descendants of the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh are "real Americans" and everyone else isn't. --Charlene 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE semper fictilis 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few of the people in the list are notable, but the reason isn't because of their descent. An article about the notable person him/herslef is fine, but a list devoted to his/her heritage is not. *Cremepuff 222* 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic, race and ethnicity is rarely the characteristic about someone that makes them notable (perhaps the last of the XYZ people would fit that bill, but reality show stars? c'mon). Carlossuarez46 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ALL Americans are of foreign descent. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 20:10, 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 without prejudice to creating a sourced article. Uncited biographies of living people are not acceptable. --BigDT 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia James-Baird[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N: not the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage, perhaps because she has only made a handful of appearances on a single show. There are thousands of actors who make such cameo appearances, but none of them have articles because they do not meet WP:N. This should be no different. hbdragon88 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed in IMDb. Has rather more than "a handful" of appearances, and also probably notable as a gymnast. --Eastmain 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold for inclusion in IMDb is extraordinarily low. For instance, many of the cast members of Manos: The Hands of Fate only appeared in one film, and all of them have their own IMDb pages [40] [41] [42]. A Google search -wikipedia shows about 3200 hits, all related to Power Rangers, nothing about her gymnastic career. hbdragon88 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't even have to have a credit to get on the IMDb.[43] --Charlene 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on the IMDb is absolutely no proof of notability whatsoever. She doesn't pass WP:BIO from what I see, either from the article or from Google hits. --Charlene 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article already survived an AfD, and I agree with the decision. Also, there are a lot of important Google hits. Citation is needed, though, but I don't see as a detriment as whether to keep this article or not, because it can be cited. Evilclown93 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article and redirect to the show page. My scan of Google's 103 unique results reveals nothing that might save this article. Erechtheus 01:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appearing in 6 episodes of a 35 episode series as a villain lead would, I suggest, meet the "significant roles" criteria in WP:BIO. Would be nice if there were better references though. Assize 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - judging from the four Factiva references I can find (all from The Press (Christchurch) and none of them actually articles - just lists of results with many other names listed), she is not a notable gymnast, and the lack of coverage (even an interview?) of her in other publications suggests WP:RS would be too high a bar for this subject to meet. Orderinchaos 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd have said Keep to give editors time to cite sources, but I see it has had the exact same problem a year ago and nothing has been done to fix it. IMDB is not an indication of notability/verity -it is an indication of maybe having once been in a film. It is exhaustive and you can get yourself included in it easily, however obscure you might be.NZ forever 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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